-
1. The 1959. Centennial Celebration in Chicago was Darwinism's finest hour. One of the most honored speakers on this occasion was Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley.[/b] Julian Huxley's speech was a glittering oration on the majestic grandeur of Darwin's achievement, coupled with a vision of its totalizing implications for the future. Here is excerpt from his speech:
Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself. This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. . . .
In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not
created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. . . .Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.
Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/254728-post33.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254728-post33.html)
2. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science". Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/255678-post304.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255678-post304.html)
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
3. Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.
The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)
4. Virtually no one begins with the conspiracy and develops a belief in the FET. A zetetic starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this. As a consequence they assume the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.
Essentially the reasoning boils down to:
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
contradicts the FET
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then
there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.
See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:
"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space."
-President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958
One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA.
5. The Soviet Union did not have a spare capsule at that time and in Moscow it was decided to orchestrate a huge bluff, a cosmic lie.
Radio Moscow claimed that a Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, had been sent up into space on the morning of 12 April, 1961 with the space-rocket Vostok. According to the official announcement, he had already landed and was in fine health. The whole world believed this except for the Western intelligence services. They had not managed to register any radio communication between Gagarin and the space centre.
This hoax was sloppily orchestrated. (They should have asked NASA how to do it...) Polish newspapers announced already on the morning of 12 April that a Soviet cosmonaut had been in space. Newspapers in other countries did not report Gagarin's flight until 13 April.
In a book written for the West, Soviet propagandists claimed that simple peasants recognized Yuri Gagarin soon after he landed in a field and enthusiastically shouted: "Gagarin, Gagarin!" But nothing about his "space journey" had been reported at that time, no pictures of him had been published and his name had not been mentioned. The message from radio and TV was sent out 35 minutes after the alleged journey. Were the peasants psychic?
The newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya claimed that Gagarin was wearing a blue flightsuit when he landed. In his memoirs, Gagarin himself claimed he was dressed in an orange flightsuit.
At his press conference, Gagarin read from notes when he "related" his journey. During the press conference, he made several crucial mistakes. Gagarin stated that weightlessness was no problem. Everything seemed just normal. We now know that this is not the case. The cosmonaut German Titov, for example, had difficulties with his balance and had heart problems.
Gagarin then made his most serious mistake, despite the fact that he was constantly assisted by experts, who often spoke about discoveries in space. He said: "Then I saw South America".
This is impossible. At that time it was night in South America, which meant that it could not be seen at all. According to the official reports, Gagarin began his "space journey" at 9:07 Moscow time. He was supposed to have flown over South America at 9:22 Moscow time. In Chile, the time would have been 2:22, in Brazil 3:22. He could never have reached South America in 15 minutes.
Foreign journalists wondered: "When will the photographs that Gagarin took in space be published?" Gagarin was silent, thought for a moment and answered: "I didn't have a camera with me!"
6. Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Flat Earth Theory are the "conspiracy theories" . . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Flat Earthers "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.
Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.
What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.
Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.
7. "I don’t argue or enter into debates, because the issue here is exactly what you would bring to the debate, which is the wealth of erroneous information that allowed our situation to become as dire as it is in the first place. Your argument would consist of phony statistics, historical fables, the newspaper’s latest lies, and profit-driven 'science.' My argument is simple. Discover who controls everything you’ve been told, only believe what you can verify for yourself through original documentation, science and logic, and then look for a political connection between the sources of all the erroneous information. Find the motives behind the lies. If you did that, there would be no debate, and we would all agree on whose head should roll, as the saying goes." - Jolly Roger
8. We have been taught that the height of stupidity and naivety was when our ignorant ancestors believed the Earth to be flat, and that if any man somehow still thinks the Earth to be the immovable center of the universe, that they must be the most primitive kind of ignoramus. Nowadays the label “Flat-Earther” has become literally synonymous with “moron” and is a common cliché derogatory term for insulting someone’s intelligence. Upon seeing a book titled “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” your ingrained instinct is likely to laugh, mock the messenger, and deny the very possibility. The fact of the matter is however, that everything is actually just as it appears. The Earth is flat and motionless just as it seems, the Sun/Moon are the same size, and all the celestial bodies revolve around us. This stable geocentric universe, proven true by experience and experiments, which reigned undisputed for thousands of years adequately explaining all Earthly and celestial phenomena, was violently uprooted, spun around, and sent flying through infinite space by a cabal of Sun-worshipping theoretical astronomers. Early Masonic magicians like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, along with their modern Masonic astro-not counter-parts like Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, hand-in-hand with NASA and world Freemasonry have pulled off the greatest hoax, propagated the most phenomenal lie, and perpetuated the most complete indoctrination in history.
Over the course of 500 years, using everything from books, magazines, and television to computer-generated imaging, a multi-generational conspiracy has succeeded, in the minds of the masses, to pick up the fixed Earth, shape it into a ball, spin it in circles, and throw it around the Sun! In schools where every professor’s desk is adorned with a spinning Earth-globe, we are lectured on the “heliocentric” theory of the universe, shown images of ball-planets and videos of men suspended in space. The illusion created, connivingly convincing, has entranced the world’s population into blindly believing a maleficent myth. The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.
FUCK OFF NASA : (http://)
TRUTH IN MOVIES : (http://)
-
How are we meant to respond to this rant?
I'll take one bit:
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein.
Eh? Who was he before?
This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
When you say "people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy", I presume you mean "scientists and engineers"?
-
The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.
FUCK OFF NASA : (http://)
TRUTH IN MOVIES : (http://)
Yes, it is really surprising that 99.9% of the people never question what they have been told but cannot personally verify. I understand that sometimes there is no point to check everything, but how can you argue ardently against those who question it without actually having verified it yourself? As far as I know the Earth might be even 10 times bigger than what we have been told. However, everyone takes it for granted that the real size and shape of the Earth are well-known.
-
Excellent read, cikljamas. It certainly shows it all up for what it was and still is today.
-
Excellent read, cikljamas.
Which bit did you like best?
-
Most of the rant was fine, however evolution is quite clearly a lie and the earth was clearly created. Other than that , good job.
-
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
It was a pretty monumental prediction. What is your point? It was only the beginning of the evidence that supports GR. Much more has come since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
3. Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.
Gravitational lensing is not touted as a great method for determining the distance to a star.
The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)
So the fact that science can and will change theories when new information is presented makes you suspicious? Shouldn't it do the opposite?
-
Excellent read, cikljamas. It certainly shows it all up for what it was and still is today.
Interesting (well, not really LOL) that sceptimatic is invariably attracted to any of the true whack-jobs on this site. ;D
As they say; like moths to the flame.
-
@ Saros, Sceptimatic, 2929292, thanks for your replies and nice words!
Guys, would you agree with me on this:
1. The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000 miles, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
Now, if you decided to claim (and tried to persuade others) that the Earth is round, what would be your only possible choice, what would you do with above truth (37,500 miles)?
Your only possible choice would be to claim that the circumference of the Equator is 25 000 miles (40 000 km), there would be no other way for you...
So you (REs) did just that!
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
@Ausgeoff, you are full of shit again, how come? I thought that you have changed in last few days...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rj8NyHL1SpE/UqR1FcFI2jI/AAAAAAAABcQ/VsT9QNznItg/s1600/whtbj+laugh.gif)
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
-
@ Saros, Sceptimatic, 2929292, thanks for your replies and nice words!
The mere fact that you "thank" these three whack-jobs, and their "nice" words is proof positive that your desperation for acceptance of your own screwball notions knows no bounds.
One loony-tunes, one slow learner, and one god-botherer. ;D What a triumvirate of high-powered intellectual giants!
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
-
Anything else?
Yeah, start making sense.
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
Yeah. Your point.
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
2*pi*r is the formula you are using. The distance from the north pole to the equator is not a radius. You would just need the correct radius of the earth. Please note this.
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
Yeah. Your point.
The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
Yeah. Your point.
The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
6000 is not the radius. Nobody says that. Please learn what you are arguing against first.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius)
Maybe you just don't understand what a sphere is. Is the radius of a basketball to you the distance on the surface between the top most part and a part on the side?
-
The funniest part is that the distance between the north pole and the equator isn't even the radius on the flat earth model that you are referencing. So much fail.
-
6000 is not the radius. Nobody says that. Please learn what you are arguing against first.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius)
Maybe you just don't understand what a sphere is. Is the radius of a basketball to you the distance on the surface between the top most part and a part on the side?
You mean, FEs say that the radius is 5400 miles?
-
I thought you already had a thread about problems with the equator?
-
6000 is not the radius. Nobody says that. Please learn what you are arguing against first.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius)
Maybe you just don't understand what a sphere is. Is the radius of a basketball to you the distance on the surface between the top most part and a part on the side?
You mean, FEs say that the radius is 5400 miles?
I have no idea where you got that figure from. Not only do flat earther's not say that, but neither did you when you wrote this formula for a circle:
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
This implied that you think 6000 is the radius for a flat earth and you were making an argument saying that round earthers also say this. You then went on to say that the distance from the north pole to the equator is the radius for both. Let's look clearly at how much you fail:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2wcra1d.jpg)
In this image that I threw together, the red lines are the radii that you suggested for both models when the real radii for both is the green line.
-
Just in case you say what I think you might say, in the image above, the green line on the round earth (blue marble) goes from the south pole to earth's core.
Here is what a radius is on a sphere:
(http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/english/vmd/images/r/radiusofasphere.gif)
But you knew that right? Of course you did. ::)
-
Just in case you say what I think you might say, in the image above, the green line on the round earth (blue marble) goes from the south pole to earth's core.
Here is what a radius is on a sphere:
(http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/english/vmd/images/r/radiusofasphere.gif)
But you knew that right? Of course you did. ::)
So much words about nothing, of course that i did know that, wasn't i clear enough in my first respond to your series of funny objections? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529)
-
Just in case you say what I think you might say, in the image above, the green line on the round earth (blue marble) goes from the south pole to earth's core.
Here is what a radius is on a sphere:
(http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/english/vmd/images/r/radiusofasphere.gif)
But you knew that right? Of course you did. ::)
So much words about nothing, of course that i did know that, wasn't i clear enough in my first respond to your series of funny objections? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529)
Is that supposed to make sense. Your rebuttal there was that you would have to use a different formula. This is false, you would just need to use a different radius, as in the correct radius which I already explained. Nice try.
-
OMG!!!
-
OMG!!!
I hope that's a eureka. Cause you're lost.
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
Yeah. Your point.
The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Well, here's an idea for you to check to see if the 24,900-mi length of the equator is "forged". According to Google, Altamira and Uruará, in the State of Pará, Brazil are at 3.2° S, 52.2° W and 3.71° S, 53.74° W, respectively, and 112.38 miles (180.85 km) apart as the crow flies.These two towns are approximately east and west of each other, nearly on the equator, and connected by a relatively straight road.
http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z (http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z)
Uruará is west of Altamira by 1.54 degrees, which is 1/233.75 of 360 degrees. Treating the whole 112.4 miles as due E-W (it's not quite, but the E-W component is about 95% of it) on the equator (again, it's not quite, but close), then the circumference of the Earth is
112.4 miles * 233.75 = 26273.5 miles.
This is a lot closer to 24,900 miles than 37,680 miles. 95% of 26,273.5 miles (to account for the extra distance due to the 1/2° change in latitude) is 24,959.8 miles, pretty much in line with the round-earth estimate. The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km. The straight-line distance would have to be more than 100 km longer, making the distance between towns about 300 km by road, if the equator is the length you propose.
Why don't you see if you can find the distance by road between these two towns somehow - maybe contact a Brazilian consulate - and see if your 37,000+ mile equator is even close?
-
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
???
miles, anything else bothers you?
what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.
24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles
So what's the problem?
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
Anything else?
Yeah. Your point.
The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Well, here's an idea for you to check to see if the 24,900-mi length of the equator is "forged". According to Google, Altamira and Uruará, in the State of Pará, Brazil are at 3.2° S, 52.2° W and 3.71° S, 53.74° W, respectively, and 112.38 miles (180.85 km) apart as the crow flies.These two towns are approximately east and west of each other, nearly on the equator, and connected by a relatively straight road.
http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z (http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z)
Uruará is west of Altamira by 1.54 degrees, which is 1/233.75 of 360 degrees. Treating the whole 112.4 miles as due E-W (it's not quite, but the E-W component is about 95% of it) on the equator (again, it's not quite, but close), then the circumference of the Earth is
112.4 miles * 233.75 = 26273.5 miles.
This is a lot closer to 24,900 miles than 37,680 miles. 95% of 26,273.5 miles (to account for the extra distance due to the 1/2° change in latitude) is 24,959.8 miles, pretty much in line with the round-earth estimate. The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km. The straight-line distance would have to be more than 100 km longer, making the distance between towns about 300 km by road, if the equator is the length you propose.
Why don't you see if you can find the distance by road between these two towns somehow - maybe contact a Brazilian consulate - and see if your 37,000+ mile equator is even close?
"The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km."
So, let's use this value: 200 km.
360/1,5 = 240
240 * 200 = 48 000 km
48 000 km is almost right in between 40 000 km (official version), and my estimation (60 000 km).
Now, if i used radius of 5400 miles (instead of 6000 miles) we would get 33,912 miles which is 54,259 km!
5400 miles = 2 * 2700 miles (the alleged (according to many Zetetics) distance between the Earth and the Sun)
So, what do you think?
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
-
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
My version of the above experiment: (http://)
My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
-
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
My version of the above experiment: (http://)
My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
Good thing that is not how sundials work or you might actually be right.
http://www.accuratesundials.com/site/591582/page/140934 (http://www.accuratesundials.com/site/591582/page/140934)
Each sundial's gnomon (the triangular piece) is aligned to the axis of the Earth's rotation and it's numbers are laid out based on latitiude.
The "gnomon" in your experiment is not in the proper position.
-
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?
/sub
-
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?
/sub
What else can he do?
-
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?
/sub
What else can he do?
Humbly admit he is wrong and that the world is round. It's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
-
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?
/sub
What else can he do?
Humbly admit he is wrong and that the world is round. It's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Not going to happen when God himself told him he's 100% correct.
-
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?
/sub
What else can he do?
Humbly admit he is wrong and that the world is round. It's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Not going to happen when God himself told him he's 100% correct.
Maybe that was the devil.
-
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
My version of the above experiment: (http://)
My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?
-
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
My version of the above experiment: (http://)
My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?
Isn't it amazing that a simple post can show how ignorant you are?
Seriously, maybe you missed the response about how sun dials work?
-
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
My version of the above experiment: (http://)
My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?
How do you explain observations of sunrise and sunset across the world?
-
Nested quotes in the below have been flattened, and intervening questions removed for readability.
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000 [miles], it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Well, here's an idea for you to check to see if the 24,900-mi length of the equator is "forged". According to Google, Altamira and Uruará, in the State of Pará, Brazil are at 3.2° S, 52.2° W and 3.71° S, 53.74° W, respectively, and 112.38 miles (180.85 km) apart as the crow flies.These two towns are approximately east and west of each other, nearly on the equator, and connected by a relatively straight road.
http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z (http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z)
Uruará is west of Altamira by 1.54 degrees, which is 1/233.75 of 360 degrees. Treating the whole 112.4 miles as due E-W (it's not quite, but the E-W component is about 95% of it) on the equator (again, it's not quite, but close), then the circumference of the Earth is
112.4 miles * 233.75 = 26273.5 miles.
This is a lot closer to 24,900 miles than 37,680 miles. 95% of 26,273.5 miles (to account for the extra distance due to the 1/2° change in latitude) is 24,959.8 miles, pretty much in line with the round-earth estimate. The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km. The straight-line distance would have to be more than 100 km longer, making the distance between towns about 300 km by road, if the equator is the length you propose.
Why don't you see if you can find the distance by road between these two towns somehow - maybe contact a Brazilian consulate - and see if your 37,000+ mile equator is even close?
"The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km."
So, let's use this value: 200 km.
360/1,5 = 240
240 * 200 = 48 000 km
It's 1.54°, not 1.50°.
360°/1.54° is 233.75
233.75 * 200 km = 46750 km
48 000 km is almost right in between 40 000 km (official version), and my estimation (60 000 km).
No, it's 40% of the way from 40,000 and 60,000. The difference between 48,000 and 60,000 is half again the difference between 40,000 and 48,000. "almost right in between" is a stretch, even if 48,000 were right, which it isn't. The difference between 46,750 and 60,000 is almost twice the difference between 40,000 and 46750. Using straight-line (actually great circle) distance, instead of road distance, makes the calculated equator even less; the distance by road was a check for obvious "forgery" of that 180 km straight-line distance.
Now, if i used radius of 5400 miles (instead of 6000 miles) we would get 33,912 miles which is 54,259 km!
Why would you do that? You originally said that the distance was 6,000 miles and couldn't be "forged", and also that 37680 miles was the correct length for the equator on a flat earth [bolded in your quotes above].
5400 miles = 2 * 2700 miles (the alleged (according to many Zetetics) distance between the Earth and the Sun)
"Alleged". Got it. Those distances are all over the map, so to speak. What is this one based on? And what does the alleged height of the Sun have to do with this, anyway? You're just trying to pick a number that helps (but doesn't actually solve) your too-long equator.
So, what do you think?
It sounds like you realize the equator really isn't nearly as long as you originally claimed.
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line.
There's a simple experiment you can do to demonstrate that this statement is false.
Why do you think this is true? Because you read it somewhere? What is this quote from, anyway?
Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).[/i]
Try your matchstick and orange experiment with the matchstick at the top of the orange so it's pointing straight up when the orange is on a table, and illuminate the orange from high enough above it so that entire shadow of the matchstick falls on the surface of the orange. Rotate the orange and watch the top of the shadow trace a circle on the surface of the orange. A circle is not a straight line, so the original assertion that the shadows would have fallen in a straight line is false.
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
Since the premise is false, the experiment is meaningless.
[Edit] Fix typos, nested reply.
-
Have you tried this simple experiment:
2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:
Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of the earth, the shadows of that ball in the garden, or of the knob of the shorter upright stick on the housetop, would have fallen in a straight line. Test the truth of this by an experiment with an orange, or a larrger ball, in a dark room illuminated by one lamp. Place an upright stylus near the centre of a flat and stationary table, and carefully carry the light half-way round. You will get the sundial curve. Then fix a match in the orange, and place the light in the centre of the stationary table, and squarely rotate the orange. If you do so honestly and properly, you will get a short straight line, according to the proportions of your experiment.Thus the sun-dial, the shadows of our lamp-posts in the city squares, and the shadows of our tall trees in the city parks, all testify, often daily, to the great fact that we are living on a plane and stable earth, with the hght of heaven daily revolving around. Truly “ the heavens declare the glory of God ; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork : day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” (Psa. xix. i , 2).
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment... :)
My version of the above experiment: (http://)
My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?
Isn't it amazing that a simple post can show how ignorant you are?
Seriously, maybe you missed the response about how sun dials work?
If i did not understand something then i wouldn't be so proud not to asked for clarification. I understand how sun dials work, but i am not sure whether you understand the true meaning of my experiment or not? Although it is so obvious that i consider it quite unnecessarily to give any kind of explanation. It is more likely that you just pretend you don't understand it.
Try your matchstick and orange experiment with the matchstick at the top of the orange so it's pointing straight up when the orange is on a table, and illuminate the orange from high enough above it so that entire shadow of the matchstick falls on the surface of the orange. Rotate the orange and watch the top of the shadow trace a circle on the surface of the orange. A circle is not a straight line, so the original assertion that the shadows would have fallen in a straight line is false.
Why should i do that? My experiment is absolutely decisive! That is why i am not too worried about the final outcome of the equator issue. If we can prove the flatness of the surface of the Earth with such a simple experiments, then there is no reason to be overly concerned about the unsolved issues like "equator problem", although i would lie if i said it doesn't bother me at all, since sooner or later we must take a stand on these issues...
-
I'd be happy to hear you wriggle your way out of this so bring on your explanation.
While you are at it, also explain why the sun seems to shine upon the entire flat earth in your video while the globe has a day side and night side, as it should be.
-
While you are at it, also explain why the sun seems to shine upon the entire flat earth in your video while the globe has a day side and night side, as it should be.
This fact has always been a sticking point in the flat earth hypothesis: How can the sun be always above the surface of the earth, but at the same time, be not visible from 50% of its surface?
Simple geometry proves this to be impossible.
-
Try your matchstick and orange experiment with the matchstick at the top of the orange so it's pointing straight up when the orange is on a table, and illuminate the orange from high enough above it so that entire shadow of the matchstick falls on the surface of the orange. Rotate the orange and watch the top of the shadow trace a circle on the surface of the orange. A circle is not a straight line, so the original assertion that the shadows would have fallen in a straight line is false.
Why should i do that?
Oh, I don't know... maybe to find out what your model is really telling you, or something. If you're not interested in that, there's nothing much I can do about it.
My experiment is absolutely decisive!
I'm sure you're 100% convinced of that. Doesn't mean you're right, though.
That is why i am not too worried about the final outcome of the equator issue. If we can prove the flatness of the surface of the Earth with such a simple experiments, then there is no reason to be overly concerned about the unsolved issues like "equator problem", although i would lie if i said it doesn't bother me at all, since sooner or later we must take a stand on these issues...
If you could stick your matchstick in the north pole of your globe and spin it under your single source of light, you'll see generally the same pattern as your flat map, except it wouldn't extend as far on the globe as the flat map (it can't reach the equator, for instance). But this does have the advantage of having day and night consistent with what we actually see, unlike your flat map.
At any rate, there's no hurry - I'm away on holiday travel for a while and probably (I hope!) won't be on here much, or at all, for a bit.
-
cikljamas, go immediately to the nearest NASA or CIA office. The chip in your brain is not working as expected.
-
I'd be happy to hear you wriggle your way out of this so bring on your explanation.
Wriggle my way out of something? Hahahaha...
(http://i.imgur.com/ogDj5rV.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/lMHwHq8.jpg)
Now, watch it again, and again, and again: (http://)
Or would you prefer to try to do same kind of experiment for yourself, and share your videotaped evidence with us?
Now, i would be happy to see you wriggle your way out of this!!!
-
There are 16 hour day lengths which show on a sundial.
-
cikljamas obviously doesn't know much about 18-hour sundials LOL....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)
Top view of an equatorial sundial. The hour lines are spaced equally about the circle,
and the shadow of the cylindrical gnomon moves uniformly about. The height of the
gnomon is 2.5 units and the outer radius of the dial is 6.0 units. This animation depicts
the motion of the shadow from 3AM to 9PM on mid-summer's day, when the sun
is at its highest declination. Sunset and sunrise occurs at 3AM and 9PM on that day
near the latitude 57.5°, roughly the latitude of Aberdeen or Gothenburg.
-
Take a model of a globe, put it on the table, and demonstrate to me, how you can get shadows which extend more than 90 degrees on the globe if the sun is situated directly (perpendicularly) above the tropic of cancer, or perpendicularly above the tropic of capricorn and if your matchstick is stuck at 40 degrees N (northern summer) or 40 degrees S (southern summer) ...Then we'll have to talk about something, until then try to think about something, just to check it out if you are still able to think about anything at all, or all your brain cells already have been washed out (irretrievably) & died out long time ago!
(http://i.imgur.com/lMHwHq8.jpg)
1. Latitude and longitude of North Dakota is 45° 55'N to 49°N and 97°W to 104°W.
2. Latitude and longitude of Maine is 43° 4'N to 47° 28'N and 66° 57'W to 71° 7'W.
3. Latitude and longitude of Michigan is 41° 41' N to 47° 30' N and 82° 26' W to 90° 31' W.
4. Latitude and longitude of Texas is 25° 50' N to 36° 30' N and 93° 31' W to 106° 38' W.
Well, to be maximally honest (as always) i just check it out once more, and i must admit that it is possible to produce shadows which extend more than 90 degrees even on the globe, however, these few additional degrees are still too faraway from what we can observe in reality using sundial and/or observing shadows of vertical objects like trees!!!
-
What is very interesting about this "sundial case" is stunning similarity to "the equation of time case" http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435)
As we go further north (in northern hemiplain), the days are longer, but the extension of a shadows would be shorter and shorter if we lived on a globe. For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours. So, the difference between reality and globular assumptions is "only" 4 hours and 30 minutes!!!
In latitude of North Dakota, maximal extent of usage of sundial would be (on the globe) between 6 a. m. and 7 p. m. So, the difference between reality and globular assumptions is (at this latitude) at least 3 hours!!!
What this all means?
It means that these two references (1. climbing up towards north & 2. widening range of a shadow on a sundial) would be in INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL RELATION if we lived on the rotund Earth!!! Again!!!
(http://)
http://www.energeticforum.com/264064-post330.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264064-post330.html)
-
Well that was fun. You admitted that shadows can extend more than 90° on a globe and then you made yet another new argument.
This time your entire argument was based on mining a web page for a specific quote "The sun on this dial can never shine on this dial before 6AM and after 6pm". Disregarding the fact that the quote only pertains to a specific, much less used type of sun dial, the vertical south dial.
Other sun dials work from sunrise to sunset, especially the most common type, the horizontal sun dial.
So basically all this talk about 3 or 4 hour discrepancies... I don't know how you made this conclusion without having a blind fold on.
-
Well that was fun. You admitted that shadows can extend more than 90° on a globe and then you made yet another new argument.
This time your entire argument was based on mining a web page for a specific quote "The sun on this dial can never shine on this dial before 6AM and after 6pm". Disregarding the fact that the quote only pertains to a specific, much less used type of sun dial, the vertical south dial.
Other sun dials work from sunrise to sunset, especially the most common type, the horizontal sun dial.
So basically all this talk about 3 or 4 hour discrepancies... I don't know how you made this conclusion without having a blind fold on.
Have you ever used your brain in your whole life???
Don't you see that in this video ( (http://)) the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn (since the globe is turned upside down) and the matchstick is stuck at 40 degrees S, and that this matchstick cannot cast it's shadow more than 90 degrees??? Don't you see that? Are you blind or something else? Make your own experiment and show it to me, then we will continue our discussion, until then why don't you top up some oil in your coughing engine...
-
So I tried this out with a globe and I noticed, like you that you can achieve more than 90° at sunset or sunrise. It was very little like you said but then I thought of something and started to move the light source away from the globe and noticed that slowly, but surely the shadow was moving further and further past 90°. I have an inkling that at scale, 93 million miles would show what we observe in real life.
Essentially, in order to produce results that look like real life your experiment must be set up to look more like real life. Crazy, I know.
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case! But the Earth is not rotund, how come that you have forgotten it again?
Next few excerpts will be of a great help for those who don't afraid to use their own brains:
1. Observational fact
The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:
http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)
Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.
So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:
http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)
As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!
This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!
2. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.
3. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639362#msg1639362 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639362#msg1639362)
4. (http://)
-
This tilt thing is driving you bonkers man.
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
Wait, before you were claiming it wouldn't cast any shadows for 4 hours? You are all over the place.
Rotund Earth Theory - I like it.
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
If the earth were flat then night would be an impossibility.
In any case I told you how to produce the effects that science claims. Place the sun 93 million miles away. I wasn't able to make the experiment to scale myself but I did confirm that increasing the distance increased the angle.
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
If the earth were flat then night would be an impossibility.
In any case I told you how to produce the effects that science claims. Place the sun 93 million miles away. I wasn't able to make the experiment to scale myself but I did confirm that increasing the distance increased the angle.
Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...
You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)
(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
In addition:
(http://)
-
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
If the earth were flat then night would be an impossibility.
In any case I told you how to produce the effects that science claims. Place the sun 93 million miles away. I wasn't able to make the experiment to scale myself but I did confirm that increasing the distance increased the angle.
Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...
You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)
(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
How many times do you have to be shown wrong in the same thread. Are you sceptimatic?
-
You flunked out of this also:
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
You flunked out of all these also:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045)
-
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)
I couldn't even make it 10 seconds into that video. Completely wrong. Are you that confused that you can't handle the notion that under the Earth's North pole is a magnetic south pole? Your articles in your video explain it just fine. A magnet has a north and south pole. Magnetic field lines move from the magnetic north pole to the south pole.
What is the confusion? When the wiki article says "North magnetic pole", it is referring to a magnetic pole in the north. The name does not mean the north pole of a magnet. Same goes for the south magnetic pole. It's just a magnetic pole in the south. Doesn't mean it is a south pole of a magnet.
-
You flunked out of this also:
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
You flunked out of all these also:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045)
This argument of your was already destroyed earlier this year. We established you know nothing about photography.
So maybe instead of posting old arguments, you could answer some of ours? There is quite a few you chose not to answer.
-
He just ignores rebuttals and then moves on to the next argument over and over again. Apparently, old arguments that I have not seen no less.
I'm with sokural, instead of bringing up new arguments, answer ours. Let's start with how it's impossible for night to exist on a flat earth.
-
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.
-
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.
I note that cikljamas also chose not to address the question my 18-hour sundial image that I posted earlier. I wonder why?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)
And he's still repeatedly posting that 100-year old pseudo-scientific drivel of Wilbur Glenn Voliva. ;D
-
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.
I note that cikljamas also chose not to address the question my 18-hour sundial image that I posted earlier. I wonder why?
Because its all about you ::)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)
And he's still repeatedly posting that 100-year old pseudo-scientific drivel of Wilbur Glenn Voliva. ;D
Fallacy.
-
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.
I note that cikljamas also chose not to address the question my 18-hour sundial image that I posted earlier. I wonder why?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)
And he's still repeatedly posting that 100-year old pseudo-scientific drivel of Wilbur Glenn Voliva. ;D
What does an animation of an 18 hour sundial prove? Clickijamas was trying to show that if the earth is round, the shadow of a perpendicular stick doesn't go below the line of latitude that it's on. He wasn't saying sundials don't show more than 12 hours. His problem is the assumption that sundials use perpendicular sticks.
-
What does an animation of an 18 hour sundial prove? Clickijamas was trying to show that if the earth is round, the shadow of a perpendicular stick doesn't go below the line of latitude that it's on. He wasn't saying sundials don't show more than 12 hours.
I quote cikljamas verbatim: It means that not one sundial on the round earth could measure more than 12 hours of time.
And I'm a little uncertain as to why you're seemingly helping cikljamas "prove" his case. Everything he says is absolute bullshit. Haven't you figured that out yet?
-
In another thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435) i gave an explanation which perfectly fits with this "sundial case" and explain it away completely:
...i thought he wants to say that the sun is always (at any time of the day) in the south, and the truth is that it is not. But if the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!
Well, here we have to give additional clarification regarding above (bold) words: If the Sun stayed always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N what consequences would this have for our "sundial case"??? It (rotundity of the globe) would cause exactly that kind of consequences which i have proved (with my experiment) that it really would be the case if the Earth were rotund!!!
Another example that has been taken out from here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948)
...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be.
You get it?
You flunked out of this also:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
Everything he says is absolute bullshit.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rj8NyHL1SpE/UqR1FcFI2jI/AAAAAAAABcQ/VsT9QNznItg/s1600/whtbj+laugh.gif)
Since these words came out from your mouth, i consider them as a compliment!
Nice lesson about insults:
If someone calls you ugly it’s because their own looks are important to them. If someone calls you an amateur it’s because their own importance is important to them. If someone says you have a nasaly voice it’s because how they sound is important to them. Insults like these come from vanity.
With insults – the more harm the insulter is trying to do the higher the value of insult they will give. That is, the higher value is to the insult giver not necessarily the insult receiver.
So… next time you get insulted don’t just ignore it – consider what it tells you about the giver.
So, when ausGeoff says that everything i say is "absolute bullshit", what it really means is that everything i say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!
Thanks ausGeoff!
@ ausGeoff, Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think... ;)
Oh, i forgot to add: ...and enjoy the music... ;D
-
What does an animation of an 18 hour sundial prove? Clickijamas was trying to show that if the earth is round, the shadow of a perpendicular stick doesn't go below the line of latitude that it's on. He wasn't saying sundials don't show more than 12 hours.
I quote cikljamas verbatim: It means that not one sundial on the round earth could measure more than 12 hours of time.
And I'm a little uncertain as to why you're seemingly helping cikljamas "prove" his case. Everything he says is absolute bullshit. Haven't you figured that out yet?
I am not trying to help him prove his case Geoffrey. I'm just trying to make clear what he claimed and what he did not claim. In the case of the part you bolded, you are completely misinterpreting it. Again, he is not saying that sundials don't have more than 12 hours on them. He is saying that if the earth is round, then the sun will not MEASURE more than 12 hours on them.
-
In another thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435) i gave an explanation which perfectly fits with this "sundial case" and explain it away completely:
...i thought he wants to say that the sun is always (at any time of the day) in the south, and the truth is that it is not. But if the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!
Well, here we have to give additional clarification regarding above (bold) words: If the Sun stayed always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N what consequences would this have for our "sundial case"??? It (rotundity of the globe) would cause exactly that kind of consequences which i have proved (with my experiment) that it really would be the case if the Earth were rotund!!!
Another example that has been taken out from here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948)
...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be.
You get it?
I don't know how linking to another thread where you were shown wrong repeatedly, just like this thread equates to flunking out. Take that up with Alpha2Omega.
As far as this thread goes, we are talking about your video where you tried to show that the shadow on a round earth never goes below the line of latitude that it is on. This can be shown to be wrong because you made 2 mistakes.
1. Your gnomon was perpendicular to the surface. A gnomon needs to be parallel with the earth's tilt. Like all of the image search results on this page:
Pictures of sundials (https://www.google.com/search?q=sundial&newwindow=1&safe=off&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DYt0VMe4ItHPiALH74HYBw&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1595&bih=820#newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=sundial)
2. Your light source in the video is not far enough away from the globe. At earths scale this would need to be 93 million miles away.
As far as all this other talk about where you view the sun and where you don't. I invite you to play around with this interactive model for as long as it takes you to understand hc theory.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf
(http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf)
Notice, how if you put the observer at 45° N and then put the earth on the right, the sun is below the observer, yet the shadows go below the line of latitude that the observer is on.
You could argue (by neglecting something highly important) that it makes no sense that the suns rays come from a place that the sun does not appear to be, but you would be neglecting the suns enormous size compared to earth and the distance that it is from earth. This means that rays that hit the earths surface (even in locations that are far from each other) are not perfectly parallel, but they are close to parallel. Despite these rays being nearly parallel, we see shadows that are not even close to parallel with each other because of the curvature of earth.
-
So, when ausGeoff says that everything i say is "absolute bullshit", what it really means is that everything i say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!
And this sort of bizarre "logic" illustrates precisely why cikljamas has such an ill-informed and limited understanding of actual geophysics and astrophysics. ;D
—Thanks for the continued LULZ my friend.
-
So, when ausGeoff says that everything i say is "absolute bullshit", what it really means is that everything i say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!
And this sort of bizarre "logic" illustrates precisely why cikljamas has such an ill-informed and limited understanding of actual geophysics and astrophysics. ;D
—Thanks for the continued LULZ my friend.
Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!! :-*
Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)
W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)
The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)
When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep NWT
When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep MKJV
When he made ready the heavens I was there: when he put an arch over the face of the deep BBE
When he fixed the Heavens firm, I was there, when he drew a circle on the surface of the deep” JB
I was there when he set the sky in place, when he stretched the horizon across the ocean GNB
When he prepared the Heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth KJV
When he established the Heavens, I was there,when he drew a circle on the face of the deep RSV
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the Earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to Heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole Earth RSV / KJV
The visions that passed through my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw a tree in the middle of the World; it was very tall. The tree grew taller and stronger, until its top reached the sky and it could be seen from the very ends of the Earth JB
Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and,look! a tree in the midst of the Earth, the height of which was immense. The tree grew up and became strong, and its very height finally reached the Heavens, and it was visible to the extremity of the whole Earth. NWT
-
Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!! :
Biblical BS omitted for clarity - It's true, it's written in the buy bull, the buy bull says it's true! [/whine]
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: ....
The visions that passed through my head as I lay in bed were these: ...
Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and,look! ...
Ooh, dreams trump science then!
-
Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!! :-*
Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)
W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)
The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)
<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>
You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?
-
I don't mention this in distaste cikljamas. I only mean to be informative and to help you see why your arguments, while clever, are wrong. I think I've fully explained your mistake with gnomon to satisfaction but I also want to make more clear what is meant when I say that the sun's rays, when they hit the earth, are nearly parallel.
Observe the following image:
(http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/images/sunlight_parallel.jpg)
In this image a sun ray is depicted touching the tops and bottoms of each earth as each earth is represented to get further and further away from the sun. Notice what happens to those sun rays as earth gets further away. The angle (represented by an orange arc to the left of each earth) gets smaller and smaller.
So how small is this angle (in the above image we are talking about the difference in rays between 2 spots that are the entire earth diameter from each other) when the sun is 93 million miles from the earth?
Well let's take a look at this image to get some sense of the scale:
(http://sciencevspseudoscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/moon_sun_scale.png)
This image utilizes black space to give a sense of the scale but instead of using 100's of rows of black space, it just shows how much a moon unit is (distance from earth to moon) and then mentions that you 395 moon units to get to the sun.
With the information we have, let's determine what the difference in angle is between two sun rays (depicted by orange lines) that are an earths diameter apart:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/vn0c9c.png)
Let 2Θ be the angle be that angle. Θ will need to be multiplied by 2 because we need a right angle to do the trig so we have cut earth in half to get a right angle.
Earths radius = diameter of earth / 2 = 3959 miles
Earth to sun distance = 93,000,000 miles
Use this calculator: http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp (http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp)
Θ = angle showing difference in rays between top of earth and center of earth = 0.002439°
2Θ = angle showing difference in rats between of earth and bottom = 0.004878°
So between the top of earth and the bottom of earth there is a .004878° difference in the angle of sun rays. That's about 1/200 of a degree and that's utilizing the whole expanse of the earth!
-
Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!! :-*
Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)
W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)
The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)
<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>
You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?
Now that you said that, watch this:
Hovind vs Ross : (http://)
Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!
@rottingroom, you should read this thread again: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s)
In addition:
Flat earth and the setting sun, an artists perspective : (http://)
-
Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!! :-*
Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)
W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)
The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)
<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>
You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?
Now that you said that, watch this:
Hovind vs Ross : (http://)
Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!
@rottingroom, you should read this thread again: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s)
In addition:
Flat earth and the setting sun, an artists perspective : (http://)
Why do you back off of your claims and try to distract by moving on to something else? In this thread so far you've made the claim that sundials do not show shadows that go below their respective line of latitude and this was shown to be wrong because you didn't realize that gnomons are not perpendicular sticks. Then you moved onto a claim about how the sun should not be in a southern arc if the shadows of a sundial are below it's respective line of latitude. A contradictory claim to the first one but nevertheless, still explained by the gnomons configuration and further explained by the fact that all rays from the sun are nearly parallel. After all this, you simply link to another thread where you don't understand the implications of earths tilt and why that produces the seasons, which is a totally new argument, but related to sunrays.
To help you understand that we can refer again to the same interactive earth-sun model that I linked you too before and then after that I will describe an image that more clearly explains this.
Here is the link again:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf (http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf)
Angle of Incidence
Now in the top right part of the applet, place the stick figure at 45° N in the northern hemisphere. Now make a comparison between what happens when you move the earth (use the left part of the applet) from the left (June) to the right (December).
As you can see when the earth is on the right it is summer. It is June and the sun's altitude gets to a peak of around 68°. Use the bottom right part of the applet and switch the view from sunlight angle to sunbeam spread. Notice how the energy of the sun is concentrated into a smaller beam.
When the earth is on the left it is winter. It is December and the sun's altitude gets to a peak of around 21°. Again, usse the bottom right part of the applet and switch the view from sunlight angle to sunbeam spread. Notice how now, the energy of the sun is dispersed into a larger, widened beam.
Here is a picture that shows this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Oblique_rays_04_Pengo.svg/800px-Oblique_rays_04_Pengo.svg.png)
In this image we can see that two sunbeam's that are equally wide are hitting the earth in drastically different ways. They are hitting the surface at different angles and the seasons, determined by the tilt, account for this. Beam a is traveling a longer distance from the sun, a longer distance through a tilted atmosphere and hitting the surface at a larger angle than beam b. Besides the fact that this means that the beam a is dispersed into a larger area than beam b, beam a is also dealing with the angle causing more of the sun's energy to reflect off of the surface.
Without being confusing.... Sun rays are nearly parallel but they do not hit the surface of earth a nearly similar angles because the earth is curved, which means the surface angles differ greatly.
-
Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!! :-*
Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)
W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)
The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)
<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>
You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?
Now that you said that, watch this:
Hovind vs Ross : (http://)
Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!
@rottingroom, you should read this thread again: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s)
In addition:
Flat earth and the setting sun, an artists perspective : (http://)
I have watched it. Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points. Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind. Michael Shermer did the same.
Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study. Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole. You should note that.
-
I have watched it. Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points. Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind. Michael Shermer did the same.
Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study. Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole. You should note that.
So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...
-
I have watched it. Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points. Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind. Michael Shermer did the same.
Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study. Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole. You should note that.
So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...
Only insofar as you both present arguments that if you do not carefully consider them, could be construed as valid, but once you dig deeper, they fall apart.
Thanks for the set up by the way.
-
I have watched it. Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points. Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind. Michael Shermer did the same.
Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study. Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole. You should note that.
So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...
Only insofar as you both present arguments that if you do not carefully consider them, could be construed as valid, but once you dig deeper, they fall apart.
Thanks for the set up by the way.
You welcome! ;D
I confess that it appears to me to be almost as unnecessary, as gilding gold or painting the lily, to give further evidence that the Earth is not a Planet!
I could very easily add many more proofs to similar effect, but I forbear; the fact is I am embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet, and my difficulty has not arisen from any lack of matter, but as to how I may best select and condense it...
-
I have watched it. Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points. Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind. Michael Shermer did the same.
Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study. Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole. You should note that.
So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...
Presenting a plethora of arguments can be difficult to respond to in person, but here on tfes, we have a forum and an abundance of time and space to demolish your arguments, as you have seen.
As far as the video is concerned, I want to point out what you need to make a faithful experiment in this case. Firstly your matchstick needs to be parallel with earths tilt and not perpendicular to the earths surface. If this alone is not helping you to see that the shadows would change drastically then there is no hope for you. Second of all we need a scale model of the sun and earths distance to size relationship.
So supposing that we use a globe that is 1 ft wide, this would mean that we would need a flood light (sun) 2.23 miles away from our globe and we'd need our flood light (sun) to be 205.57 ft wide. I'm not sure how you are expecting that to happen but I'm also not sure why you think I should bother making you a video. My goal here is to show that your video is irrelevant and I have done so to my satisfaction and hopefully yours. You are welcome to repeat your experiment with the proper angle for the gnomon and by moving your light (gonna need a brighter light) away from the earth, but you must also keep in mind, that putting your light directly above the tropic of capricorn or cancer is irrelevant at the distances involved. A sun ray that reaches the earth at the equator is nearly parallel to a sun ray that reaches the earth at a pole so it is fallacious to do the experiment with all the light coming from a single point on the ecliptic plane.
-
Firstly your matchstick needs to be parallel with earths tilt and not perpendicular to the earths surface.
So, when this happen how are you going to align your gnomons (it sounds like morons) with Earth's tilt? (http://)
-
Firstly your matchstick needs to be parallel with earths tilt and not perpendicular to the earths surface.
So, when this happen how are you going to align your gnomons (it sounds like morons) with Earth's tilt? (http://)
If humanity survived and we were still concerned with using sundials then quite a few things would happen. First of all, the northern hemisphere would always be in darkness so no need for a sundial there. Everywhere else (the southern hemisphere) it would be likely that no matter what position you put the gnomon, its shadow would cast in the same direction. So there too, sundials would be useless.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/bKcpOmC.jpg)
So, these gnomons are parallel with Earth's tilt???
-
(http://i.imgur.com/bKcpOmC.jpg)
So, these gnomons are parallel with Earth's tilt???
Yes. These are all in the northern hemisphere so the farther north the sundial is, the higher the gnomon is tilted. In the southern hemisphere you would use the same gnomons for the opposite latitudes only the sundial would be turned upside down. So a sundial suited for 45°N would work just as well for 45°S as long as it is positioned in the opposite direction.
This just lends more credence to the earth being a globe where astronomical objects behave in the opposite way in the opposite hemisphere including opposing seasons, opposing rotation of stars, opposing sundial positions, etc...
-
Rottingroom, don't you see that by inclining gnomons like this we get even much worse case against the RE hypothesis?
With such inclined gnomons, the range of a shadows on the round Earth would be narrowed even more than it is shown in my experiment!
Have you ever asked yourself: if the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
-
Rottingroom, don't you see that by inclining gnomons like this we get even much worse case against the RE hypothesis?
With such inclined gnomons, the range of a shadows on the round Earth would be narrowed even more than it is shown in my experiment!
Have you ever asked yourself: if the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?
-
Rottingroom, don't you see that by inclining gnomons like this we get even much worse case against the RE hypothesis?
With such inclined gnomons, the range of a shadows on the round Earth would be narrowed even more than it is shown in my experiment!
These gnomons you claim to be a problem work exactly as advertised. If you think this is a knock against spherical geometry I trust you can demonstrate so mathematically? I look forward to your proof.
Have you ever asked yourself: if the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
You should probably specify what a typical solar day is since the North Pole spends as much time in darkness as in sunlight. Are we talking about magnetic north or true north?
-
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?
Not only that i don't see any problem regarding my argument which is perfectly correct, i can even see an elephant in your room. I will point in that direction once again, look at him (an elephant in your room) :
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
-
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?
Not only that i don't see any problem regarding my argument which is perfectly correct, i can even see an elephant in your room. I will point in that direction once again, look at him (an elephant in your room) :
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
Interesting that you should bring that up as the proper sundial for a pole is entirely different.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Polar_dials (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Polar_dials)
All you need to do is some research before making these arguments. Then you wouldn't come off as being so ignorant.
-
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?
Not only that i don't see any problem regarding my argument which is perfectly correct, i can even see an elephant in your room. I will point in that direction once again, look at him (an elephant in your room) :
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
Well using a horizontal sundial with a 1 meter tall gnomon on May 27th, 2015 at 12:25pm yields a shadow length of 2.58m.
http://planetcalc.com/1875/ (http://planetcalc.com/1875/)
Is the Earth round yet?
-
Guys, are you working for NASA?
Never
A
Straight
Answer
How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!
My question was exactly this:
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
What is your exact answer to the above question???
-
Guys, are you working for NASA?
Never
A
Straight
Answer
How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!
My question was exactly this:
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
What is your exact answer to the above question???
Perhaps you can tell me what was ambiguous about my answer?
Well using a horizontal sundial with a 1 meter tall gnomon on May 27th, 2015 at 12:25pm yields a shadow length of 2.58m.
http://planetcalc.com/1875/ (http://planetcalc.com/1875/)
Is the Earth round yet?
The 2.58m figure is a radius; maybe that is what confused you?
-
Cikljamas, is your argument not that sundials do not work the way we believe and was the basis of your argument not that sundial shadows will never exceed 180° if the earth is round? We've shown that it does all over the world but if you find a location where this isn't the case (like the poles) and if polar sundials don't pretend to show otherwise, then what does that say for your argument concerning conspiracy? Look at the range of this polar sundial and notice that its range is far less than 180°.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg/440px-Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg)
Again, your argument is that there is global sundial conspiracy.... So if sundials are being used to show exaclty what is expected if the earth is round, then where is the conspiracy?
-
Hovind vs Ross : (http://)
Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!
These citations are so funny...
The academically-unqualified, young-earth creationist, and professional liar Mr Kent E Hovind (Register Number: 06452-017) is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence in Florida for fraud and tax evasion. Last month, he was again indicted by a Federal grand jury—on two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt.
You really need to check your citations a little more carefully cikljamas before you make yourself look even sillier. Unless of course you believe the words of a convicted felon?
;D
-
Hovind vs Ross : (http://)
Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!
These citations are so funny...
The academically-unqualified, young-earth creationist, and professional liar Mr Kent E Hovind (Register Number: 06452-017) is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence in Florida for fraud and tax evasion. Last month, he was again indicted by a Federal grand jury—on two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt.
You really need to check your citations a little more carefully cikljamas before you make yourself look even sillier. Unless of course you believe the words of a convicted felon?
;D
Red herring. When will you learn?
-
Hovind vs Ross : (http://)
Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!
These citations are so funny...
The academically-unqualified, young-earth creationist, and professional liar Mr Kent E Hovind (Register Number: 06452-017) is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence in Florida for fraud and tax evasion. Last month, he was again indicted by a Federal grand jury—on two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt.
You really need to check your citations a little more carefully cikljamas before you make yourself look even sillier. Unless of course you believe the words of a convicted felon?
;D
Red herring. When will you learn?
Red Herring or Genetic Fallacy? Either way....
-
No "red herring" guys...
If you're gonna quote somebody as an authority, it's best to check his credentials—particularly as a teller of the truth—if you wanna use him as someone who supports your claims. A guy spending a decade in the big house for multiple fraud ain't all that reliable in my opinion LOL.
Or do you both agree that Kent Hovind is a credible source of information to cite?
-
No "red herring" guys...
If you're gonna quote somebody as an authority, it's best to check his credentials—particularly as a teller of the truth—if you wanna use him as someone who supports your claims. A guy spending a decade in the big house for multiple fraud ain't all that reliable in my opinion LOL.
Or do you both agree that Kent Hovind is a credible source of information to cite?
Whether or not he went to jail for tax evasion says nothing about his knowledge on the origin of the universe. Don't you get that? Here is another analogy: If I cited Robert Downey Junior as an expert on acting, would you disqualify him in that field based on having served time in jail? I sincerely hope your answer is no.
-
No "red herring" guys...
If you're gonna quote somebody as an authority, it's best to check his credentials—particularly as a teller of the truth—if you wanna use him as someone who supports your claims. A guy spending a decade in the big house for multiple fraud ain't all that reliable in my opinion LOL.
Or do you both agree that Kent Hovind is a credible source of information to cite?
No I don't think that Kent Hovind is a credible source but I wasn't mentioning such as a counter argument. You did.
-
Cikljamas, is your argument not that sundials do not work the way we believe and was the basis of your argument not that sundial shadows will never exceed 180° if the earth is round? We've shown that it does all over the world but if you find a location where this isn't the case (like the poles) and if polar sundials don't pretend to show otherwise, then what does that say for your argument concerning conspiracy? Look at the range of this polar sundial and notice that its range is far less than 180°.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg/440px-Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg)
Again, your argument is that there is global sundial conspiracy.... So if sundials are being used to show exaclty what is expected if the earth is round, then where is the conspiracy?
Guys, are you working for NASA?
Never
A
Straight
Answer
How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!
My question was exactly this:
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
What is your exact answer to the above question???
Well, since we can't get from you a direct answer to the above question, here is the right answer:
If the Earth were round (and if the Earth rotated on it's axis) the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would be an IMMOVABLE SPOT IN THE SKY ALL DAY LONG!!!
Other way around: If the Earth is flat, the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would circle in very wide circle(s) around and above us and our sundial and we would see the Sun very low at the horizon!!!
Kent Hovind The Real Reason he went to jail great 15 minutes : (http://)
-
Cikljamas, is your argument not that sundials do not work the way we believe and was the basis of your argument not that sundial shadows will never exceed 180° if the earth is round? We've shown that it does all over the world but if you find a location where this isn't the case (like the poles) and if polar sundials don't pretend to show otherwise, then what does that say for your argument concerning conspiracy? Look at the range of this polar sundial and notice that its range is far less than 180°.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg/440px-Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg)
Again, your argument is that there is global sundial conspiracy.... So if sundials are being used to show exaclty what is expected if the earth is round, then where is the conspiracy?
Guys, are you working for NASA?
Never
A
Straight
Answer
How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!
My question was exactly this:
If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
What is your exact answer to the above question???
Well, since we can't get from you a direct answer to the above question, here is the right answer:
If the Earth were round (and if the Earth rotated on it's axis) the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would be an IMMOVABLE SPOT IN THE SKY ALL DAY LONG!!!
Other way around: If the Earth is flat, the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would circle in very wide circle(s) around and above us and our sundial and we would see the Sun very low at the horizon!!!
Kent Hovind The Real Reason he went to jail great 15 minutes : (http://)
The axis of the Earth's rotation is never synchronized with ecliptic plane, so I don't understand how you can contend this. The sun would always have some sort of analemma at the North Pole.
-
Cikljamas, why do you think the sun would be in an immovable position from the north pole if the earth is round? For it to be immovable the earths rotation would need to be tilted 90° and it would be immovable from everywhere that the sun is visible.
I have no idea how you are coming up with this.
-
Kent Hovind The Real Reason he went to jail great 15 minutes : (http://)
Why am I not the least bit surprised that you posted this old video of Hovind before he was nailed by the Feds? ;D
Are you truly claiming he was jailed solely for being a young-earth creationist who believes in the existence of some imaginary New World Order conspiracy? Seriously?
And am I correct in assuming that you accept Hovind's opinions—with all that absurd gobbledegook he spewed forth before he was justly incarcerated? If that's the case, then I can certainly understand why you'd believe the earth is flat. And a hundred other of your misconceptions about 21st-century science.
-
Cikljamas, you need to look again at your globe. Imagine you are standing on the pole and that you see the sun in the distance where it should be in the heliocentric model. Now turn the globe and you'll see that the sun would not look as if it doesn't move. You would essentially be spinning and because of the earths tilt you would see the sun shifting up and down by a few degrees while moving 360° around you.
-
Can't you imagine yourself standing on the North Pole during typical polar day? What is the rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole? 24 hours per day! Don't you realize how is it slowly? How about geometry? If you were placed directly at the North Pole, the Earth's rotation wouldn't be noticeable at all (with respect to that point/spot), and you couldn't notice any apparent circular motion of the Sun also, because you would be located directly at the spot through which passes the line of Earth's axis! Why i have to explain to you such a simple geometrical principles? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
Before you jump on this : "24 hours per day" is just a funny way to say ZERO!!!
-
Can't you imagine yourself standing on the North Pole during typical polar day? What is the rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole? 24 hours per day! Don't you realize how is it slowly? How about geometry? If you were placed directly at the North Pole, the Earth's rotation wouldn't be noticeable at all (with respect to that point/spot), and you couldn't notice any apparent circular motion of the Sun also, because you would be located directly at the spot through which passes the line of Earth's axis! Why i have to explain to you such a simple geometrical principles? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
Everything about the rotation of the earth and its size etc. relative to the sun is well documented. Please show a link to this science which you disagree with.
-
Can't you imagine yourself standing on the North Pole during typical polar day? What is the rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole? 24 hours per day! Don't you realize how is it slowly? How about geometry? If you were placed directly at the North Pole, the Earth's rotation wouldn't be noticeable at all (with respect to that point/spot), and you couldn't notice any apparent circular motion of the Sun also, because you would be located directly at the spot through which passes the line of Earth's axis! Why i have to explain to you such a simple geometrical principles? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
Good point. There is a point on Earth, two actually where there is zero rotational velocity yes, but it is a one-dimensional point, so nothing is able to experience the zero velocity. I doubt we could even observe it. Not even a proton could occupy this point. So although your point is taken metaphysically, it is inapplicable to the case of anything physical because we can never be located solely on this unrotating point. The sun will always have an analemma partially attributed to the rotation of the Earth.
-
Perhaps a ballet dancer could stand right there on that point and observe the sun not moving. Or maybe a Harlem globetrotter could stand upside from his finger right on the spot as if the earth were a giant basketball.
-
Rama Set
I am just thinking this through now: would the analemma of the sun at the point of axis rotation be completely dependent on the earth's orbit and not rotation?
Rottingroom
I would think it would be nearly vertical and you'd only see half of it
If you took an analemma photograph
Rama Set
Yeah, I was just reading that at the North Pole it is completely vertical and you only see the top half.
Rottingroom
Anyways if you were standing at the north pole there would no rotational velocity, and you'd just be spinning once in a day but that doesn't mean the sun wouldn't go 360° around you.
Rama Set
Yeah. Is it worth pointing out that the point of zero velocity is one dimensional, so even if you were standing on it you would still be turning?
Rottingroom
Yes you'd still be turning.
I don’t know if he would understand that. Maybe a merry go round example.
Stand in the middle, zero velocity but spinning.
Rama Set
He is right that there are two points that are not spinning. But they would not be measurable and effectively do not exist. Unless there is some way to measure a 1D object?
Rottingroom
How does that matter though?
How does it matter in reference to the suns position in the sky?
Rama Set
His example is not wrong but it is completely metaphysical. If you could observe from the two non-rotating spots, the sun would only move across the sky due to its elliptical orbit. However, this is a physical impossibility so we will always see the sun rotate in the sky from our FOR.
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting
Rama Set
Yeah.
Rottingroom
One could not get directly in that spot though
It is absurdly small
Rama Set
It's one dimensional. Not even a lepton could occupy it.
Rottingroom
Hah
Rama Set
Actually they may be point like. Proton!
Rottingroom
Perhaps you could put a Foucault's pendulum right there and show that it will just sit there while the earth rotates underneath it.
Rama Set
I think it is the impossible. The calibration would be limited by the uncertainty principle.
Rottingroom
Even then though, I can't see how the pendulum could turn but I'm probably underestimating the difficulty in finding the sweet spot.
Rama Set
Yeah. I don't know what kind of tolerance you would get.
Rottingroom
But isn't this the point of swinging the pendulum? To avoid the tolerance. Therefore couldn't we swing it in
the direction of the sun and it would just stay that way?
Rama Set
There was a Foucault set up at Amunsden Scott station. It precesses at 15 degrees per hour.
http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html)
Oh, yes it should do that I think.
-
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting
Thanks Rottingroom!
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:
Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)
Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
-
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting
Thanks Rottingroom!
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:
Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)
Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
By what stretch of the imagination have you proved that the earth is flat?
-
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting
Thanks Rottingroom!
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:
Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)
Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
He said interesting, not correct.
-
To summarize what's happened recently:
Cikljamas claims that a point exists at the north and south pole where, if the earth is round there is no rotational velocity and that from that point, if the sun could be observed, then it would not rotate around you in a day. We agree with this point, however small and necessarily one-dimensional it is. However, physically it is one-dimensional and by that account it is one-dimensional even conceptually by geometric standards. Everywhere around that point, every object that can be positioned there is casting a shadow of 360° throughout the day. A one dimensional object, if it could exist there would not cast a shadow because as one dimension it could not exist above the surface. The dimension it has, if physical would be a width. Rama Set and I explored the idea and even suggested a way to find the point would be to set up a Foucault's Pendulum above it and let it swing, to which it was discovered that such an experiment had been performed at the south pole and that it was found that that pendulum precessed at 15°/hr. If you can multiply then you'll find that 15° * 24 hrs = 360° in one day. Meaning that the point both exists and implies, considering how the pendulum works at this point and all the points around it, that the earth is round.
Let me make the point that if you seriously think that the existence of such a point implies that the earth is flat, then it follows that you also think that it is impossible for any 3-dimensional object to rotate on any axis, for every 3d object that rotates, however short a duration, has 2 of these one-dimensional axis points.
So, yes, the exercise is interesting, like I said... but it does not help your argument. From what I can tell it only hurts it.
Edit: I also want to add that even if you ignore that this concept also exists at the south pole and only consider the north as it would be necessary for it to be so if the earth is flat and geocentric, then this exact point of rotation would not exist at all. It could be implied to just be the center of the circle about which the sun orbits over the earth but as you can imagine that since the sun's path changes, this point would be moving daily. Which certainly helps you naught, since the pendulum can work in this manner from this exact point on even the darkest of arctic days.
-
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!
If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!
Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?
First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).
You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!
As for the pendulum garbage argument:
http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)
-
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!
If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!
Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?
First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).
You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!
As for the pendulum garbage argument:
http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Globespin.gif/220px-Globespin.gif)
This is how the earth rotates. This suggests that the sun would move from the left to the right in the northern hemisphere and from the right to the left in south.
Here is a video of the sun during an entire summer in the northern hemisphere moving from the left to the right.
(http://)
Are you still confused?
If you have any arguments about the pendulum then please respond to them directly. Copy and paste the parts that are relevant if you have to.
-
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines. Eugenics [...]
A couple of points to reconsider...
Mr Kent Hovind is not a "doctor" of any sort. He obtained his alleged 4 "doctorates" from mail-order diploma mills not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or US governmental agency.
He's serving 10 years in Club Fed for tax evasion and financial fraud. And is facing a further two grand jury indictments for another two similar offences. Mr Hovind might not be seeing the light of day for another few years yet.
And depopulation, "chemtrails", vaccines, and eugenics have nothing whatsoever to justify his jail sentence. Those four notions are nothing more than fairy stories perpetrated by the most loony tunes of the conspiracy theorists.
-
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!
If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!
Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?
First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).
You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!
As for the pendulum garbage argument:
http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)
A small addition to the above (ZIGZAG) argument:
This argument goes for any "MIDNIGHT SUN" situation, that is to say, wherever (at any degree of latitude within the Arctic circle) & whenever you see (on the film or in the reality) that the Sun makes a full (24 hours - polar day) circle above us, you should be aware that what you have really seen is 100 % proof of the flatness of the Earth!!!
That is so because with our ZIGZAG argument we have proved that there is no rotation of the Earth!
What are the necessary implications of this proof?
Let me quote myself (North South thread, post #212):
All i have to do is to challenge you on one single issue:
1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!
Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!
As simple as that!
I don't even have to do anything more than to prove to you that the Earth doesn't spin on it's "axis", and just for the record: i already have done that.
As soon as it becomes obvious that the Earth is immovable everything else immediately fall to pieces...
As soon as you get rid of the Earth's rotation you have to answer to the next question:
How in the world on the rotund but this time UNTILTED globe we could have (anywhere-at any degree of latitude) for instance 15 or 16 hours of daylight???
-
Do you seriously think you have anything to add if you cannot look at your globe and see that the rotation of earth implies that the sun would move from left to right in the northern hemisphere?
This is so simple.
-
I agree. If you ignore everything everyone else posts and instead live in your own world. Then, yes, you are correct.
-
I agree. If you ignore everything everyone else posts and instead live in your own world. Then, yes, you are correct.
Well, it's a start. At least you admit you're living in your own world and not onit.
You're starting to grasp it; now don't let this slip. There's hope for you.
-
I agree. If you ignore everything everyone else posts and instead live in your own world. Then, yes, you are correct.
Well, it's a start. At least you admit you're living in your own world and not onit.
You're starting to grasp it; now don't let this slip. There's hope for you.
Is this really the best you can do?
-
...and to answer your additional jibber jabber cikljamas, you have not proven that earth does not rotate nor have you proven that it does not tilt. So going on to ask how a non-tilted planet can produce 15-16 hours of daylight is silly.
If you think that the metaphysical existence of 2 rotational axis points means the earth cannot be a rotating ball then you've also disproven the existence of the globe you made your video with. You've also disproved the existence of merry-go-rounds, tires and any spinning and rotating three dimensional or two dimensional object.
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?
-
Here is a video of the sun during an entire summer in the northern hemisphere moving from the left to the right.
(http://)
Fixed URL. :)
-
I have to note that cikljamas totally avoided addressing my earlier comments about one of his "heroes"...
Mr Kent Hovind is not a "doctor" of any sort. He obtained his alleged four "doctorates" from mail-order diploma mills not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or US governmental agency.
He's serving 10 years in Club Fed for tax evasion and financial fraud. And is facing a further two grand jury indictments for another two similar offences. Mr Hovind might not be seeing the light of day for another few years yet LOL.
And his claims of depopulation, "chemtrails", vaccines, and eugenics are in no way connected with his jail sentence. Those four notions are nothing more than fairy stories perpetrated by the most loony tunes of the conspiracy theorists.
—So c'mon cikljamas... put your money where your mouth is and address my claim about Hovind. If you can, that is.
-
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!
If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!
Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?
First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).
You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!
As for the pendulum garbage argument:
http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)
One correction: it's not "two diameters of the sun", it is just one diameter of the sun per day!!!
Hand waving won't help!!!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338)
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?
Bull shit!
@ausGeoff, whether Kent Hovind is innocent or not, it neither proves that the form of the surface of the earth is rotund or that it is not! If you contend contrary than what i just have said, please elaborate it.
(http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/09/waving-bear.gif)
-
Here is a video of the sun during an entire summer in the northern hemisphere moving from the left to the right.
(http://)
Fixed URL. :)
the youtube url's you keep fixing work just fine on both my computer and phone.
-
One correction: it's not "two diameters of the sun", it is just one diameter of the sun per day!!!
Hand waving won't help!!!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338)
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?
Bull shit!
What do you mean bullshit. I'm asking for clarification about what you mean. Not to link back to other threads where you were already shown wrong. You also still seem to think the sun goes from right to left on a rotating earth from the northern hemisphere. You have a globe don't you? Maybe you should look at it.
-
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting
Thanks Rottingroom!
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:
Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)
Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
CIA killed Aaron Russo : (http://)
Bill Cooper predicted 911 (it cost him his life) : (http://)
Bill Cooper's....Last prediction : (http://)
10 years before 9/11/01 watch to the end! : (http://)
COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : (http://)
9/11 Jumpers - 18 minutes : (http://)
Oliver Stone on Obama and 9/11 Truth : (http://)
Signs of the End of the World : (http://)
Fox News Cuts off Girl Telling the Truth About Russia : (http://)
Dr. Oz No Flu Shots For My Kids! : (http://)
Bill Gates : "Now if we do a really god job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent..." : Bill Gates Exposed: Funds Chemtrails, and Supports Depopulation 2/7/2012 (http://#ws)
And here is an explanation of one of Bill's modus operandi: Bill Gates Depopulation Program Explained (http://#ws)
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?
Bull shit!
What do you mean bullshit. I'm asking for clarification about what you mean. Not to link back to other threads where you were already shown wrong. You also still seem to think the sun goes from right to left on a rotating earth from the northern hemisphere. You have a globe don't you? Maybe you should look at it.
What that (the Sun going up and down on the horizon) has got to do with the core of a ZIGZAG argument?
Yes, the Sun goes up and down above the flat Earth since the Sun goes farther away from us and comes closer to us, but if the Earth were globular and if she rotated on it's axis, although the same phenomena would occure (the Sun would go up and down) this fact wouldn't have any impact and wouldn't cause any change (AT ALL) regarding the essence of the ZIGZAG argument!
Rottingroom, you have got a whale in your room, and you still don't notice him?
-
Okay so if that isn't what you mean by zig zag argument then explain. I'm not going to watch all these links. Just explain yourself for clarity.
Also, again, you do realize that on a globe rotating counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere the sun would move left to right? I assume you now understand this since you keep not responding to this.
-
@ausGeoff, whether Kent Hovind is innocent or not, it neither proves that the form of the surface of the earth is rotund or that it is not! If you contend contrary than what i just have said, please elaborate it.
So now cikljamas is claiming that one of his heroes, Mr Kent Hovind, has been in jail for nearly ten years for crimes he didn't commit—according only to cikljamas? He uses Hovind's name as an appeal to authority apparently without realising the guy's been in the big house for a decade. Whoops!
I'm guessing that by now he's sorry he ever mentioned that Hovind "holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands" in the video. Which of course was an earth globe. Poor old cikljamas seems not to know whether he's arguing from a religious standpoint or a scientific standpoint now LOL.
Whatever, he's now running around in circles desperately trying to reformulate his own ideas of things, and recover from the self-inflicted, illogical mess he's got himself into. Which is kinda funny, and kinda sad to watch.
-
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting
Thanks Rottingroom!
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:
Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)
Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
CIA killed Aaron Russo : (http://)
Bill Cooper predicted 911 (it cost him his life) : (http://)
Bill Cooper's....Last prediction : (http://)
10 years before 9/11/01 watch to the end! : (http://)
COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : (http://)
9/11 Jumpers - 18 minutes : (http://)
Oliver Stone on Obama and 9/11 Truth : (http://)
Signs of the End of the World : (http://)
Fox News Cuts off Girl Telling the Truth About Russia : (http://)
Dr. Oz No Flu Shots For My Kids! : (http://)
Bill Gates : "Now if we do a really god job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent..." : Bill Gates Exposed: Funds Chemtrails, and Supports Depopulation 2/7/2012 (http://#ws)
And here is an explanation of one of Bill's modus operandi: Bill Gates Depopulation Program Explained (http://#ws)
It's a shame you believe everything you see on youtube, but if I handed you a science textbook you would say it's wrong.
-
Let me help you to put in a perspective some real data regarding our ZIGZAG argument :
If the Earth were round and rotated around it's axis, the rotational speed of the Earth at the distance of one thousand km from North Pole would be 261 km/hr (163 miles/hr)!
What consequences would that produce in the context of our ZIGZAG argument?
If the Earth were round, at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
One correction: it's not "two diameters of the sun", it is just one diameter of the sun per day!!!
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Just to remind you:
Alleged orbital speed of the Earth : 108 000 km/hour
Alleged Earth-Sun distance : 150 000 000 km
Alleged diameter of the Sun : 1 400 000 km
How much whales do you see in your tight room now?
1. Try to apply above reasoning to a daily motion of the Sun across the sky
2. Try to apply above reasoning to a nightly motion of the Stars (especially zenith stars) which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun!!!
Do you recognise the true proportions of a heliocentric lunacy???
ausGeoff, i didn't say, and i didn't inted to say that Kent Hovind had used the globe as a satanic symbol deliberately. He had held this satanic symbol in his hands without notion of it's true symbolic meaning! That was my point, and you have been aware of it all along, haven't you? Anyway, now you can be double sure!
-
Okay so you will continue ignoring the fact that you are wrong about the left to right movement. Moving on.
You also are confusing with this zig zag thing but I think what you are trying to say is that because the orbital speed is greater than the rotational speed then the orbital speed should have a more noticeable effect on the suns position than the rotational speed?
I have no idea why you think that follows. A human being is on earth and rotation causes the angle at which you see the sun to change.
Let me give you an elementary example. While driving a car at 60 mph you can look at an object out the side window. Something at least 1/2 mile from you. You'll notice that it seems the object is going by rather slowly even though you know full well that it is going by at 60mph.
Now get out of the car and look at the same object. Turn slowly around 180° (like rotating) and what did you see? The object appeared to move out of your view much faster than it did when you were in the car, yet your head rotated much slower than 60 mph.
Keep making new arguments cikljamas.
-
@ausGeoff, whether Kent Hovind is innocent or not, it neither proves that the form of the surface of the earth is rotund or that it is not! If you contend contrary than what i just have said, please elaborate it.
So now cikljamas is claiming that one of his heroes, Mr Kent Hovind, has been in jail for nearly ten years for crimes he didn't commit—according only to cikljamas? He uses Hovind's name as an appeal to authority apparently without realising the guy's been in the big house for a decade. Whoops!
I'm guessing that by now he's sorry he ever mentioned that Hovind "holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands" in the video. Which of course was an earth globe. Poor old cikljamas seems not to know whether he's arguing from a religious standpoint or a scientific standpoint now LOL.
Whatever, he's now running around in circles desperately trying to reformulate his own ideas of things, and recover from the self-inflicted, illogical mess he's got himself into. Which is kinda funny, and kinda sad to watch.
An authority on a topic can be in jail for tax evasion and still retain their authority.
Hovind is not an authority on geology and evolution because he ignores, misconstrues and misrepresents evidence, not because he committed tax evasion and got caught.
As an analogy: Robert Downey Jr. is an excellent actor. He was an excellent actor even though he went to jail. His time in jail said nothing about his acting abilities.
Mike Tyson was an excellent boxer. That he went to jail said nothing about his prowess as a boxer.
Is this sinking in yet?
-
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?
-
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?
I don't think so. I think I understood what he is saying. Rotational velocity is slower than orbital speed therefore orbital speed should have greater effect on positions of things around earth from earth. Why he thinks this is beyond me.
-
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?
I don't think so. I think I understood what he is saying. Rotational velocity is slower than orbital speed therefore orbital speed should have greater effect on positions of things around earth from earth. Why he thinks this is beyond me.
Maybe because 108 000 km per hour is 413 TIMES greater speed than 261 km per hour?
A human being is on earth and rotation causes the angle at which you see the sun to change.
A human being is on earth while hurtling around the Sun also, and why would orbital speed of the Earth (which is 413 TIMES greater than rotational speed) be less noticable than it's rotational speed? Do you really think that due to the geometrical difference between linear and circular motion, we should perceive apparent motion of the celestial objects in such drastically different manner?
Modern astronomers claim that their ancient predecessors could not have noticed stellar parallax through centuries, due to enormous distances between the Earth and the stars, doesn't that help you to understand my point?
When the Earth rotates, what kind of motion an observer (which is placed let's say at the Equator) makes with respect to our stationary and 150 000 000 km distant star (the Sun)?
He is in fact submitted to the linear motion (from right to left), isn't he? Is this kind of motion geometrically any different comparing it with orbital motion of the Earth and with the perspective of a hypothetical observer who stands at the North Pole and watch the Sun while hurtling 108 000 km per hour?
Same goes for zenith stars!
Regarding circumpolar constellations i have to ponder on this subject for a while...
-
Did you miss my example with the car vs turning 180°? It illustrates your error perfectly.
As far as your continued misunderstanding of the suns motion in the sky with respect to the northern hemisphere of earth turning counter clockwise.... BEHOLD!!!
(http://images.clipartpanda.com/shade-clipart-sun_happy.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Gegenuhrzeigersinn.png/220px-Gegenuhrzeigersinn.png)
-
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?
I don't think so. I think I understood what he is saying. Rotational velocity is slower than orbital speed therefore orbital speed should have greater effect on positions of things around earth from earth. Why he thinks this is beyond me.
Maybe because 108 000 km per hour is 413 TIMES greater speed than 261 km per hour?
Perhaps (it's really closer to 414, but, whatever...), but so what? Tangential velocities, even if they seem "big" on a human scale, mean virtually nothing when great distances are involved, as here. Angular velocity does matter, always. That 261 km/hr tangential velocity at somewhere near the poles rotates you through 360° in 24 hours. That 108,000 km/hr rotates you only 1° around the Sun in those same 24 hours. 360° is 360 TIMES 1°. Which do you think will be more noticeable?
A human being is on earth and rotation causes the angle at which you see the sun to change.
A human being is on earth while hurtling around the Sun also, and why would orbital speed of the Earth (which is 413 TIMES greater than rotational speed) be less noticable than it's rotational speed? Do you really think that due to the geometrical difference between linear and circular motion, we should perceive apparent motion of the celestial objects in such drastically different manner?
Yes. It really does work that way.
Modern astronomers claim that their ancient predecessors could not have noticed stellar parallax through centuries, due to enormous distances between the Earth and the stars, doesn't that help you to understand my point?
No. Stellar parallax requires large telescopes and fairly sophisticated equipment to measure because it's small. The ancients didn't have any of that.
When the Earth rotates, what kind of motion an observer (which is placed let's say at the Equator) makes with respect to our stationary and 150 000 000 km distant star (the Sun)?
He is in fact submitted to the linear motion (from right to left), isn't he? Is this kind of motion geometrically any different comparing it with orbital motion of the Earth and with the perspective of a hypothetical observer who stands at the North Pole and watch the Sun while hurtling 108 000 km per hour?
There is no mystery here if you know a little trig. It's easy enough to calculate.
The equatorial radius of earth 6378.1 km and the perihelion distance 147,098,290 km. [nb]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)[/nb]
The parallax angle would be
a = 2 tan-1(6378.1 km / 147098290 km)
= 2 tan-1(4.3359 X 10-5)
= 2 * 0.0024843°
= 0.0049686°
= 17.887 seconds of arc. After 12 hours.
Meanwhile, the sun is moving across the sky at about (1/4)° (900 seconds of arc) per minute due to rotation of the Earth, and against the background stars at about (1 / 1440)° (2.5 seconds of arc) per minute due to the motion of the Earth in its orbit. So the parallax in 12 hours is much smaller by a factor of 50 TIMES than the apparent motion in 1 minute. This will be pretty hard to detect unless you're really looking for it and have very good equipment.
Same goes for zenith stars!
What about Zenith stars? Stars are so far away that parallax due to the 150,000-km orbit of the Earth isn't detectable without good equipment; parallax due to the 12,756.2-km diameter would be totally lost in the noise with even the best equipment.
Regarding circumpolar constellations i have to ponder on this subject for a while...
Ponder if you want. They've been well understood for centuries if not millennia. I doubt you'll come up with anything that works better than a spinning spherical earth. Even if you do, you'll have to see how that agrees with other observations.
I've been away for a while. What's all this about a ZIGZAG model?
-
I've been away for a while. What's all this about a ZIGZAG model?
I've been asking him that for two days and he won't clarify. He just keeps adding more arguments and ignoring all the rebuttals. My best guess is that he is talking about how the sun zigs and zags up and down at the north pole during a day due to the tilt.
-
I've been away for a while. What's all this about a ZIGZAG model?
I've been asking him that for two days and he won't clarify. He just keeps adding more arguments and ignoring all the rebuttals. My best guess is that he is talking about how the sun zigs and zags up and down at the north pole during a day due to the tilt.
Yeah, I saw some references, but no explanation of what it meant that could be discerned, but I was sprinting thru the thread.
-
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!
If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!
Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 1000 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?
First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).
You can call it a ZIGZAG argument!!!
Now, the only question is how much would Sun zigs and zags up & down, right & left if the Earth were round and tilted according to HC idiotic assumptions?
Well, it is not hard at all to illustrate to you what is the real deal here:
All you have to do is to follow a description of this simple comparation:
Imagine that you are a microbe who stands on a "giant" (1 mm diameter) wheel which is placed 150 meters (a football field counting the end zones is 108 meters long) away from the source of light which diameter is 1,4 meters!
150 000 000 km / 1000 km = 150 000 km
150 000 mm = 150 m
150 000 / 150 000 = 1 mm
Now, how about the stars?
Polaris is allegedly 3, 680 000 000 000 000 MILES away from us
3, 680 000 000 000 000 = 5, 888 000 000 000 000 km
5, 888 / 150 = 39,25
39 000 000 * 0,15 = 5, 850 000 km
So, you are still a microbe who stands on a "giant" (1 mm diameter) wheel which is now placed 5 850 000 km away from you!!!
What would be (what would you see) a visual consequence of your zigs and zags up & down, right & left on your 1 mm "giant" wheel?
Answer me!
-
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?
It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.
Going back to my car example let's suppose you are in a spinning chair observing a cow 1/2 mile to the right of the road. The car is traveling 60 mph again and the chair spins 360° counter clockwise. Do you think that as you spin that you'll observe the cow move to the right, then left, then right again? Or do you think you'll just see it move to the right, then it would come out of view as you would be turned away from it, and then as it comes back into view it goes to the right again? The only way to view the cow in the manner you've spoken is if you had a swiveling head that moved independently of your body and it remained fixed on the cow and even then, this left to right to left motion would be slight.
You have strange ideas about how you think things should look as you observe them.
-
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?
Yes, you have this right:
(http://i.imgur.com/Y0bDxAW.jpg)
It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.
Why would that be a physical impossibility? We talk about the Polar Day when the Sun is above the horizon all day long!!!
This zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight only as a consequence of an unbelievable ratio between the distance (150 m which is in reality 150 000 000 km) and a "gigantic" proportions of our hypothetical 1 mm wide wheel which represents 1000 km wide circle on the allegedly round Earth...
In the context of a reality as we know it, this zigging and zagging would be utterly striking because the Sun is only a few thousand miles from us, but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality.
That is why you have to imagine the whole paradigm from the scratch!
-
You call this a whale? An elephant? A microbe indeed. I actually think you are right in that such motion likely exists. I just don't think you understand how minute it is compared to the motion of rotation.
Do you not realize that this is not applicable unless you intentionally turn your head toward the sun or have some mechanism to ensure that it remains unaffected by the earths rotation? Perhaps if you could put a camera onto a Foucault's pendulum then you might see what you are describing but other than that, this is quite preposterous.
From anywhere that you can physically stand, if you just look the same direction all day, the only relevant motion you'll see is the motion caused by rotation.
-
You want to scale this to a football field? Fine.
You said 1000 km, but I'm just going to use miles. So 1000 miles of motion to the left.
convert: 100 yds (football field) = 300 ft = .0568182 miles
scale: 93,000,000 miles of distance to sun and 1000 miles of motion to the left.
to: .0568182 miles of distance to theoretical football field sun and x miles of motion to the left.
93000000/1000 = .0568182/x
93000000x = .568182 * 1000
93000000x = 56.8182
x = 56.8182/93000000
x = .00000000061904 miles to the left
Convert to inches: .000039222 inches of motion to the left
And you think you would notice this while the earth is also rotating?
-
You want to scale this to a football field? Fine.
You said 1000 km, but I'm just going to use miles. So 1000 miles of motion to the left.
convert: 100 yds (football field) = 300 ft = .0568182 miles
scale: 93,000,000 miles of distance to sun and 1000 miles of motion to the left.
to: .0568182 miles of distance to theoretical football field sun and x miles of motion to the left.
93000000/1000 = .0568182/x
93000000x = .568182 * 1000
93000000x = 56.8182
x = 56.8182/93000000
x = .00000000061904 miles to the left
Convert to inches: .000039222 inches of motion to the left
And you think you would notice this while the earth is also rotating?
That is what i am talking about, but you cannot see the forest for the tree!
This whole idea is preposterous to you only because you don't understand the true meaning of these words, i repeat:
...but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality...
In reality the Sun is very close to us, and turns around and above us, this is your observational experience that you are used to and you can not discard it, neglect it, throw it away out of your mind , but if you want to reason in correct manner you have to forget all that you know, and start to think from the scratch, that is the only way!!!
Why is the problem to turn your head towards the sun?
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!
If the Earth turned on it's axis, and if the Sun were stationary spot in the sky 150 000 000 km away from us, then you would see in the sky what i have explained in my ZIGZAG argument, but fortunately this is not the case. Only this zigging and zagging would be really hardly noticable because of a ratio (150 m = 150 000 000 km : 1 mm = 1000 km).
The only thing that is really preposterous is HC theory!!!
Regarding whales in your tight room, the only way not to see them is if you keep your eyes wide shut!!!
And these whales are really gigantic, absolutely colossal whales!!!
-
IF the Earth turned on it's axis, and IF the Sun were stationary spot in the sky 150 000 000 km away from us [...]
I've bolded the two words that totally refute your argument. There is no "if" in either case. And the sun does not "zig zag" above us.
End of story. Sorry.
-
The sun is not very close, observe from different places on earth.
-
If the sun is really 93,000,000 miles away then we should notice it move 3/100,000 of an inch to the right, 6/100,000 of an inch to the left and then back 3/100,000 of an inch back to the right? All this while contending with the rotational motion of the earth?
Is this your proof?
-
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?
Yes, you have this right:
(http://i.imgur.com/Y0bDxAW.jpg)
It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.
Why would that be a physical impossibility? We talk about the Polar Day when the Sun is above the horizon all day long!!!
This zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight only as a consequence of an unbelievable ratio between the distance (150 m which is in reality 150 000 000 km) and a "gigantic" proportions of our hypothetical 1 mm wide wheel which represents 1000 km wide circle on the allegedly round Earth...
And it is. Whether you find these ratios "unbelievable" or not matters not a whit.
Based on the calculations on the equator in my post above, solar parallax would be about 1.5 seconds of arc with a 2,000 km baseline, and about 3/4 second of arc with a 1,000-mile baseline. Your hypothetical observer illustrated above would have to be constantly turning (otherwise the Sun would "do a 360" around him over a day) and trying to discern a sub-arcsecond shift relative to background stars he can't see because the Sun's so bright (and ignoring relativistic bending of light, which would make precise measurement of shifts more difficult, even if they could be made). He simply won't discern *any* "zigzag" (parallax).
In the context of a reality as we know it, this zigging and zagging would be utterly striking because the Sun is only a few thousand miles from us, but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality.
Lets examine this statement for a moment. Let's say the Sun is circling above the tropic only, say, 5,000 km above it, and we are 500 km from the pole. The tropic is 2611 miles from the equator (assuming 10,000 km pole to equator), so our distance from the tropic would be 6,889 km (call it 6,900 km) at the nearest point, and 7,889 km (7,900 km) in the opposite direction. Our distance from the Sun would vary from:
( (6900 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 8521 km
to
( (7900 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 9349 km
A difference of about 10%. Forget about arc seconds or less of "zigzag" (parallax). Why don't we see a 10% change in the apparent size of the sun through the day from this location if it's as close as you say? This effect would get larger as you approach the equator because the distance change gets larger (and larger still as you continue south). If the Earth were flat, and the Sun was 5,000 km above the equator, and the observer on it, and the equator is still 10,000 km from the pole, the distance from observer to sun would change from
( (14142 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 15,000 km (90° from it, at "sunrise", however that would happen)
to 5,000 km (directly overhead).
This is a factor of three. Does the Sun appear to grow three times in size as it rises until noon from the equator at an equinox? I didn't think so, either.
That is why you have to imagine the whole paradigm from the scratch!
We don't see an obvious change in the size of the Sun through the day. That's why this paradigm is a non-starter.
The pole-to-equator distance is pretty well established, but there is no indication that the equator is >60,000 km circumference; another obvious problem. This is not to mention sunrises and sunsets, and southern circumpolar stars. You're fretting about distances that are difficult (for you) to comprehend, and offering a model that would require obvious phenomena that we just don't see. It simply doesn't work at all.
-
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)
-
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)
Because, every time we prove that the Earth is at rest someone comes up with questions like this...
First conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : Airy's failure experiment, year 1871.
Second conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : MMX experiment, year 1887.
See this conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat: Amateur rocket reaches 121,000 ft : (http://)
Jay Dee
6 months ago :
"Have you ever noticed that Earth only looks like a globe if they're using a fish eye lens? After some brief searching, I found that scientists say that you should clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth at 35,000 feet. They were almost 4 times that altitude and Earth doesn't seem to resemble any type of globe or sphere...at least in this video or any other high altitude videos I've seen that didn't use a fish eye. Thoughts?"
Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:
1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!
2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun, and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...
When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:
If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!
How intuitive is this picture to you?
It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?
But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!
Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:
"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.
Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)
-
It's in one ear out the other with you.
We've responded with reasonable and known explanations for everyone of your contentions about how it should look if the were really round. Every single one.
Please return the favor. Stop adding arguments and respond to ours.
-
@ rottingroom, everything explained here:
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)
Because, every time we prove that the Earth is at rest someone comes up with questions like this...
First conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : Airy's failure experiment, year 1871.
Second conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : MMX experiment, year 1887.
See this conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat: Amateur rocket reaches 121,000 ft : (http://)
Jay Dee
6 months ago :
"Have you ever noticed that Earth only looks like a globe if they're using a fish eye lens? After some brief searching, I found that scientists say that you should clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth at 35,000 feet. They were almost 4 times that altitude and Earth doesn't seem to resemble any type of globe or sphere...at least in this video or any other high altitude videos I've seen that didn't use a fish eye. Thoughts?"
Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:
1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!
2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun, and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...
When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:
If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!
How intuitive is this picture to you?
It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?
But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!
Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:
"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.
Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)
On top of that:
Before Copernican heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up at the sky and notice that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary Earth. All empirical evidence from our perspective clearly shows that we are fixed and everything rotates around us. We feel motionless and experience the sun, moon, stars and planets spinning around us. To suspend this common sense geocentric perspective and assume that it's actually the Earth revolving beneath us daily while rotating around the sun yearly is quite a theoretical leap.
"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning." -Marshall Hall, "Exposing the Copernican Deception"
"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"
Right up through the 20th century many attempts have been made to try and prove that heliocentricity is true and geocentricity is false. All such attempts have failed and only reinforced geocentricity. The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.
In order to save the dying heliocentric theory from the conclusive geocentric experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and others, establishment master-mind Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity which in one philosophical swoop banished the absolute aether/firmament from scientific study and replaced it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit. If there is no universal aetheric medium within which all things exist, then philosophically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects (such as the Earth and sun). Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein's theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable.
If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!
I'd like to know if we're really being subject to all those forces/motions, then why hasn't anyone in all of history ever felt it? How is it that all the centrifugal, gravitational, inertial and kinematic forces somehow cancel each other out perfectly so that no one has ever felt the slightest bit of motion or resistance? Why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?
"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun ... or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy ... or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; ...that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling "knowledge" today...all of it... is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night.
-
tl;dr
Direct observation from space has confirmed that the Earth is round and rotates, so except for cries of "conspiracy!" You are utterly incorrect.
Now perhaps you could take rottingroom's advice and stop piling on arguments in a shotgun debating approach and directly address the rebuttals made to your contentions?
-
Look we've gone through 9 pages of the same thing over and over again and it is getting boring. You present an argument, we rebuttal it to satisfaction and you drop the argument and move onto the next one. If you drop your claims then that can be taken as nothing more than concession. Frankly, it's our turn so let's start with the suns size not changing as it necessarily would if it was as close as you claim, if you can explain that away to our satisfaction then we will concede and present a new argument, fair? So explain yourself and stop pasting stuff from the nooks and cranny's of geocentric websites around the net.
-
Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:
1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day,
We don't observe this casually because it's small and difficult to measure, but it's there. Perhaps your notion that the Sun is close is wrong.
and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner,
This we do see if you're not right at the pole. It's very apparent when you're more than a few degrees from it.
we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!
One effect is very tiny. It's difficult to see, but there, even though the other is obvious.
2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun,
What? Regardless of how far something is, if you turn away from it you won't see it any more because it's "moved" out of your field of view (of course it's your FOV that actually moved, but the effect is the same - that's why it's called "apparent" motion). If it's far away, walking left or right while facing it won't have much effect - or any effect you can detect if it's far enough.
and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...
See above.
When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:
If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!
No, this would happen if the Earth weren't rotating. But it is, so the stars appear to move across the sky as the night progresses; they appear to move across our FOV because our FOV is rotating, and their distance doesn't matter.
How intuitive is this picture to you?
A rotating spherical earth is very intuitive. Flat, fixed earth, not so much.
It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?
But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!
There's nothing at all wrong with starting from basic principles. If your thinking takes you to conclusions vastly different from what is known to work, you might want to double check what got you there. If it checks out, and your new model explains what we already observe, and makes predictions about what we should be able to observe, then publish that paper and be prepared to defend it.
Your model, a nearby small sun and all the stars circling a fixed flat earth, however, fails that first test (explaining what we do see) in several ways:
What makes the Sun appear to rise and set? Why isn't it visible from everywhere on earth all the time?
How do southern circumpolar stars work?
Why does the acceleration of gravity at the surface decrease as you approach the equator and increase as you approach either pole?
Why do Foucault Pendulums precess in opposite directions north and south of the equator?
It predicts at least one obvious phenomenon we don't see:
The distance from sun to observer would change by a factor of three, in six hours, in some situations. How come it the Sun doesn't appear significantly larger at noon than at sunrise and sunset? Why doesn't it appear to change size noticeably as you travel north or south of it?
Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:
"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.
Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."
<link>
Would you please cite the source when you include quotes from elsewhere? At any rate, there's no evidence that I know of to suggest the premise "every object we see has an object behind it or near it" is correct. "every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us", if I understand what they're trying to say, is simply not correct.
Where did you read this?
-
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
-
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
Do you want us to take this comment seriously?
-
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
The amount of ignorance in one small paragraph...
-
All the theories collapse when you cannot see the sun and the stars in outer space : (http://)
-
All the theories collapse when you cannot see the sun and the stars in outer space : (http://)
Why do you buy into his claim that the sun cannot be seen from space? He says the moon can but not the sun but how can that be if we assume what he is saying about light not traveling through space to be true?
You know what forget that. Address our arguments!
-
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
Your ignorance is not evidence for your argument.
-
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
Do you want us to take this comment seriously?
Would this be implying that the Hubble Telescope and all its pictures are fakes ?
-
The Sun is not a solid celestial object [...]
Like many flat earthers, you make these claims based on a total lack of first-hand evidence. Have you ever been to the surface of the sun to see its composition with your own eyes, or do you know of anybody who has? Can you cite from your Flat Earth Wiki wherein it supports your claim that the sun is not solid? I couldn't find any reference in your Wiki to the sun's composition.
Or are you simply relying on the research and the word of round earth scientists? You refute the results of their work on the majority of other astrophysical phenomena—why do you accept their word about the sun without question?
In short, please prove that the sun is not solid.
-
1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!
One effect is very tiny. It's difficult to see, but there, even though the other is obvious.
Really now?
Because you asked for it:
(http://i.imgur.com/wteVdvJ.jpg)
So, if the Earth were round and tilted 23,5 degree, the ratio between "Sun's up & down" motion AND "Sun's Zigging & Zagging" would be 1 : 3,8. Here we don't take into account the distances, but if we took into account the HC alleged distances, then there would be no Zigging & Zagging, but there would be no Up & Down Sun's apparent motions also!!!
So, you basically take into account HC distances to discard Zigging & Zagging, and when you have to explain away obvious observable phenomena (Sun's everyday Up & Down motion) then you don't take into account HC distances, ha?
Who do you think you are fooling?
@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr. ;)
-
So, if the Earth were round and tilted 23,5 degree, the ratio between "Sun's up & down" motion AND "Sun's Zigging & Zagging" would be 1 : 3,8. Here we don't take into account the distances, but if we took into account the HC alleged distances, then there would be no Zigging & Zagging, but there would be no Up & Down Sun's apparent motions also!!!
So, you basically take into account HC distances to discard Zigging & Zagging, and when you have to explain away obvious observable phenomena (Sun's everyday Up & Down motion) then you don't take into account HC distances, ha?
Who do you think you are fooling?
@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr. ;)
Left and right zig zagging as you call it: it's there but like I said, utterly slight
Up and down tilting: angle changes so that there is a new FOV.
Rotation: angle changes so that there is a new FOV.
-
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?
-
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?
Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.
-
@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr. ;)
So by default, you're admitting that you do accept the word of round earth scientists that the sun is not solid?
I'd say I've proved my point that flat earthers are very selective when it comes to accepting the theories of round earth scientists—or rejecting them to suit their argument on the day. Which is simply because their is no such person as a flat earth scientist. Every scientist in the world—all 6 million of them—accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid.
And I challenge you to name one single accredited contemporary scientist that accepts the flat earth model. But I'm betting my left testicle you won't be able to.
—Prove me wrong. If you can. And I'll even supply the bolt cutters. ;D
-
@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr. ;)
So by default, you're admitting that you do accept the word of round earth scientists that the sun is not solid?
I'd say I've proved my point that flat earthers are very selective when it comes to accepting the theories of round earth scientists—or rejecting them to suit their argument on the day. Which is simply because their is no such person as a flat earth scientist. Every scientist in the world—all 6 million of them—accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid.
And I challenge you to name one single accredited contemporary scientist that accepts the flat earth model. But I'm betting my left testicle you won't be able to.
—Prove me wrong. If you can. And I'll even supply the bolt cutters. ;D
Oh boy, here we go again. What makes you think this is an effective argument? A conspiracy suggests a lack of FE scientists, so what is your point?
-
By the way, I've asked you several times to answer our questions, seeing as how we've been polite enough to answer yours. These are the types of questions I'm speaking of:
Your model, a nearby small sun and all the stars circling a fixed flat earth, however, fails that first test (explaining what we do see) in several ways:
What makes the Sun appear to rise and set? Why isn't it visible from everywhere on earth all the time?
How do southern circumpolar stars work?
Why does the acceleration of gravity at the surface decrease as you approach the equator and increase as you approach either pole?
Why do Foucault Pendulums precess in opposite directions north and south of the equator?
It predicts at least one obvious phenomenon we don't see:
The distance from sun to observer would change by a factor of three, in six hours, in some situations. How come it the Sun doesn't appear significantly larger at noon than at sunrise and sunset? Why doesn't it appear to change size noticeably as you travel north or south of it?
Radio silence?
-
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?
Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.
According to your logic, the Sun apparently goes up and down, because (due to tilt and rotation) an observer on the Earth changes an angle of observation. Right?
Now, doesn't Sun's apparent motion across the sky (heading in arc from East to West) depend on changing an angles of observation, also?
You even admit that there is a Zigging and Zagging of the Sun, only we cannot see it!
According to your logic, if we climbed up on the top of a hypothetical 1000 km high mountain, significant change of the perspective of the Sun would occur, so that we could easily observe such a dramatic change of angles (up & down), but if we travelled 1000 km towards the East or towards the West, we wouldn't be able to notice any change of the perspective of the Sun, because (according to you and Alpha2Omega) going West/East makes no difference at all, but in the same time going Up/Down makes huge difference in producing apparent motions of the Sun.
Would you be so kind to explain to our precious audience, what EXACTLY determines such a huge difference regarding "up & down" apparent motion of the Sun, and "Left & Right" apparent motion of the Sun?
-
Up and down as it pertains to the change of angle due to tilt, causes a change in angle which changes your FOV. Going up a mountain does not. How are you confused about this?
-
I would rather say that you are confused, maybe Alpha2Omega will come up with better explanation, since your words explain nothing...
-
I would rather say that you are confused, maybe Alpha2Omega will come up with better explanation, since your words explain nothing...
I don't doubt that he could. He's seems to be the Einstein to my newton.
I wrote that quickly because it is the answer and the answer is simple. I will make a diagram for you when I get to work to show you how simple it is differentiate between a rotating (or rather tilting) FOV and a linear (or side to side/up and down) FOV.
Please respond to the questions I quoted from a2o earlier.
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/13zplsm.png)
Well here it is.
Observer A will be compared with Observer B because that is the change as a result of rotation which illustrates how the tilt causes an up and down motion.
Horizon's illustrate that Observer A has a higher sun than Observer B, so the sun moves up down in addition to moving to the right due to rotation.
Observer A will be compared with Observer C as that is the change as a result of rising in elevation on a theoretical 1000 km mountain.
Notice that the angle of view for Observer C has not changed compared to Observer A. He is seeing the sun drastically higher in the sky (he's in space) simply because the horizon has significantly lowered and not because of a change in angle. While this is a drastic change in the sun's position due to a lowering horizon relative to Observer C's position, it is not an equivalent scenario to Observer B which I will discuss in the next section. Observer C isn't seeing the sun's position in the sky change. He is simply seeing more of it [the sky].
Observer B will be compared with Observer C to illustrate how B and C are not equivalent scenario's.
Observer C sees the horizon change because the horizon is lower relative to Observer C thanks to increased elevation. We see examples of this occurring with skyscrapers and mountains where observer's on the top floor of a skyscraper will experience sunset and sunrises seconds (and sometimes minutes) before an observer on the bottom floor. Observer B on the other hand has the same horizon as Observer A, the only thing that has changed is angular FOV. Yes, he is in a location "to the left" of where he was due to rotation and that location is "higher" just like in Observer C's scenario but unlike Observer C, Observer B's configuration, or his angular FOV has changed.
A to B
- increased elevation relative to Observer A's location
- new angle (new FOV causes sun to appear to go down)
- same horizon
A to C
- increased elevation
- same angle (larger FOV)
- larger horizon
-
"rottingroom" got in with illustrations while I was composing my typically long-winded reply. Brief glance looks like his illustration shows very well the point about the horizon appearing well below level if you are observing from a very high mountain.
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?
Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.
According to your logic, the Sun apparently goes up and down, because (due to tilt and rotation) an observer on the Earth changes an angle of observation. Right?
Yes.
Now, doesn't Sun's apparent motion across the sky (heading in arc from East to West) depend on changing an angles of observation, also?
Yes.
You even admit that there is a Zigging and Zagging of the Sun, only we cannot see it!
If by "Zigging and Zagging" you mean parallax, then, yes. It's quite small and difficult to detect, but it's there.
According to your logic, if we climbed up on the top of a hypothetical 1000 km high mountain, significant change of the perspective of the Sun would occur,
Where did anyone say that?
so that we could easily observe such a dramatic change of angles (up & down), but if we travelled 1000 km towards the East or towards the West, we wouldn't be able to notice any change of the perspective of the Sun, because (according to you and Alpha2Omega) going West/East makes no difference at all, but in the same time going Up/Down makes huge difference in producing apparent motions of the Sun.
Aha! It looks like the term "up and down" is ambiguous. By "up and down" I'm referring to the Sun's Zenith angle (angle between "straight up" and the Sun) changing, not your height above datum changing.[nb]Zenith angle is easier to use here than elevation angle (the angle the Sun is above or below the local level), but they're simply complements of each other (one is 90° minus the other).[/nb]
Do note that climbing the hypothetical 1,000 km mountain would cause your sightline to the horizon to be lower since the horizon is nearby[nb]The horizon would be 30° below level from 1,000 km above the surface of a sphere with 6378 km radius[/nb]. Parallax against the distant stars would be affected only slightly - about 16% due to the lengthened baseline - so the Zenith angle would not be affected noticeably. Returning to the Parallax at the Equator analysis (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643254#msg1643254) a few days ago, we expect about 18 arcseconds of solar parallax at the equator at perihelion, based on a radius of 6,378.1 km (baseline 12,756.2 km) and distance to sun of 147,098,290 km. If we're atop a 1,000-km high mountain on the equator, this will increase the baseline by 2,000 km, so the parallax will increase from about 18 arcseconds to about 21 arcseconds. This would still be hard to detect without very specialized equipment.
Did either of us say moving east and west wouldn't affect the Sun's position in the sky? It certainly would. Moving north or south would also have a similar effect. The change in position in the sky would be by an angle equal to the angular change in position on earth. Parallax against the background stars due to the changed position on earth would be negligible, though - maybe that's what you were referring to.
Would you be so kind to explain to our precious audience, what EXACTLY determines such a huge difference regarding "up & down" apparent motion of the Sun, and "Left & Right" apparent motion of the Sun?
"Precious". Love the editorializing!
"Left and right" (meaning parallax in this context, I presume) is dependent on the length of the baseline (sum of the diameter of earth (12,750 km or so) plus height above datum times cosine of the latitude) and the distance to the Sun (150,000,000 km give or take).
"Up and down" (meaning the Zenith angle) is the angle between a line from the center of rotation (center of the Earth) through the observer[nb]This establishes the local vertical (and, thus, the Zenith).[/nb] and a line from the observer in the direction of the Sun. The lengths of these lines do not matter; only the angle between them.
The upshot is that the distances involved cause a very small parallax effect, and the angular position of the Sun relative to zenith is absolutely dominated by rotation, which is independent of the distances.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WIAYMQ5.jpg)
Our guy, all the time is looking towards the Sun, which means that he has to adjust his orientation every few hours, otherwise he wouldn't be able to see the Sun especially during SECOND HALF of the circle, that is to say, during SECOND HALF of the alleged rotation of the Earth (the Sun would be behind his back)! Right?
So, what happens, when our guy reaches one out of two designated TURNING POINTs?
The Sun's path (alleged "apparent" motion of the Sun), by necessity, changes direction!!!
No doubt, about that!!!
Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
The easiest way to check this out:
1. Stand in front of a light bulb, be at least two meters away from the bulb so that the bulb can be always ahead of you (not above you)!
2. Make one step RIGHT AND AHEAD
3. Make next step LEFT AND more AHEAD
4. Make next step LEFT AND BACK
5. Make next step RIGHT AND more BACK (to the starting point)
6. All the time look at the bulb
7. Repeat it as long as you need to, until you figure out what would really happen (what would our guy really see in the sky) if the Earth really rotated on it's axis, instead of being at rest!!!
-
Have we not expressed that this parallax (zig zag) does occur but at such large distances it is, as I put it, utterly slight? Do you not see that we have agreed that it should and does happen?
-
What is "utterly slight"? Half a circle (which takes 12 hours (to be accomplished) in the proximity of the N.P. during Northern Summer) of the Sun's path across the sky is "utterly slight"? Are you nuts, or what?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
-
What is "utterly slight"? Half a circle (which takes 12 hours (to be accomplished) in the proximity of the N.P. during Northern Summer) of the Sun's path across the sky is "utterly slight"? Are you nuts, or what?
A rather negligible distance compared to 93,000,000 miles is it not? For your argument to gain any traction you'd need to prove that the sun is much closer and I'm afraid that trigonometry doesn't help your cause here.
-
Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
Arctic Midnight Sun (http://#ws)
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WIAYMQ5.jpg)
Our guy, all the time is looking towards the Sun, which means that he has to adjust his orientation every few hours, otherwise he wouldn't be able to see the Sun especially during SECOND HALF of the circle, that is to say, during SECOND HALF of the alleged rotation of the Earth (the Sun would be behind his back)! Right?
So, what happens, when our guy reaches one out of two designated TURNING POINTs?
The Sun's path (alleged "apparent" motion of the Sun), by necessity, changes direction!!!
No doubt, about that!!!
Against the background stars, considering only parallax and and ignoring orbital motion (which is actually far, far, far greater), yes.
But why should we ignore orbital motion? By "far, far, far", I mean that in 12 hours the sun appears to drift eastward among the distant stars about 1/2 degree. In keeping with your earlier drawing where the dashed line through N.P. represents 1,000 km, parallax will be about 3/4 of one second or arc., smaller by a factor of 2400 (a.k.a. rottingroom's "utterly slight").
But the apparent motion with respect to the Earth, which is what we really notice, is a full 360° in 24 hours, which again swamps the eastward drift due to orbital parallax after that already really swamped parallax due to motion about the pole. In this drawing, at the beginning of the first half of the circle, our fellow is facing the Sun with North to his left, so he's looking East. Six hours later, halfway through the first half of the circle, the Sun has smoothly moved to his right and now North is to his back, so he's looking due South (the Sun will also be highest in the sky here). Six hours after that, at the left "Turning Point", N is to his right, and the Sun has smoothly moved (still to his right as he faces it) to be due West of him. By the middle of the second half of the circle, he's facing due North, looking over the North Pole to where the Sun (which is at its lowest point) has smoothly moved (still to his right). Six hours later, the Sun has smoothly moved (to his right) to its original position and the cycle begins anew. Smooth left-to-right motion all the way around the tilted (because you're not exactly at the pole) circle the Sun traces through the sky as you face it.
Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
This is not a good experiment because the distances can't be realistically simulated. See above and below.
The easiest way to check this out:
1. Stand in front of a light bulb, be at least two meters away from the bulb so that the bulb can be always ahead of you (not above you)!
2. Make one step RIGHT AND AHEAD
3. Make next step LEFT AND more AHEAD
4. Make next step LEFT AND BACK
5. Make next step RIGHT AND more BACK (to the starting point)
6. All the time look at the bulb
7. Repeat it as long as you need to, until you figure out what would really happen (what would our guy really see in the sky) if the Earth really rotated on it's axis, instead of being at rest!!!
The flaw with this experiment is you're standing about 2 m from the light bulb and taking steps, moving left and right by about 1/2 m each time. With a 1 m baseline, the parallax of something 2 m away is going to be huge. What do you think the results will be if, instead of 2 m from your bulb, you're 150,000 m from it? Tell you what... the Moon is about 400,000,000 m from us. Scale the experiment up and move left and right by a total of 3 km. How much did the Moon appear to move relative to the distant stars?
-
This is not a good experiment because the distances can't be realistically simulated.
I took the liberty of coming up with an easily repeatable scaled simulation. If I can find the time I can even take a video of the simulation myself. All you would need is an American Football Field, a basketball and a camera. The ball will be the sun and the camera will be Earth's location. Earth's location will be at the endzone (0 yd line) and we can simulate parallax by moving the camera some amount of inches to the left.
Determine where to put the ball:
Sun distance = 93,000,000 miles
Sun diameter = 864,938 miles
Basketball diameter = 9.46972 inches = 0.000149459 miles
Basketball distance from camera = d
(d/.000149459) = (93,000,000/864,938)
d = .01607015416 miles = 84.504 ft = 28.2835 yds
So the basketball needs be placed on the 28 yard line.
Determine how much we need to move the camera.
Distance to ball = 28.2835 ft = .00535672 miles
parallax = p
(.00535672/p) = (93,000,000/864,938)
p = .0004981968 miles = 3.15 in
So roughly speaking:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2v8mjr7.png)
-
I was in a hurry and I one calculation was wrong. 15 inches is incorrect. I will fix it when I get home from dinner.
That's not all... 29.75 is the circumference of a basketball, not its diameter.
Here's how I see it: cikljamas was proposing using a globe to illustrate his point. Let's say we use a standard 12" desk globe.
Earth's diameter is about 8,000 miles, represented by the 1-foot diameter of the globe. The Sun is at a distance of 93,000,000 miles, which is 11,625 times the diameter of the Earth, so, to be at scale, whatever represents the Sun must be well over 2 miles away from our 1' globe (and more than 100' in diameter to be at scale). In one day, the earth would progress almost 200 times its own diameter (200 feet to scale) in its orbit.
If you want to use the (roughly) 10" basketball as the Sun, then scale everything down by a factor of 120 or so, and the distance to the Sun is a more manageable 100 feet or thereabouts, but now the diameter of the scaled earth is about 0.1", and his 1,000-km baseline is about 1/12 of that.
The biggest problem, though, is you're proposing to bring a basketball onto an American Football field, of all things! That's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - you just don't do that!
-
The biggest problem, though, is you're proposing to bring a basketball onto an American Football field, of all things! That's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - you just don't do that!
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
[/quote]
-
Oh cool a2o. You couldn't be patient and let me fix my own mistakes. Thanks a lot.
I used a basketball because it's something that people would be likely to have in their garage. Anyways, I've fixed all the math and the diagram, dick heads.
PS. Go pack
-
For those too lazy to do the math: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/ (http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/)
-
For those too lazy to do the math: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/ (http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/)
Well according to that the camera should be moved .0433 inches for an earth radius for a basketball that is on the 28 yd line but that is for the entire earth radius. For the 1000 km baseline cikljamas suggested we'd need to move the ball 1/12 of that which is 0.00360833333 or roughly 4/1000 of an inch.
-
Why is it that cikljamas—whom I assumed was a flat earther—invariably uses a round earth model to illustrate the points he makes?
Or is my assumption about his flat earth status incorrect?
-
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.
I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?
It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
-
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.
I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?
It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
I didn't enter this thread because I was enjoying seeing the way you were putting your stuff forward against opposition. I'm 100% with you but I go about my global destruction in a different way. I am fully behind what you're trying to achieve but as you well know, as you said, you're not really up against people who are going to accept anything you say.
If you actually proved it where it actually couldn't be questioned in any way, it would be questioned because the goal isn't about those people being re-educated, it's all about them making sure that people don't gain a momentum in finding out the real truth. It's weird in one way, because not all of them are shills, just half of them.
If it helps you in any way, I'm as hated by the flat Earth theorists as much as I am with the globalists and simply cast off as a nut or a troll, but don't think nobody is enjoying your input - there are quite a few that will be. Me for one - I'm just not on your level where this stuff your putting out is concerned and that's how I learn.
I like to go my own way on the basics of stuff in other ways. Very few help me but I'm not bothered, because I will just keep plugging away.
Either way, we are both in the same boat - as in, no matter what we say, it will be instantly dismissed by those that are planted on here. I don't really need to tell you this, as I think you know the score on it all.
Keep plugging away because it's not these people you need to convince. It's the people looking in who have open minds and who want to question the bullshit they've been fed all their lives.
You are a big help on this matter as well as a few others on here. People like legion, yendor, hoppy, jroa, Earthisaspaceship and a good few others, so stick to your guns. I know it can be frustrating taking on so many at a time, but the ones that are trying to attempt ridicule all the time, just put them on the backburner and deal with the one's you feel are worth dealing with. That's what I do.
Just have a laugh with the others and type some utter crap to their questions - it helps to relax you.
-
Lot of words to say nothing much.
-
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
-
Why is it that cikljamas—whom I assumed was a flat earther—invariably uses a round earth model to illustrate the points he makes?
Or is my assumption about his flat earth status incorrect?
Because he is trying to point out inconsistencies with the RE model. It would be impossible to do otherwise.
-
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
But I am concerned for you scepti. We all are. We care deeply.
-
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
But I am concerned for you scepti. We all are. We care deeply.
Well no need to. I'm on the right medication. Unindoctrinated thinkerol, it's good stuff. Try some.
-
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.
I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?
It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
That stupid? If your goal is to prove re wrong by showing the inconsistencies in it then you need to disprove the parts of it that constitute the model. This means your examples and visualizations need to be faithful to the scale that re claims but you haven't done that. You've attempted to point out flaws by misrepresenting the scale, which is either because you don't understand or because you're deliberately attempting a slight of hand.
Transversely, we'd like some "official" fe models to contend with ourselves. Some numbers that could be tested. There are some but they are sparse and where they don't exist there remains a stench of enlightened agnosticism. So because there is no confidence in a fe model our contentions with the slim pickings are easy to derive at. We can just say that if the earth was flat, then it would look different. We can just use the power of trigonometry to show that the numbers don't add up or the very basic principle that if the earth is flat then the sun cannot set.
It's too bad you are going though cikljamas, I enjoy arguing against flat earthers and with even more enthusiasm as long as their is some technical proficiency in the discussion.
-
will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.
-
@ Sceptimatic, you are such a nice guy, thank you very much for your kindness! You are one of a kind! As long as there are guys like you, there is some hope for this world! God bless you!!!
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.
If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
Why don't you believe your eyes? DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft on a balloon : (http://)
Flat Earther
2 months ago
Flat, flat, flat, no curvature, flat, flat and flat again.
NASA is lying. Open ur eyes.
Spherical earth is a lie to destroy religion.
will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.
You don't say!
-
After all the arguments presented it is clearer than ever that the earth is round, tilted rotating and orbiting the sun.
By the way london can get a long day because of earths tilt. That is 69% of the day and if you look at your tilted globe then you'll notice that in London's summer, roughly 69% of the time of one rotation is spent in light.
-
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?
If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.
If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Where has assertion 1 been proven?
Since assertion 2 depends on assertion 1, if assertion 1 is false then assertion 2 is meaningless.
If the Earth is at rest then <something>.
If the Earth is not at rest, then the condition isn't met and whatever <something> says is moot.
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
That's a lot of ifs. If the first if were satisfied, then you'd have a point. Since it's not, you don't.
<more irrelevant stuff>
-
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Did you miss the part where Foucault's pendulum (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html) proved earth's rotation and Stellar Aberration (http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm) proved earth's orbit around the sun?
will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.
You don't say!
I do and I did.
-
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
That's a lot of ifs. If the first if were satisfied, then you'd have a point. Since it's not, you don't.
That says it all! I would just add this: You have our blood on your hands : #t=3m38s (http://#t=3m38s)
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Herbert Spencer
Our massive Equatorial bulge is a myth proclaimed by our geological gas bags because if true our equator should be constantly shifting due to the movement of huge masses on the surface which change latitude. Gigantic icebergs, dust storms, and the shipping of ores from one place to another changing the line of heaviest mass which should always form the equator. This is the same problem that Newton faced.
Rene
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one.
A. Hitler
-
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
That's a lot of ifs. If the first if were satisfied, then you'd have a point. Since it's not, you don't.
That says it all!
I think it does, too. Glad you agree.
I would just add this: You have our blood on your hands :
What's that supposed to mean? You think I'm a liar and a murderer?
<youtube link>
As always, I'm not going to open any youtube link unless you explain what it's about and convince me it's worth watching; they frequently aren't.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Herbert Spencer
You seem to be practicing that pretty effectively. Your models fail so quickly upon the slightest serious examination that it just looks like they fail prior to investigation. How do those sunsets and southern circumpolar stars work in your flat earth model?
Our massive Equatorial bulge is a myth proclaimed by our geological gas bags because if true our equator should be constantly shifting due to the movement of huge masses on the surface which change latitude. Gigantic icebergs, dust storms, and the shipping of ores from one place to another changing the line of heaviest mass which should always form the equator. This is the same problem that Newton faced.
Rene
What?
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one.
A. Hitler
Are you really suggesting that if Hitler said this, it must be true? Don't you see the irony here?
-
@ Sceptimatic, you are such a nice guy, thank you very much for your kindness! You are one of a kind! As long as there are guys like you, there is some hope for this world! God bless you!!!
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.
If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
Why don't you believe your eyes? DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft on a balloon : (http://)
Flat Earther
2 months ago
Flat, flat, flat, no curvature, flat, flat and flat again.
NASA is lying. Open ur eyes.
Spherical earth is a lie to destroy religion.
will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.
You don't say!
Forget NASA, look at all the verified evidence.
-
Hi,
I'm a newcomer to this site so excuse me if I seem to be pushy or asking questions that have already been answered. I just do not understand the theory. Scientific disagreements aside.
For me logical thinking can solve this problem in a matter of minutes. Maybe I'm missing something but why would these higher powers, government or other, spend all this time planning an elaborate hoax to convince the people that the Earth is flat?
This makes no sense to me. I'm sure you would agree that a lot of people would have to be involved in this... But for what? What's the upside? You might answer money and power but those things can be acquired in much simpler ways. Another question I wanted to ask is, is this society of the belief that the government has caused events such as 911 and other disasters? Also does anybody running this have an actual degree in advanced mathematics or physics from any respectable college or university? Thanks so much for your time I appreciate you answering my questions however stupid they may seem to you.
Regards
-
Hi,
I'm a newcomer to this site so excuse me if I seem to be pushy or asking questions that have already been answered. I just do not understand the theory. Scientific disagreements aside.
For me logical thinking can solve this problem in a matter of minutes. Maybe I'm missing something but why would these higher powers, government or other, spend all this time planning an elaborate hoax to convince the people that the Earth is flat?
This makes no sense to me. I'm sure you would agree that a lot of people would have to be involved in this... But for what? What's the upside? You might answer money and power but those things can be acquired in much simpler ways. Another question I wanted to ask is, is this society of the belief that the government has caused events such as 911 and other disasters? Also does anybody running this have an actual degree in advanced mathematics or physics from any respectable college or university? Thanks so much for your time I appreciate you answering my questions however stupid they may seem to you.
Regards
Welcome, Skepsis.
In your post(s), did you mean to ask if there's an elaborate hoax by "higher powers" to convince the people that the Earth is spherical (you said flat)? The only hoax I know that's trying to convince people that the Earth is flat is here and her estranged sister site, tfes.org, and neither would qualify as a "higher power" IMO. There are doubtless some others, too.
Also, and I'm not a moderator or admin or anything, but it's generally considered impolite to copypasta the same post in multiple forums. If you're not sure where to post something, lurk for a while and see where things seem to fall. The "Flat Earth General" forum specifically says "Conspiracy topics belong here", so, realistically, there is where your post should go - especially since you bring up 9/11 (PLEASE DON'T) [oops... I just said 9/11 myself] [oh, no... I said 9/11 again!] [aaaghhh... a third time!!!] Since this thread in Flat Earth Debate has "GLOBAL CONSPIRACY" as its title, I can see why you landed here, though. This is symptomatic of the organization here, but, still...
At any rate, I'll leave your questions to those who support the notion that the Earth is flat. Maybe they can address it.
You can learn and sometimes see good challenges to conventional thinking. Enjoy your time here!
[Edit] Correct thread title
-
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?
Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
-
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?
Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
The fact of sunrise and sunset times at every location prove the earth is round. Nobody is shouting.
-
A LIAR IS A THIEF, A THIEF IS A MURDERER
“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either." Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason".
Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”
The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...
Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!
Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.
20th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theocentric (God-centered). Before the "earth-movers" arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.
Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html)
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact! Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
Bible vs science:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695)
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics." Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315)
HC theory is much more dangerous than an atomic bomb:
"The clash of the scientist who wanted to make the bomb and then wanted to stop versus the politician who couldn't wait to use it is really quite a dramatic event in itself," Lanouette said.
In June 1945, Szilard helped to author the Franck Report, warning that even if the atomic bomb helped to save lives during the present war, it could ultimately lead to a nuclear arms race and perhaps even a nuclear war with far more devastating results.
After the war, Szilard continued his efforts to stem the rising tide of nuclear weapons. He often spoke in public, and authored a number of satires, including one in 1947 titled "My Trial As a War Criminal."
That short story describes how, after the Russians won World War III, they rounded up all of the people who worked on the atomic bomb, including Szilard, and put them on trial as war criminals.
"It was his way of pointing out that scientists do have responsibilities for their effects," Lanouette said.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:44 ESV
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. John 10:10 ESV
-
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?
Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
The fact of sunrise and sunset times at every location prove the earth is round. Nobody is shouting.
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!! What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!
-
How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!! What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!
And yet, as if by some magical inference, the flat earthers know absolutely [sic] that the sun and the moon are each 32 miles in diameter, and orbiting at an altitude of 3,000 miles above a flat earth. Despite their having not one single ilota of empirical evidence to support this claim.
So... Saros. Can you cite your scientific evidence that proves the sun's and the moon's properties, or are you just making a wild guess? Which scientists agree with your opinions about the claimed flat earth? !,000 maybe? One? None? Why is there no mention at all of a flat earth in any of the standard encyclopedic reference sources? Why can you not produce a map or a model of your flat earth?
Would you dare to claim that this image is bogus, and if so, what specifically leads you to that conclusion:
(http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/Jupiter.jpg)
A true-color image of Jupiter taken by the Cassini spacecraft.
The Galilean moon Europa casts a shadow on the planet's cloud tops.
And logically, if Jupiter is spherical—as are all the other planets in our solar system—what reasons would you propose for earth being, purportedly, the only flat planet? Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest it too is spherical?
-
How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!! What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!
And yet, as if by some magical inference, the flat earthers know absolutely [sic] that the sun and the moon are each 32 miles in diameter, and orbiting at an altitude of 3,000 miles above a flat earth. Despite their having not one single ilota of empirical evidence to support this claim.
So... Saros. Can you cite your scientific evidence that proves the sun's and the moon's properties, or are you just making a wild guess? Which scientists agree with your opinions about the claimed flat earth? !,000 maybe? One? None? Why is there no mention at all of a flat earth in any of the standard encyclopedic reference sources? Why can you not produce a map or a model of your flat earth?
Would you dare to claim that this image is bogus, and if so, what specifically leads you to that conclusion:
(http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/Jupiter.jpg)
A true-color image of Jupiter taken by the Cassini spacecraft.
The Galilean moon Europa casts a shadow on the planet's cloud tops.
And logically, if Jupiter is spherical—as are all the other planets in our solar system—what reasons would you propose for earth being, purportedly, the only flat planet? Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest it too is spherical?
Look, I never said that I agree with the calculations provided by traditional flat Earthers and with the flat Earth wiki 100%. I don't think anyone who believes the Earth is not round should have an alternative detailed and complex belief system. Instead they should simply question and remain open-minded. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that trying to measure the size of the stars, the Sun and the Moon and the distance to them is as retarded as trying to measure the size of a rainbow! By the way, in that photo you can't tell Jupiter is round, you can't tell it is solid either. You just see some light with a certain pattern through a telescope. How is it a round sphere in space, especially when you see just a circle? How exactly did you figure that out? Did you actually go there? Stop believing in fairy tales and for once try to be skeptical to official dogma.
-
Look, I never said that I agree with the calculations provided by traditional flat Earthers and with the flat Earth wiki 100%.
So you're admitting that—in your opinion as a flat earther—that there are errors of fact in the Flat Earth Wiki? How then can the FES claim that the Wiki is their "bible" if it contains errors? And why do they invariably refer to it as a source of credible information if it's other than that? How does one separate the errors from the facts? Do all/any other flat earthers accept that it contains errors?
I don't think anyone who believes the Earth is not round should have an alternative detailed and complex belief system. Instead they should simply question and remain open-minded.
If one doesn't accept the scientific status quo—about anything—then to have any credibility themselves, they must produce an alternative, working hypothesis. They just can't say "oh, the earth is not spherical", and leave it at that. One cannot question another's claims unless they have evidence supporting their own counter-claims. Simple logic.
By the way, in that photo you can't tell Jupiter is round, you can't tell it is solid either. You just see some light with a certain pattern through a telescope. How is it a round sphere in space, especially when you see just a circle?
Uh... you do realise that the image is just a still capture from a video don't you? We don't see precisely that same view of Jupiter all the time.
Did you actually go there? Stop believing in fairy tales and for once try to be skeptical to official dogma.
Of course I didn't "go there". Duh. Have you been to Jupiter for evidence that it's—according to you—possibly a flat disc? I thought not. Goose, meet gander.
And there is no such thing in the science world as "official dogma". There's science and there's scientific theories. And dogma is usually and implicitly understood to be an official system of principles or tenets concerning morals, faith, or ethics—as of a religion or church.
-
Look, I never said that I agree with the calculations provided by traditional flat Earthers and with the flat Earth wiki 100%. I don't think anyone who believes the Earth is not round should have an alternative detailed and complex belief system.
So why do you have different standards for the different sides.
Instead they should simply question and remain open-minded.
Sounds like good advice for everyone.
Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that trying to measure the size of the stars, the Sun and the Moon and the distance to them is as retarded as trying to measure the size of a rainbow!
Someone here has in their signature a nice quote:
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."
By the way, in that photo you can't tell Jupiter is round, you can't tell it is solid either. You just see some light with a certain pattern through a telescope. How is it a round sphere in space, especially when you see just a circle? How exactly did you figure that out? Did you actually go there? Stop believing in fairy tales and for once try to be skeptical to official dogma.
What do you think this gif shows?
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spinning-jupiter.gif)
Also, there are spacecraft that have orbited Jupiter, clearly observing it's rotundity. As to it's composition, I am not sure if we have sent probes down there, but there is a thing called spectroscopy which you might want to look in to.
-
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!! What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!
Good point Saros! Although, this kind of argument still stands :
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact![/b] Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
Now, somebody could ask "how about the Antarctica and South Celestial Pole"?
WILL I SEE THE SOUTHERN LIGHTS AND THE SOUTHERN CROSS IN ANTARCTICA?
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season. The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season. Read more: http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions (http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions)
Above sentence could be interpreted in two ways:
1. There isn't any darkness at all (as it should be if the Earth were round)
2. There is certain amount of darkness, but it is not dark enough
Let's see one another report about the same issue:
December starts the high Antarctica tourist season, with its warming temperatures and longer daylight that stretches to twenty hours a day, especially appreciated by photographers who can keep shooting until past midnight. Read more : http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm (http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm)
So, what happens after midnight passes?
We have to go back (again) to the age when there was much more honesty in this world, so to be able to find the right answer to the above question:
"In latitude 74° S., longitude 171° E., on January 22nd, 1841, it was the most beautiful night we had seen in these latitudes. The sky was perfectly clear and serene. At midnight (12 o'clock) when the sun was skimming along the southern horizon, at an altitude of about 2°, the sky over head was remarked to be of a most intense indigo blue, becoming paler in proportion to the distance from the zenith."
Captain James Weddle was in latitude 74° 15´ 0″ S., on February 20th, 1822, and he expressly states that "the sun was beneath the horizon for more than six hours."
We have seen that such was the case, for Captain Ross saw, more than once, what only a few days afterwards was not seen by Lieutenant Wilkes, and which is not mentioned by other antarctic navigators as a constant phenomenon. Clearly, then, there was unusual refraction ("great refraction," as Captain Ross admits, which caused a difference in the horizontal and vertical diameters of the sun of more than five minutes of a degree), which lifted the sun many degrees above its true position, giving an apparent altitude which rendered it visible across the northern centre to the observers on the opposite side of the great southern belt or circumference. This is what must of necessity have been the case if the earth is a plane; and until this can be experimentally disproved, it is equally a matter of necessity to conclude that Captain Ross made use of the words "southern horizon" simply because in his astronomically educated judgment it could not be otherwise. Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right. This was really the case. Had the sun been really on the "southern horizon," Captain Ross would have had to turn his face in the opposite direction to that in which he saw the sun at mid-day, and hence the sun's motion would have been from right to left. This simple procedure would have decided the matter.
Did you notice something?
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
-
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?
Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
The fact of sunrise and sunset times at every location prove the earth is round. Nobody is shouting.
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept?
Au contraire. The observed behavior of solar-system and more remote objects is easily explained using a spinning, spheroidal earth orbiting around a large distant sun. There may be other models that also explain this, but I sure haven't seen one that works yet. If you have a flat-earth model that accurately explains the motion of celestial objects, let's hear the details. If you don't, then what are you yammering about? You can start by explaining, in detail, how a sunset works. After that, a flat-earth explanation of the phases of the Moon and its rise and set times through the month would be interesting.
How often you repeat that incorrect statement is up to you, but saying it over and over doesn't make it any more right than shouting about it.
You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!!
If you believe that, you obviously haven't done any orienteering or celestial navigation.
What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!
The apparent behavior of the bodies emitting that light, when viewed from earth, provide a lot of information about the shape of the Earth. Saying otherwise doesn't change this.
-
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season.
Demonstrably wrong. Yet again.
The Aurora Australis are regularly visible from Tasmania as per:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DCEZQnM43W8/T0o9WB_oEdI/AAAAAAAACAE/4mPsj2SJQr4/w631-h435-no/aurora4.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Fo54-NV07ak/T0o9WA-CK3I/AAAAAAAACAI/hQS0x1cIT5Y/w735-h490-no/aurora2.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cV4lFiAmxhY/T0o9WJ1DwmI/AAAAAAAACAU/ipRAzKesC44/w1030-h721-no/aurora3.jpg)
(http://www.lukeobrien.com.au/images/aurora-australis-tasmania-17march2013-3872lr.jpg)
The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season.
Wrong again! I can see Crux all year round. You really need to check your facts.
"In latitude 74° S., longitude 171° E., on January 22nd, 1841, it was the most beautiful night we had seen in these latitudes. [...]
LOL... more 150-year-old flat earth "science". ;D
-
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway. The Earth is not at rest. Even if you use a bold red font and ALL CAPS.
Now, somebody could ask "how about the Antarctica and South Celestial Pole"?
WILL I SEE THE SOUTHERN LIGHTS AND THE SOUTHERN CROSS IN ANTARCTICA?
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season. The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season. Read more: http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions (http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions)
Above sentence could be interpreted in two ways:
1. There isn't any darkness at all (as it should be if the Earth were round)
2. There is certain amount of darkness, but it is not dark enough
You seem to have missed the part about those answers applying to the tourist season (bolding and underscore added above for your convenience). The tourist season is the warmer part of summer, when daylight lasts all or almost all day as described below (bolding and underscore added below for your convenience).
The line about the Aurora being visible only in Antarctica is clearly incorrect in general, but might be approximately true in the context of Antarctic tourism. Geoff already posted about the Southern Lights from Tasmania (just off the southern coast of Australia). They can also be seen from southern New Zealand, and southern South America.
Let's see one another report about the same issue:
December starts the high Antarctica tourist season, with its warming temperatures and longer daylight that stretches to twenty hours a day, especially appreciated by photographers who can keep shooting until past midnight. Read more : http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm (http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm)
So, what happens after midnight passes?
The Sun gets higher in the sky.
We have to go back (again) to the age when there was much more honesty in this world, so to be able to find the right answer to the above question:
"In latitude 74° S., longitude 171° E., on January 22nd, 1841, it was the most beautiful night we had seen in these latitudes. The sky was perfectly clear and serene. At midnight (12 o'clock) when the sun was skimming along the southern horizon, at an altitude of about 2°, the sky over head was remarked to be of a most intense indigo blue, becoming paler in proportion to the distance from the zenith."
Captain James Weddle was in latitude 74° 15´ 0″ S., on February 20th, 1822, and he expressly states that "the sun was beneath the horizon for more than six hours."
Stellarium agrees pretty closely with these descriptions. What's your point?
Feb 20th is almost a full month later in the year than Jan 22; the Sun is no longer circumpolar from 74° S at the later date but is circumpolar at the earlier.
We have seen that such was the case, for Captain Ross saw, more than once, what only a few days afterwards was not seen by Lieutenant Wilkes, and which is not mentioned by other antarctic navigators as a constant phenomenon. Clearly, then, there was unusual refraction ("great refraction," as Captain Ross admits, which caused a difference in the horizontal and vertical diameters of the sun of more than five minutes of a degree), which lifted the sun many degrees above its true position, giving an apparent altitude which rendered it visible across the northern centre to the observers on the opposite side of the great southern belt or circumference. This is what must of necessity have been the case if the earth is a plane; and until this can be experimentally disproved, it is equally a matter of necessity to conclude that Captain Ross made use of the words "southern horizon" simply because in his astronomically educated judgment it could not be otherwise.
More likely, he said "southern horizon" because that's exactly where the Sun was. If the sun was actually "lifted" by several degrees, then that is greater than normal refraction. The sun looking "squashed" by 5' of arc may be typical - find some pictures of a setting sun and see if the vertical dimension appears reduced by about 1/6.
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
This was really the case. Had the sun been really on the "southern horizon," Captain Ross would have had to turn his face in the opposite direction to that in which he saw the sun at mid-day, and hence the sun's motion would have been from right to left. This simple procedure would have decided the matter.
Did you notice something?
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things.
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
Maybe because no one has posted one? It might help your search if you spelled 'midnight' correctly, though. The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.
[Edit] typo.
-
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
[/i]
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
Maybe because no one has posted one?
No one in the whole world? How about you? Had you forgotten your camera (like Yuri Gagarin)?
The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.
You haven't watched carefully!
-
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
Maybe because no one has posted one?
No one in the whole world? How about you? Had you forgotten your camera (like Yuri Gagarin)?
(http://)
-
The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.
You haven't watched carefully!
There's no reason the sun, while moving from left to right near the horizon when viewed from within the arctic circle for the duration of a full day during the northern summer, with the observer continually tracking it while turning (so that the horizon is seen to move right to left) to visually stop and move the other direction.
It would travel left to right (horizon right to left as sun is tracked) the entire 24 hours.
I already posted a video of it.
-
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
So explain. Why does a stationary earth have to be flat? It's still moot, of course, but I'd like to see what your "reasoning" was.
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
[/i]
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
Maybe because no one has posted one?
No one in the whole world? How about you? Had you forgotten your camera (like Yuri Gagarin)?
Believe it or not, young grasshopper, video camcorders haven't been around forever. Video cameras and VTRs were bulky, heavy, expensive, and not very robust. I did have two 35-mm still cameras with me.
Anyway, "29" found one for you.
The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.
You haven't watched carefully!
How carefully is necessary? If you're thinking sub-arcseconds of parallax, then, no. How would you propose measuring that?
I presume you're satisfied with the rest of the answers in that previous post.
-
.....
"Of course I didn't "go there". Duh. Have you been to Jupiter for evidence that it's—according to you—possibly a flat disc? I thought not. Goose, meet gander."
Jupiter is not a disc, it is not a sphere either. It is actually nothing but some cyclical celestial phenomenon. Of course you can see it spinning like a sphere, so what?It doesn't mean it is a sphere and it is solid. What you see is not what it seems. You're making a huge leap of faith by believing your eyes.
About the wiki, I have no idea what flat earthers consider their bible. I don't need to be familiar with the FES principles and doctrine to understand that the Earth is not a sphere. You're the one following a cult, don't assume everyone has to strongly believe in something like you. I'm simply skeptical. If I find any convincing evidence that the planets and all the rest is real I might change my mind, but so far all the evidence is bullshit and it is just an interpretation of what we see through the prism of heliocentrism/spherical Earth. It is utterly absurd to look at stuff in the sky and pretend you know it is solid and make conclusions about the Earth. It doesn't matter if you can use the stars for orientation. If the sky is like a ceiling you would also be able to use its patterns for orientation. But the stars and the planets simply cannot be solid spheres in nothingness. You believe in a fantasy.
-
Saroa, for someone who "simply skeptical" you sure seem pretty sure of yourself.
-
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season.
Demonstrably wrong. Yet again.
The Aurora Australis are regularly visible from Tasmania.
[snip]
The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season.
Wrong again! I can see Crux all year round. You really need to check your facts.
I note that cikljamas totally avoided addressing my Tasmanian Aurora Australis images, and admitting that he was wrong about only seeing it from Antarctica, plus the continual visibility of Crux.
Like a lot of flat earthers, when their erroneous notions are put to the test, and proven to be wrong, they just go quiet and hope their comments disappear quickly without any further comment. Sad really.
-
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
My "reasoning" (within a quotes) ? Well, let's see whose "reasoning" should be put within a quotes:
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.
Now, answer me, if this curve of a meridional line that separates day and night isn't and cannot be placed more than 1 hour (AT BEST) from the meridional line which separates globe into two halves (180 degrees), how then we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 N (London)?
If the Earth were round, at the best case scenario, London could have 14 hours of daylight, although this is too generous proposition, but not 16,5 hours of daylight!!!
So if the Sun hung around one half of the globe 14 hours, how much time would left for the Sun to travell around other half (180 degree) of a globe?
Just 10 hours?
Well, that's just not enough time, don't you think so?
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/uWpfJ8b.jpg)
Blue line separates globe into two halves
Green line follows the curve that separates day and night
In the first example (above) a source of light hasn't been directed correctly (directly) towards the tropic of capricorn, so that we had to corrected this in the second example (below)...
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
[/i]
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?
Well, doesn't an english your native tongue, how come that you ask of me to interpret Rowbotham's words to you? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax, and your explanation is wrong!
@ ausGeoff, should i laugh, or should i cry?
-
@ ausGeoff, should I laugh, or should i cry?
Whatever... again you avoid admitting to your two undeniable errors of fact.
You're as weak as piss mate.
And to answer your question about laughing or crying? Neither. Just get yourself to a library and read up on some commonly understood astrophysical facts before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
::) ::) ::)
-
Didn't I already answer this to satisfaction when I explained that a sun 93000000 miles away and 865000 miles in diameter would have nearly parallel rays hitting the earth?
-
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.
-
Here it is again to jog your memory.
Observe the following image:
(http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/images/sunlight_parallel.jpg)
In this image a sun ray is depicted touching the tops and bottoms of each earth as each earth is represented to get further and further away from the sun. Notice what happens to those sun rays as earth gets further away. The angle (represented by an orange arc to the left of each earth) gets smaller and smaller.
So how small is this angle (in the above image we are talking about the difference in rays between 2 spots that are the entire earth diameter from each other) when the sun is 93 million miles from the earth?
Well let's take a look at this image to get some sense of the scale:
(http://sciencevspseudoscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/moon_sun_scale.png)
This image utilizes black space to give a sense of the scale but instead of using 100's of rows of black space, it just shows how much a moon unit is (distance from earth to moon) and then mentions that you 395 moon units to get to the sun.
With the information we have, let's determine what the difference in angle is between two sun rays (depicted by orange lines) that are an earths diameter apart:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/vn0c9c.png)
Let 2Θ be the angle difference between two rays an earths diameter apart. 2Θ will need to be divided by 2 because we need a right angle to do the trig so we have cut earth in half to get a right angle.
Earths radius = diameter of earth / 2 = 3959 miles
Earth to sun distance = 93,000,000 miles
Use this calculator: http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp (http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp)
Θ = angle showing difference in rays between top of earth and center of earth = 0.002439°
2Θ = angle showing difference in rays between of earth and bottom = 0.004878°
So between the top of earth and the bottom of earth there is a .004878° difference in the angle of sun rays. That's about 1/200 of a degree and that's utilizing the whole expanse of the earth!
-
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
My "reasoning" (within a quotes) ? Well, let's see whose "reasoning" should be put within a quotes:
Yeah, that was an unnecessary "dig". Apologies. I see you did get the meaning, though.
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.
Now, answer me, if this curve of a meridional line that separates day and night isn't and cannot be placed more than 1 hour (AT BEST) from the meridional line which separates globe into two halves (180 degrees), how then we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 N (London)?
If the Earth were round, at the best case scenario, London could have 14 hours of daylight, although this is too generous proposition, but not 16,5 hours of daylight!!!
So if the Sun hung around one half of the globe 14 hours, how much time would left for the Sun to travell around other half (180 degree) of a globe?
Just 10 hours?
Well, that's just not enough time, don't you think so?
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/uWpfJ8b.jpg)
Blue line separates globe into two halves
Green line follows the curve that separates day and night
In the first example (above) a source of light hasn't been directed correctly (directly) towards the tropic of capricorn, so that we had to corrected this in the second example (below)...
Thank you for the clear explanation and figures.
The error you make is that the light source is way too close to make this a valid model. It looks to be about 2 globe diameters from the center of the globe instead of the more realistic 11,000. Because of this, significantly less than half the globe is illuminated. rottingroom's illustration shows why.
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?
Well, doesn't an english your native tongue, how come that you ask of me to interpret Rowbotham's words to you? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Because Rowbotham obfuscates what he's saying to fool uneducated people - that is, he makes it as difficult to understand as he can get away with.The highlighted part of the quoted passage, especially the underlined part, is unclear. You're the one presenting the argument here, so what is it that you think he means?
-
Do you want to claim that Sun's rays can illuminate more than a half of the Earth at once, whether the Earth is tilted or not?
Regarding parallel rays of the Sun, if i were you, i wouldn't call on that stupid argument : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639427#msg1639427 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639427#msg1639427)
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
Rowbotham actually describes ANTARCTIC ZIGZAG SCENARIO! Describing this scenario Rowbotham corroborates the trueness of my ZIGZAG argument, that is to say, on the round Earth we should witness to this scenario at the Arctic as well as at the Antarctic, only at the Antarctic the Sun's path would be directed in the opposite direction!
On the Flat Earth ZIGZAG scenario would be impossible at the Arctic, but it would be necessary scenario at the Antarctic!
A reminder (ZIGZAG scenario) : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
Flat Earth and the suns perspective, an artist perspective : (http://)
-
Parallel rays explain why half the earth is lit up. We are not claiming that more than half of it is lit up and if the earth wasn't tilted then a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth except for precisely the north and south pole but because it is tilted a location like London spends more time on the day time side than its night time side during the summer because the arc that it travels during this time of year is a longer length on that day time side than the night time side.
-
cikljamas said:
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
Alpha2Omega said :I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
Parallel rays explain why half the earth is lit up. We are not claiming that more than half of it is lit up and if the earth wasn't tilted then a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth except for precisely the north and south pole but because it is tilted a location like London spends more time on the day time side than its night time side during the summer because the arc that it travels during this time of year is a longer length on that day time side than the night time side.
So, Alpha2Omega, do you see now, how it follows?
-
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.
-
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.
Could you specify at least one such possibility?
-
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.
Could you specify at least one such possibility?
Turtles all the way down.
-
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.
Was it done by science though? Have they really used all parts of the model in real proportions to test it? I don't think so. What Cikljamas is saying is valid and meaningful and obviously you're helpless to deny it.
-
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.
Could you specify at least one such possibility?
Turtles all the way down.
I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this i would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed?
Now, let's see this wonderful example of human stupidity/ignorance:
No scientific evidence can show that something is logically impossible, since logical impossibility is concerned only with self-contradictory statements (like «he's a married bachelor») rather than with nature (like «DNA is usually a double helix»). For example, geocentrism isn't logically impossible—it's just wrong. No scientific theory has ever had to, or ever could, rule out rival explanations by showing them to be logically impossible, and neither must intelligent design. Scientific theories succeed simply by explaining the data better than rival theories.
My answer to the above stupidity is as follows:
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.
2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.
3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
-
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.
Was it done by science though? Have they really used all parts of the model in real proportions to test it? I don't think so. What Cikljamas is saying is valid and meaningful and obviously you're helpless to deny it.
There are tons of interactive models available that you can use to see for yourself. Cikljamas didn't make a good point at all. He had the sun coming from a tiny little light shining on an earth 100's of time larger than the light and then put the source of that light many 1000's of times closer to the earth than the model states.
-
I don't know what to say to you cikljamas. You insist that no proof exists for rotation or revolution and all the experiments seem to show the exact opposite of your interpretation. It doesn't matter how much you cover your eyes and ears.
-
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.
Could you specify at least one such possibility?
Turtles all the way down.
I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this i would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed?
I don't agree the Pole Star is fixed. It traces a small circle about 1.5° in diameter in the sky every 24 hours. It's close to our axis of rotation, but not exactly on it. Even if it happened to be exactly on it, that would be only a coincidence, and would slowly (on human terms) drift away due to precession. It's useful as a guide toward true north, but not good enough to align a telescope mount to for even moderately sensitive uses like amateur deep-space astrophotography.
Now, let's see this wonderful example of human stupidity/ignorance:
No scientific evidence can show that something is logically impossible, since logical impossibility is concerned only with self-contradictory statements (like «he's a married bachelor») rather than with nature (like «DNA is usually a double helix»). For example, geocentrism isn't logically impossible—it's just wrong. No scientific theory has ever had to, or ever could, rule out rival explanations by showing them to be logically impossible, and neither must intelligent design. Scientific theories succeed simply by explaining the data better than rival theories.
Science can't prove a model to be correct; we've been over this before. Science can, however, demonstrate flaws with models which show them to be unsound by showing how they cannot represent known conditions. For instance: a relatively small sun orbiting in a circle around the center of a disc-shaped earth a few thousand miles above the disc. This is not a viable model for the solar system. Why? Because it doesn't even roughly represent what we actually see day in and day out. This model will not have sunrises or sunsets which we do see, and would cause a change of the apparent size and appearance of the Sun through the day that we don't see. It fails to explain simple, routine observations at even the grossest scale
A spherical earth spinning once per day in a slightly elliptical orbit around a large, distant sun once per year explains most of what we routinely observe to high accuracy. Most of the rest of the finer details are addressed by the presence of an atmosphere (we know it's there), slight variation from a true sphere (very small errors), etc.
If you've actually got a workable model, please show us.
My answer to the above stupidity is as follows:
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.
2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.
3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!
Remember what we already discussed about proving things? So where's your model? I challenge you to prove it's true, or even have it explain what we already see. Surprise us.
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
Nope. There is enough evidence for revolution and rotation to accept it as given. This premise is reliable enough that it is simply accepted as fact; it it weren't reliable, it would be heavily questioned, but reliance on this premise never fails. Failure to 'prove' the Earth is rotating (this isn't possible, anyway) certainly does not mean that it isn't rotating.
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
"Very serious scientific experiments" are designed to test theories and gather data. If the experiments produce results contrary to the theory, they cast doubt on it; too much of this and the theory will be replaced with one that better explains the observations. If they produce results in accordance to the theory, the theory is still not "proved", only supported.
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
This is a tautology. If there's no rotation, there's no axis of rotation. If there's no axis of rotation, there can be no tilted axis of rotation. Duh!
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
This does not necessarily follow. Since we're heavily invested in 'ifs', what if there's a non-rotating planet that has a sun circling in a plane that doesn't pass through the center of the planet? It's spherical, but has different lengths of day at different places. This also begs the question: if the planet isn't rotating, what is the meaning of 'latitude', anyway? Latitude (on our rotating earth) is the complement of angular distance from the axis of rotation. No axis, latitude has no meaning.
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
Restating the false assertion above doesn't make it true.
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
Nope. You've outlined a bunch of hypothetical situations, many of which are demonstrably false. The ones that depend on the falsified ones are also false. How many times does the word 'if' appear in your statements above?
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
It's a scientific fact that points on a rotating body are being accelerated, which causes a force to be exerted on their masses. What are the accelerations associated with 1) the rotation of the Earth about its axis, 2) the revolution of the Earth about the Sun, and 3) the revolution of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy? If you can calculate these (they can be calculated, but I'm not at all sure you know how to), then express the forces due to these accelerations exerted on, say, a cube of the common mineral quartz (density = 2.71 gm/cm3) 1 cm on a side at the surface of the Earth on the equator. What is the net force between adjacent 1-cm cubes due to these accelerations (this is what will try to tear them apart)? If you don't know what these numbers are, or what they mean, then why the Hell are you asserting that the Earth should "rent to smithereens"? You're simply throwing impressive-sounding numbers out without a clue what they mean and how they apply.
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
-
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?
and your explanation is wrong!
No, your explanation is wrong, and your diagram is wrong too.
-
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?
1. For that latitude, the Sun is too high in the sky!
Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...
2. On the other hand, had this video been shot so far away from South Pole, then we would have to be(en) able to see at least so much degrees of oscillations (Up & Down) of the Sun's path in the sky as we can see it in Arctic midnight Sun videos...
Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...
3. As long as the Sun is in the frame there are no Up & Down oscillations, whatsoever!
4. Had this video been taken so far away from South Pole why they have named it "South Pole Time Lapse"?
5. Don't you know that there is no "South Pole" whatsoever?
6. If you missed this video before, you can click it now, FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION VIDEO, you can find it in this post of mine : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)
The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".
Estimates of the number of people present range from between 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra, both of whom were present on that day.
The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917, 19 August, and 13 September. The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."
Marchi reports that, "[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but none to our knowledge has directly denied the visible prodigy of the sun."
Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi's several books on the matter.
"Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida, writing for O Século
O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.
"The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat." ― Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.
"...The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds... The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands... people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.
"The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible." — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.
"As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." ― Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.
"I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment." — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.
"On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda..." — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.
According to De Marchi, "Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses."
(http://i.imgur.com/4OZjYJW.jpg)
The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima October 13, 1917 : (http://)
Fatima. Excellent clip : (http://)
Medjugorje - Milagre do Sol | Medjugorje Brasil : (http://)
Medjugorje - Miracle of the Sun - May 2010 : (http://)
Dancing Sun Miracle - Divine Mercy Hills, Philippines : (http://) MUST SEE!!!
The Sun is not a Nuclear furnace raging at millions of degrees. It is Electric and Cold! : (http://)
-
It's really not a difficult question. How does the sun rise (top first) or set (bottom first) and behind the horizon in a flat earth model? Why do you keep avoiding this very basic question?
Just imagine you live in a world where everyone thinks the earth is flat and you are walking on a beach with your 5 year old son and he asks, "dad, why does the sun go down?" What do you say to him? Would you talk to him about anecdotes from witness' who reported seeing a zigging and zagging sun at Fatima in 1917 or would you just explain simply, how this works?
For instance, I would say, "because the earth is turning (remember, talking to a 5 year old) the sun looks like it goes up and down, but from where we can see the sun we are simply turning toward the sun in the morning and turning away from it at night."
-
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:
<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>
I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.
-
So, have we got to the bottom of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY yet?
-
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?
1. For that latitude, the Sun is too high in the sky!
Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...
2. On the other hand, had this video been shot so far away from South Pole, then we would have to be(en) able to see at least so much degrees of oscillations (Up & Down) of the Sun's path in the sky as we can see it in Arctic midnight Sun videos...
Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...
3. As long as the Sun is in the frame there are no Up & Down oscillations, whatsoever!
4. Had this video been taken so far away from South Pole why they have named it "South Pole Time Lapse"?
5. Don't you know that there is no "South Pole" whatsoever?
6. If you missed this video before, you can click it now, FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION VIDEO, you can find it in this post of mine : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)
1. It's the south pole. Shot during summer at that location, the sun would be above the horizon the entire day, just like north pole videos shot in the summer there.
2. It was shot at AASTO, a few hundred meters from the geographic south pole. The video/timelapse only shows a small section of it's path.
3. Lens flare makes it too hard to tell one way or the other.
4. Where do you think it was taken from?
5. Why? Because you said so? Even something as simple as long-exposure photography says otherwise.
6. A video pointing to your own post on energeticforums and a couple sites using explanations the producer of the video says are just too confusing. Well done. A lack of understanding about something doesn't constitute proof for others.
-
So, have we got to the bottom of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY yet?
Yes we are getting to the bottom of it. You will never believe it unless you research it yourself. Conspiracy is truly massive You probably won't believe , even if you check into it.
-
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)
The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling". [...]
For an unequivocal debunking of the The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima myth, see THIS (http://bit.ly/1zi9SqU) site.
"There are many factors that prevent us drawing the simple conclusion that a divinely-inspired miracle took place. Firstly, there were many representatives of the press present at the Cova, both journalists and photographers. There are many photographs of the crowd witnessing the vision; but in spite of the presence of cameras there is no photograph of the event that is even vaguely authentic.
What were the photographers doing? How could anyone miss a scoop like that? Secondly, it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle. Thirdly, the accounts of the miracle, of the 'dance of the sun,' are simply not consistent... these contradictions must raise some doubts as to the objective nature of what was seen." (Pg. 78-79, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure, Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985)."
(http://www.miraclesceptic.com/peopleatfatima.png)
One photographer didn’t see much when he was so interested in photographing the people!
This photograph plainly shows some people were looking at the sun during the "miracle".
Others were completely disinterested because nothing was happening.
-
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:
<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>
I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.
(http://i.imgur.com/K94A09K.jpg)
If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article on “Perspective, true and false", and note especially rule 5 (see below) there given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena something like what is there depicted. A represents the position of the observer, C the sun’s position at X I I . noon, and the line C F the “elevation” of about one-fourth of its daily path. At 1-30 p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle A B an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At III. p.m. the sun arrives at E, making the angle e A B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner.
The Rules of a True perspective:
(1). All parallel lines, like those of a railway, seem to approach, and finally to meet in the distance.
(2). Straight lines above the eye of the spectator appear to descend to the eye-line.
(3). The horizontal, or eye-line, is a straight line on a level with the eye, at whatever elevation the spectator may be.
(4). Lines, or objects, below the eye-line, remaining at the same level, seem to rise as they recede, until they vanish in the eye-line.
(5). Similarly, lines or objects above the height of the spectator, and maintaining a constant altitude, appear to descend until they are lost in the eye-line.
(6). Objects, or lines, do not all vanish at the same point in the horizontal line, but the nearer they are to that line the sooner they vanish in it, because of the smaller angle they make with it.
(7). The distant horizon being always on a level with the eye, whatever be the altitude of the observer, it seems to rise, or to fall, with the observer ; but he never has occasion to depress his vision to look downwards towards it, nor upwards!
(http://i.imgur.com/LPVEpY2.jpg)
In the previous chapter, it was shewn how, by perspective alone, the sun appears to descend almost to the horizon, although remaining that day at its average altitude of between two and three thousand miles. In above diagram we made no allowance for refraction, which would have still further reduced each of the angles, and especially the lower ones. Diagram 23 supphes the omission, and illustrates how the sun descends to and disappears on the distant horizon. Light is a very subtle force, and one of the most easily refracted from the rectilinear ; but like all other forces, it takes the line of least resistance, whether in a curve or in a line practically straight. Its undulations falling from above on to the atmosphere are refracted, or reflected, more and more according to the angle at which they strike, and the density of the media through which they pass. We need not here enter into the unsettled question of the density of the luminiferous ether, especially as optical density is not always the same as physical density.
A straight rod, when dipped into water, appears suddenly bent to an outsider above that element ; but in judging the refraction of the sun’s rays we need to remember that we are inside the refracting element and one which has a varying density. Hence those rays of the sun which strike the atmosphere very obliquely, as from F to g, instead of proceeding in a straight line to the earth’s surface below h, take the line of least resistance and proceed towards the spectator at A. Now an observer always sees an object in the direction of the rays entering the eye ; therefore the observer at A will see the sun’s image in the direction of the line A h f, setting The sun’s rays can be entirely cut off from a spectator at the sea-level, as at A, while its reflected light can still be seen by observers in higher altitudes, from a high balloon or from the top of a mountain. There is an angle of total reflection where the light, being reflected upwards off the denser atmosphere, does not penetrate to the surface of the earth, as along the lines F k n.
A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the smooth surface of a lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish far below, and leap upwards again and again before sinking by its own weight.' And as the sun’s lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total reflection it is naturally first cut off.
@ ausGeoff, something for you : In short about the Miracles of the Sun : (http://)
-
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:
<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>
I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.
(http://i.imgur.com/K94A09K.jpg)
If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article on “Perspective, true and false", and note especially rule 5 (see below) there given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena something like what is there depicted. A represents the position of the observer, C the sun’s position at X I I . noon, and the line C F the “elevation” of about one-fourth of its daily path. At 1-30 p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle A B an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At III. p.m. the sun arrives at E, making the angle e A B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner.
The Rules of a True perspective:
(1). All parallel lines, like those of a railway, seem to approach, and finally to meet in the distance.
(2). Straight lines above the eye of the spectator appear to descend to the eye-line.
(3). The horizontal, or eye-line, is a straight line on a level with the eye, at whatever elevation the spectator may be.
(4). Lines, or objects, below the eye-line, remaining at the same level, seem to rise as they recede, until they vanish in the eye-line.
(5). Similarly, lines or objects above the height of the spectator, and maintaining a constant altitude, appear to descend until they are lost in the eye-line.
(6). Objects, or lines, do not all vanish at the same point in the horizontal line, but the nearer they are to that line the sooner they vanish in it, because of the smaller angle they make with it.
(7). The distant horizon being always on a level with the eye, whatever be the altitude of the observer, it seems to rise, or to fall, with the observer ; but he never has occasion to depress his vision to look downwards towards it, nor upwards!
(http://i.imgur.com/LPVEpY2.jpg)
In the previous chapter, it was shewn how, by perspective alone, the sun appears to descend almost to the horizon, although remaining that day at its average altitude of between two and three thousand miles. In above diagram we made no allowance for refraction, which would have still further reduced each of the angles, and especially the lower ones. Diagram 23 supphes the omission, and illustrates how the sun descends to and disappears on the distant horizon. Light is a very subtle force, and one of the most easily refracted from the rectilinear ; but like all other forces, it takes the line of least resistance, whether in a curve or in a line practically straight. Its undulations falling from above on to the atmosphere are refracted, or reflected, more and more according to the angle at which they strike, and the density of the media through which they pass. We need not here enter into the unsettled question of the density of the luminiferous ether, especially as optical density is not always the same as physical density.
A straight rod, when dipped into water, appears suddenly bent to an outsider above that element ; but in judging the refraction of the sun’s rays we need to remember that we are inside the refracting element and one which has a varying density. Hence those rays of the sun which strike the atmosphere very obliquely, as from F to g, instead of proceeding in a straight line to the earth’s surface below h, take the line of least resistance and proceed towards the spectator at A. Now an observer always sees an object in the direction of the rays entering the eye ; therefore the observer at A will see the sun’s image in the direction of the line A h f, setting The sun’s rays can be entirely cut off from a spectator at the sea-level, as at A, while its reflected light can still be seen by observers in higher altitudes, from a high balloon or from the top of a mountain. There is an angle of total reflection where the light, being reflected upwards off the denser atmosphere, does not penetrate to the surface of the earth, as along the lines F k n.
A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the smooth surface of a lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish far below, and leap upwards again and again before sinking by its own weight.' And as the sun’s lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total reflection it is naturally first cut off.
@ ausGeoff, something for you : In short about the Miracles of the Sun : (http://)
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
-
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?
On top of that:
Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a “great absurdity."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.
But after so many years of “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments?
"Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”
If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.
Since the theories of Astronomical “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.
No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted.
The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”
All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed, no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!
Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth” truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
-
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?
On top of that:
Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a “great absurdity."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.
But after so many years of “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments?
"Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”
If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.
Since the theories of Astronomical “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.
No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted.
The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”
All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed, no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!
Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth” truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
The newtonian law of gravity was come up with by observing the motion of the planets and then doing a lot of math. The law has been proven time and time again by predicting the motion of planets and moons with incredible accuracy. I am a major space enthuseist and I like to get out my telescope to view planets every once in a while, and they are always exactly where my astronomy app predicts that they will be days before.
Do you not think that the ocean is convex? Try going to a beach and trying to spot another continent. The FET explenation for this is that the apparently large waves cover the apparently small terrain, but you are actually taller then the waves and even if there are waves that are tall enough to cover the next continent, you should totally be able to see it from the lifeguard tower.
-
As requested:
I recently created an accurate Flat Earth model, using numbers you can check yourself.
http://imgur.com/a/39EgX (http://imgur.com/a/39EgX)
The sun never even gets close to the horizon, no matter how far away from it you are. The funny thing is, is that you can't change your model for the sun to be closer, or else its shape woul be greatly distorted (not that it already is in the current FE model).
One other thing you have to take out of this, is that even if the sun got near the horizon in the FE model; it would look like a very flat oval. And of course it doesn't.
-
Here is an example using some trigonometry with a theoretical location B being 1,000,000 miles away from another location A. Location B would be experiencing a noon sun while Location A is experiencing a sunset. Simple trig showed that even in that extreme case the sun could not meet the horizon. It would still be .17° above the horizon. This is an extreme example to show you how preposterous it is for a sunset to happen on a FE. Even if the Earth is millions of miles in diameter, the sun still never quite reaches the horizon.
(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B1000000%7D%3D.17188)
Let's try it with a more realistic scenario and put location B on the Tropic of Cancer, which as we know, is the farthest north that a noon sun can be directly overhead and then make location A be the north pole making this scenario a maximum case using the flat earth monopole model. The sun in this case is about 44-45° above the horizon.
(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B4534%7D%3D44.6208)
Given the above, and knowing that from the north pole the sun is nowhere near 45° above the horizon, it's safe to say the FET is wrong. There is no combination of positive numbers that you could put into the formula above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon unless the sun's height above the earth's surface is zero.
Basically, yes, perspective does mean that the sun goes down in the sky as it gets further from you but there are several unavoidable caveats. The first of which is as I have mentioned, the sun keeps going down but the closer it gets to the horizon the less it goes down. There is no combination of positive numbers for opposite and adjacent sides in the tangent function above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon. Secondly, things do appear smaller as a function of distance. Your implication that it is special is nonsense especially when there is a model that doesn't require magical size properties. Finally, if you do happen to subscribe to the idea that the sun is a flat disk, which I don't think you do, then the sun would appear as a circle only when it is directly above. At all other times it would be an ellipse and this effect would become more dramatics the further away the sun is.
-
Here is an example using some trigonometry with a theoretical location B being 1,000,000 miles away from another location A. Location B would be experiencing a noon sun while Location A is experiencing a sunset. Simple trig showed that even in that extreme case the sun could not meet the horizon. It would still be .17° above the horizon. This is an extreme example to show you how preposterous it is for a sunset to happen on a FE. Even if the Earth is millions of mikes in diameter, the sun still never quite reaches the horizon.
(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B1000000%7D%3D.17188)
Let's try it with a more realistic scenario and put location B on the Tropic of Cancer, which as we know, is the farthest north that a noon sun can be directly overhead and then make location A be the north pole making this scenario a maximum case using the flat earth monopole model. The sun in this case is about 44-45° above the horizon.
(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B4534%7D%3D44.6208)
Given the above, and knowing that from the north pole the sun is nowhere near 45° above the horizon, it's safe to say the FET is wrong. There is no combination of positive numbers that you could put into the formula above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon unless the sun's height above the earth's surface is zero.
Basically, yes, perspective does mean that the sun goes down in the sky as it gets further from you but there are several unavoidable caveats. The first of which is as I have mentioned, the sun keeps going down but the closer it gets to the horizon the less it goes down. There is no combination of positive numbers for opposite and adjacent sides in the tangent function above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon. Secondly, things do appear smaller as a function of distance. Your implication that it is special is nonsense especially when there is a model that doesn't require magical size properties. Finally, if you do happen to subscribe to the idea that the sun is a flat disk, which I don't think you do, then the sun would appear as a circle only when it is directly above. At all other times it would be an ellipse and this effect would become more dramatics the further away the sun is.
It's funny how mathematical explenations like this only come from round earthers, which should say something about the flat earthers and their lack of overall reasoning skills.
-
"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...
I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.
It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
-
"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...
I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.
It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
Are you now telling us that you no longer believe that the sun is a 32 mile "spotlight" which circles the earth 3000 miles in altitude? Are these projections the new FE stance on the sun?
So you have been cornered with empirical evidence against your original position, and now you change it. Brilliant.
You didn't even respond to rottingroom or my post on sunsets from an hour ago.
-
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
So you just spent the last 14 pages and weeks trying your hardest to mathematically prove the earth is flat when you have no model of your own other than your own guesswork with a confirmation bias. Brilliant x2!
-
"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...
I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.
It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
Please explain how the sun is a source of heat and light and its position as seen from all locations at all times of day works with your theory.
-
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:
<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>
I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.
(http://i.imgur.com/K94A09K.jpg)
If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article on “Perspective, true and false", and note especially rule 5 (see below) there given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena something like what is there depicted. A represents the position of the observer, C the sun’s position at X I I . noon, and the line C F the “elevation” of about one-fourth of its daily path. At 1-30 p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle A B an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At III. p.m. the sun arrives at E, making the angle e A B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner.
The Rules of a True perspective:
(1). All parallel lines, like those of a railway, seem to approach, and finally to meet in the distance.
(2). Straight lines above the eye of the spectator appear to descend to the eye-line.
(3). The horizontal, or eye-line, is a straight line on a level with the eye, at whatever elevation the spectator may be.
(4). Lines, or objects, below the eye-line, remaining at the same level, seem to rise as they recede, until they vanish in the eye-line.
(5). Similarly, lines or objects above the height of the spectator, and maintaining a constant altitude, appear to descend until they are lost in the eye-line.
(6). Objects, or lines, do not all vanish at the same point in the horizontal line, but the nearer they are to that line the sooner they vanish in it, because of the smaller angle they make with it.
(7). The distant horizon being always on a level with the eye, whatever be the altitude of the observer, it seems to rise, or to fall, with the observer ; but he never has occasion to depress his vision to look downwards towards it, nor upwards!
(http://i.imgur.com/LPVEpY2.jpg)
In the previous chapter, it was shewn how, by perspective alone, the sun appears to descend almost to the horizon, although remaining that day at its average altitude of between two and three thousand miles. In above diagram we made no allowance for refraction, which would have still further reduced each of the angles, and especially the lower ones. Diagram 23 supphes the omission, and illustrates how the sun descends to and disappears on the distant horizon. Light is a very subtle force, and one of the most easily refracted from the rectilinear ; but like all other forces, it takes the line of least resistance, whether in a curve or in a line practically straight. Its undulations falling from above on to the atmosphere are refracted, or reflected, more and more according to the angle at which they strike, and the density of the media through which they pass. We need not here enter into the unsettled question of the density of the luminiferous ether, especially as optical density is not always the same as physical density.
A straight rod, when dipped into water, appears suddenly bent to an outsider above that element ; but in judging the refraction of the sun’s rays we need to remember that we are inside the refracting element and one which has a varying density. Hence those rays of the sun which strike the atmosphere very obliquely, as from F to g, instead of proceeding in a straight line to the earth’s surface below h, take the line of least resistance and proceed towards the spectator at A. Now an observer always sees an object in the direction of the rays entering the eye ; therefore the observer at A will see the sun’s image in the direction of the line A h f, setting The sun’s rays can be entirely cut off from a spectator at the sea-level, as at A, while its reflected light can still be seen by observers in higher altitudes, from a high balloon or from the top of a mountain. There is an angle of total reflection where the light, being reflected upwards off the denser atmosphere, does not penetrate to the surface of the earth, as along the lines F k n.
A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the smooth surface of a lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish far below, and leap upwards again and again before sinking by its own weight.' And as the sun’s lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total reflection it is naturally first cut off.
@ ausGeoff <something for ausGoeff to watch, but, fortunately, not me>
Ohboyohboy!!! I was hoping someone would post something like this!
If we accept the above description of what the observer at A sees, let's examine what an observer at B, observing the same sun at the same time from a different place would see.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/cikljamasSunset2_zps25467dce.jpg)
The illustration has been modified to show the perspective view of the Sun for an observer at point B. From B, the Sun is directly overhead at observer's VI p.m.
At local noon (XII) for observer A, the sun is at position C, directly overhead (90°, according to the drawing). For observer B, it's at c', about 40° up (he's six hours behind, remember - shouldn't that be closer to sunrise, at zero degrees). At observer A's VI p.m. the Sun is directly over the observer at B. This is how we know B is six hours behind A. Recognizing that drawings like this are schematic and can have inaccuracies without really invalidating their basic point, they still have to reflect certain basics to demonstrate their points. The point here is that, from point A, the Sun appears to move more or less uniformly from C to d to e (C to d is slightly greater than d to e in the same amount of time, but, whatever), meanwhile, from point B, the Sun's apparent motion from c' to d' is clearly less than from d' to e'. e' to f' is far greater than the apparent movement from e to f even though the Sun has moved the same distance from E to F for both. Is this a realistic representation for what we see in real life? No, it isn't.
Further, this still doesn't explain sunsets. The proposition that refraction will lower the apparent sun from f to g is incorrect. Atmospheric refraction makes objects appear higher than they actually are, not lower. Even geometrically, the Sun will never reach the horizon for either viewer unless it could travel infinitely far to the right, but if it could do that, it would be exactly on the horizon for both A and B. But noon for these guys is six hours apart, so shouldn't sunset also be six hours apart? It just doesn't work. Sorry.
cikljamas still won't to cite where this pap comes from, but the writing sounds like Mr. Rowbotham. This diagram disagrees with his "Fig. 64", but I guess consistency is considered a bad thing if you're a "free thinker".
-
I recently created an accurate Flat Earth model, using numbers you can check yourself.
http://imgur.com/a/39EgX (http://imgur.com/a/39EgX)
Thanks for your diagram. It also proves that it could never be night-time (or completely dark) anywhere on the planet. Let's see the flat earthers explain away dusk and then total darkness. If they can that is LOL.
-
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!
These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:
1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...
If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!
1. Gravitation:
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times) because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to gravity which holds them down. They had believed that the sacrifice is a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity. That is, the gravitational constant looses as maximum as 0.35% at the Equator where the rigid Earth experiences the highest rotational speed (1670 km/hr). And at the poles, the gravitational constant retains its maximum value where the rotational speed is zero. In their sacrifice, the difference between the maximum gravitational constant g0 and the altered gravitational constant g due to Earth’s rotation, g0 - g is given by:
(http://i.imgur.com/JRFiAZ6.jpg)
Here, R is the radius of the latitudinal circle which varies from the maximal value at the equator 6378 km to zero at the poles, and T is the period of rotation equals to 24 hours. At the Equator, g0 - g is equal to 0.034 m/s^2. The maximum loss of the gravitational constant is 0.35 % (0.034/9.8), at the equator. We shall not recall the objection of the good fellows, because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down. The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would
become for the real-change of air pressure in the atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure.
In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1 atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions. The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space. In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer layer than at the surface of the Earth. Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers. These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life.
(http://i.imgur.com/uS907A1.jpg)
The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness. READ MORE : http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html)
2. Revolution of The Earth around the Sun:
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.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.
In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to the following words :
" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."
To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.
CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE ABOUT THE EQUATION OF TIME ISSUE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435)
Long exposure photos of the stars : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641992#msg1641992 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641992#msg1641992)
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis:
A) If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?
Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.
If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.
How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???
B) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?
C) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html)
D) Observing the sun directly from the north pole the apparent motion of the sun would be straight line for days, and a camera should have to be slightly adjusted every few hours to cancel out scarcelly perceptible effect due to Earth's alleged rotation which speed is practically zero at North Pole.
E) "RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND! If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
F) If the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)
Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...
You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)
4. Earth's tilt issue:
If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t)
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis:
If one takes a small tube and points it at Polaris in the northern hemisphere, fixing it to that point, the star remains visible throughout the entire year. This visibility within a small CPVC tube shows that the earth does not travel in a wide circuit around the sun. If this was the case, the star would not always be visible to the naked eye through the tube. If all those stars in time lapse video change position with the supposed rotation of earth, then there should be an even larger deviation in position over the course of one solar orbit. This fact; however, never receives recognition.
Do not say that the polestar stands in a far away position which is why one can see it always. Even though the stars stand all far away, the supposed rotation of the earth still creates moving stars in the sky. If one should see all the stars move during 24 hours, the entire year with a larger orbital circle should do the same thing with the polestar. It does not occur, so the earth possesses geocentricity and planar characteristics...
The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
6. Geocentricity without FET:
If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.
2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.
3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
7. Experiments and examples : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045)
So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62246.msg1637548#msg1637548 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62246.msg1637548#msg1637548)
"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...
I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.
It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
-
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
-
Hello cikljamas, I have read your post about the pillars of FET, and if those are the pillars, I can be sure that it's wrong. Now watch as I crush those pillars using basic elementary school physics,
1. Gravitation
Physics doesn't have to be what you expected it to be to be true, magnetism can't be explained either. Also, you claim that gravity is caused by higher air pressure at higher altitudes, but have you been at high altitudes lately? The air up there is really low pressure. Is low pressure at high altitudes a conspiracy too? The layers of the atmosphere that you mentioned make sense on a rotating Earth and Earth's path around the sun is needed to explain seasons and the Earth not crashing into the sun.
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
How do you expect that an experiment on Earth would prove that Earth moves? Even stellar parallax (which has been observed by the way) could also be explained by the Stars moving back and fourth. All motion is relative, not absolute, so in order to measure velocity you need a frame of reference. If you use a moving car as your frame of reference, the Earth is moving and the car is stationary. The experiment that you spoke of actually didn't work because of general relativity, which has already been proven mathematically.
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
Different rotational speeds at different longitudes are different when measured in miles per hour, but they are all the same when measured in revolutions per minute. Earth only rotates half the speed of the hour hand on a clock, which isn't that fast. Earth's atmosphere also does get effected by the rotation like the Coriallis effect that drives hurricanes and the winds surrounding the poles.
4. Earth's tilt
All effects of our distance to the sun changing like Earth's eliptical orbit and the hemispheres tilting towards and away from the sun are neglegable because of the sun's incredible distance and the normal cause for seasons is so drastic that you don't even notice the other effects. How the seasons are caused is not because of the changing distance from the sun but the changing angle of the sun relative to the ground. When the sun hits at a shalower angle, less of it's energy hits the same amount of land as in the summer, so everything is cooler in the winter then in the summer. This also explains why it is hot at the equator and cold at the poles.
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
Have you ever played with a gyroscope? They are a (quite fun) way to prove that rotating objects are stable and their axis always tends to point in the same direction. By the way, the fact that some constellations are only visable at certain times of the year from a certain hemisphere is proof of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The Earth travels in a 93,000,000 mile radius circle around the sun, and that's only 8 light minutes, and in comparison, the closest stars are many light years away. Stellar parallax has been measured, but it's so tiny that it's imperceptible.
I don't need to go on because this information makes your whole point not valid.
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Yes scepti, it did make me think. That thinking has led me to the conclusion that flat earthers don't know what they are talking about and are therefore not qualified to call that stuff wrong and propose a whole new model for the universe. For goodness sake, do some research.
-
Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.
-
...
I've truncated your post so that we could highlight anything new that you might have brought up since all you did was rehash the same arguments that were already sufficiently dealt with. I had hoped that you would defend your poor explanation for a sunset but you neither dealt with Jet Fissions diagram, my trigonometry, or Alpha2Omega's dissection of your model. So....
Extend all arguments.
-
Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.
As soon as he is losing the argument he just spams the thread with copy pasta.
-
Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.
As soon as he is losing the argument he just spams the thread with copy pasta.
Don't insult us. It didn't take 14 pages for us to get to "as soon as he is losing the argument".
-
We've already beaten this subject to death. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Even if you think and wish with all your might.
I can't believe how fast you forget things. You even refer back to the discussions.
By the way, have you figured out how sunsets work in your world yet? An even remotely plausible explanation would be a start.
Can' believe how fast you forget things, let me refresh your memory:
<same crap he's been shown to be wrong for months>
[This ended up in the wrong thread for some reason. Probably user error. Reposting here and will remove the old one.]
-
In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1 atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions. The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space. In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer layer than at the surface of the Earth. Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers. These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life.
(http://i.imgur.com/uS907A1.jpg)
Nice pointless copypasta. Regarding that dome picture, you do realize it shows the opposite of your statement right?
-
Speaking of copypasta. Does anyone recall sandokhan ? ::) LOL
-
Ha! How can one forget those posts? His posts put cikljamas to shame. Seemed to take minute just to scroll through some of them, let alone actually read.
-
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...
Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:
...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...
Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:
For example:
First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.
But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.
This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"
Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!
These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:
1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...
If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!
EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!
READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Enjoy it!
P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...
To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?
edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?
On top of that:
Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a “great absurdity."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.
But after so many years of “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments?
"Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”
If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.
Since the theories of Astronomical “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.
No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted.
The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”
All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed, no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!
Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth” truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
-
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Why is it that sceptimatic invariably sides with the most ill-informed, scientifically-ignorant members of the flat earth brigade? Maybe he's looking for someone to father his love child, and further decrease the depth at the shallow end of the gene pool?
I do—grudgingly—have to agree with sceptimatic on one point; the above pages of copypasta from cikljamas certainly will "get people to think". Firstly, thinking that cikljamas has truly lost the plot or forgotten his medication, and second, thinking that poor old sceptimatic is a sucker for any old second-hand flim-flam.
;D
-
Cikljamas, it is now clear what your problem is. It isn't that you are ignoring the rebuttals but in fact that you jus don't understand them. Your zig zag argument didn't fail because of the Suns size and nobody said that either. The Sun could be any size and it is the massive distance causing an (as I put it several times) "utterly slight" parallax that would have to be detected while contending with the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation. Your copypasta is special because it often isn't plagarism, more often than not, you copypasta your very own arguments from this very thread even though they were already successfully refuted. Then after those decisive refutations you took to our challenge to explain just one simple part of your own model and it could not even explain a sunset.
-
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...
Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:
...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...
Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:
For example:
First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.
But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.
This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"
Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!
These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:
1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...
If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!
EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!
READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Enjoy it!
P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...
To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?
edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?
On top of that:
Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a “great absurdity."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.
But after so many years of “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments?
"Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”
If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.
Since the theories of Astronomical “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.
No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted.
The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”
All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed, no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!
Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth” truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.
There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.
-
Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam. ::)
-
Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.
There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.
Yet more content free blather...
and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
And that just nails you. You can't understand science, and are too proud to admit it or make a proper go at understanding it. The whole thing fills you with dread and reminds you of failed exams. So you construct a fantasy land of giant ice domes, sauron towers, super glowing carbon crystals, hydrogen clouds and Den Pressure.
You can never be wrong in this constructed fantasy, as you make the rules (usually as you go along). It's a happy place, where you can live under a giant dome, were the sun (literally) never sets and children greet you respectfully as "Professor Sceptimatic".
Shame it's all a load of bollocks.
-
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...
Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:
...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...
Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:
For example:
First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.
But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.
This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"
Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!
These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:
1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...
If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!
EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!
READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Enjoy it!
P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...
To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?
edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?
On top of that:
Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a “great absurdity."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.
But after so many years of “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments?
"Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”
If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.
Since the theories of Astronomical “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.
No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted.
The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”
All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed, no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!
Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth” truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.
There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.
Because everybody knows that the way to keep people indoctrinated is to tell them to question everything and to always be prepared to be wrong. What makes s good model of the universe is the ability of that model to predict. If your model is correct, you should be able to make a prediction with your model that's more accurite then the standard model predictions. Seriously, if you do that then I will become a flat earther.
-
What makes a good model of the universe is the ability of that model to predict. If your model is correct, you should be able to make a prediction with your model that's more accurate than the standard model predictions. Seriously, if you do that then I will become a flat earther.
The flat earth model of the universe is unable to predict any future astrophysical events or phenomena.
As a round earther, I can predict a lunar eclipse at 09:44:01hrs on 30 November 2020, and to be visible from Australia.
I challenge any flat earther to prove this erroneous by providing an alternative flat earth prediction, along with facts and figures.
Another prediction of mine? That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see. :D
-
@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:
Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam. ::)
Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?
@Rottingroom,
We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...
How can you be so funny???
Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...
Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?
Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!
However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
Another prediction of mine? That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.
"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."
"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."
"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."
"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."
"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."
"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."
Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.
-
@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:
Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam. ::)
Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?
@Rottingroom,
We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...
How can you be so funny???
Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...
Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?
Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!
However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
Another prediction of mine? That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.
"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."
"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."
"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."
"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."
"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."
"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."
Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.
Please explain how the sun would zig zag in the sky in the round Earth model because that majes no sense. Also, on the poles during the summer the sun appears to just circle around the sky throughout the day.
-
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.
-
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
We can hope!
Seriously, though, if you're still confused after this, feel free to ask more.
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Let's make sure we are looking at the same scenario. If we're talking at cross purposes, we will never reach agreement because we're not describing the same experiment.
Here's what I think you're saying; correct me if I'm wrong.
You are standing at a point, say, 500 km from the north pole at the height of northern summer, so the Sun is up 24 hours. You're standing at some longitude, call it L, and facing due south. It is your local solar noon (LSN) and the Sun is due south of you.
Is this the situation you intended? If not, please describe with enough precision to determine what you mean.
As the afternoon progresses you stand stock still facing south, the sun moves from directly in front of you toward your right. Six hours after your LSN, your friend at the equator, also at longitude L, sees the Sun setting. If you spread your arms straight out, your right arm is pointing directly in the direction of the Sun while you are still facing south. Is this the "turning point" you refer to? What happens next if you remain facing due south is that the Sun continues to move in the same direction, but is now behind you. As long as you continue to face south, the sun will indeed move behind you from your right to your left until it reaches the point, 12 hours later, when it passes from being behind you to being in front of you, and resumes a left to right motion from your point of view.
Is that an accurate description of what you are trying to say? Is this the "zig-zag" motion you're referring to (instead of parallax)?
If that's the case, note that the Sun has not changed it's motion in any way. If you had a friend standing next to you, but facing 90° to the right, he would see the sun start to his left at LSN and move from his left to his right for the next 12 hours even though it's moving from your right to your left behind you for the last six of those 12 hours since you're still facing south. In other words, your "turning points" are six hours apart even though you're standing right next to each other.
If you had a third compatriot with you who was facing directly toward the Sun the whole time, he would see it move continuously from his left toward his right as he slowly turns to follow it all 24 hours.
The Sun didn't change directions at any time; it looks like you're just insisting on using a descriptive system that is confusing.
Is that what's going on?
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
Before I respond to this, I want to hear what you think the answer is, and why. A description of the direction you're looking will be necessary as part of your answer because it matters.
<eclipses and stuff>
-
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Are we continually turning the entire 24 hours so that we are looking directly toward the sun the entire time? If so, then no, the sun will not reverse direction in relation to the horizon. Your diagram is misleading/wrong if this is what you are saying. As you continue turning to keep the sun in front of you, the horizon would move the same direction the entire day, which means the movement of the sun in relation to the horizon would be the same the entire day. Get a desktop globe and try it.
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
Other than the sun appearing above and below the horizon, moving up and down, what are we supposed to base it's movement in relation to?
-
@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:
Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam. ::)
Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?
@Rottingroom,
We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...
How can you be so funny???
Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...
Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?
Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!
However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
Another prediction of mine? That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.
"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."
"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."
"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."
"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."
"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."
"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."
Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.
In both models, the sun would appear to move back and fourth if you were a bobblehead. Could you please be more vague?
-
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.
How much??? How much is between SUNRISE and SUNSET? Fucking morons...
-
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.
How much??? How much is between SUNRISE and SUNSET? Fucking morons...
Shut up.
-
Refute all points below or you concede that a flat Earth is outright ludicrous.
1. One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. Why does the Earth project a round shadow on the moon?
2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.
3. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. For example, when a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.
4. A plane can literally circle the Earth... As can a boat.
5. You can see the curvature of the earth if you just stand on a beach and look out over the water...
-
Refute all points below or you concede that a flat Earth is outright ludicrous.
1. One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. Why does the Earth project a round shadow on the moon?
2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.
3. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. For example, when a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.
4. A plane can literally circle the Earth... As can a boat.
5. You can see the curvature of the earth if you just stand on a beach and look out over the water...
Lunar eclipses don't prove the Earth is round. If I cover the lights with my hand does it mean my hand is a sphere? As for the Moon, you can't even prove it is a solid body which is orbitting the Earth. You're just looking at some light in the sky.
The Earth is not rotating.
A plane can circle the Earth yes. And apparently you don't know the difference between a circle and a sphere. Nothing prevents you from circling a disc by plane or a boat. No need for any sphere at all or rotation or other nonsense.
You can't see the curvature from the beach. You just proved you live in a cave.
But anyway, I feel pity for the brainwashed people. Hope you will eventually realize how confused you're.
It is so funny to see people defending round Earth as if you're paid to do so.
-
Refute all points below or you concede that a flat Earth is outright ludicrous.
1. One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. Why does the Earth project a round shadow on the moon?
2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.
3. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. For example, when a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.
4. A plane can literally circle the Earth... As can a boat.
5. You can see the curvature of the earth if you just stand on a beach and look out over the water...
Lunar eclipses don't prove the Earth is round. If I cover the lights with my hand does it mean my hand is a sphere? As for the Moon, you can't even prove it is a solid body which is orbitting the Earth. You're just looking at some light in the sky.
The Earth is not rotating.
A plane can circle the Earth yes. And apparently you don't know the difference between a circle and a sphere. Nothing prevents you from circling a disc by plane or a boat. No need for any sphere at all or rotation or other nonsense.
You can't see the curvature from the beach. You just proved you live in a cave.
But anyway, I feel pity for the brainwashed people. Hope you will eventually realize how confused you're.
It is so funny to see people defending round Earth as if you're paid to do so.
The earth rotates relative to the sun.
Circling the earth means taking a straight course, as you know.
-
cikljamas and saros, keep up the good work. Don't let the shills derail your thoughts. You both know how they work and if you look at the amount that signed up to go against you, that should tell you enough about who is on the right lines.
This is what always happens when the free thinkers start to gain momentum. More shills are needed and this is what they do.
The mere fact that they're arguing like hell and getting all worked up should give you a boost, because the cages are rattled.
This will be followed up by the usual rants and rages about my intellect, education and my knowledge of science being zilch, plus all the rest of the crap, as per usual.
Anyway, seriously...keep up the great work you are doing and that goes for everyone else who can think for themselves. It's become more enjoyable since you two entered, along with the other enjoyable characters who post free thinking input.
It's great to see people waking up to the FACT that Earth is not what we've been led to believe all our lives and it should be as plain as the nose on anyone's face by now, except for the shills who stand out like sore thumbs.
-
Morons unite!
-
Morons unite!
You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you. ;D
-
Morons unite!
You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you. ;D
Have you even read the thread?
-
Morons unite!
You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you. ;D
Have you even read the thread?
Yep. I see a few people using their minds and many that are parroting shit to desperately try and debunk but not realising they are using the science that was shoehorrned to fit a model that is clearly a lie. One that people like you stick rigidly to and use all kinds of methods to try and hit home that lie to people that you think are uneducated, when the uneducated ones are you people.
Why?
Because to educate yourselves you need to look at the bigger picture. You need to use thought. You must use basic logic to kick you into gear. You must use patience. And most of all, you need to burn the shit books that have fed you a lifetime's worth of crap.
Start taking notice of alternatives and stop using silly equations to make people believe you know what you're talking about with things that cannot be physically proven.
If they can't be physically proven, then your maths are wrong. Common sense.
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.
All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you. ;D
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.
All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you. ;D
Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.
All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you. ;D
Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
It frustrates you. It's doing exactly that with Geoffrey. Every second post from Geoffrey is about me. I laugh like hell. It rattles him. He gets more frustrated than you people.
I dish out a small portion of what I receive and that's all that's needed. I am the scepti. I cannot be bargained with. I cannot be reasoned with and I absolutely will not stop until people like you are crying into your milk with your global Earth rammed right up your rear end. :P
-
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.
All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you. ;D
Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
It frustrates you. It's doing exactly that with Geoffrey. Every second post from Geoffrey is about me. I laugh like hell. It rattles him. He gets more frustrated than you people.
I dish out a small portion of what I receive and that's all that's needed. I am the scepti. I cannot be bargained with. I cannot be reasoned with and I absolutely will not stop until people like you are crying into your milk with your global Earth rammed right up your rear end. :P
Why do you have an obsession with personal insults?
-
Why do you have an obsession with personal insults?
I don't see any personal insults. Why do you people have an obesession with them?
-
**Usual emotional, childish rant**
Common sense.
"Common sense" is another one of your stock phrases when you can't argue your corner. I don't think you actually know what it means:
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people
Considering absolutely nobody has bought into the ice-dome or Den Pressure, there is no basis to refer to them as "common sense".
The common sense explanation for sunsets and sunrises is that the earth rotates. It is intuitive, elegant, easy to understand and clearly explains the phenomena without any hand waving.
Your ice-dome "model" can't even attempt to explain why we have sunsets and sunrises, let alone the fact these phenomena occur at the same time on different parts of the planet. Yet you somehow insist on endlessly calling it "logic", again without any real idea of what the word means.
-
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
This is the same as saying, if Earth is my frame of reference then there is no tilt. So tilt is relative to which frame of reference you are using.
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
This is simply wrong. A geocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.
-
cikljamas and saros, keep up the good work. Don't let the shills derail your thoughts. You both know how they work and if you look at the amount that signed up to go against you, that should tell you enough about who is on the right lines.
Anyway, seriously...keep up the great work you are doing and that goes for everyone else who can think for themselves. It's become more enjoyable since you two entered, along with the other enjoyable characters who post free thinking input.
I think sceptimatic is looking for a ménage à trois LOL.
It seems cikljamas and Saros are gonna try to have a love-child together, so I'm not sure just how welcome poor old sceptimatic will be?
However this whole sordid romance turns out, it's definitely gonna be puke-inducing. ;D
-
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
This is the same as saying, if Earth is my frame of reference then there is no tilt. So tilt is relative to which frame of reference you are using.
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
This is simply wrong. A heliocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.
Why don't you read before you comment? Did you use to leave comments without reading what you comment?
It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420)
In addition:
HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).
This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.
Regarding the alleged tilt of the Earth:
I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics , but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ?????????????????????? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html)
In order to render this question even clearer we could reformulate it like this:
What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?
(http://i.imgur.com/rncSW91.jpg)
On top of that:
1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.
4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.
Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate the 4 above facts with the next fact (no. 5):
5. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!
5.a It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
-
It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
My mistake. Apologies. I meant to type geocentric round earth. I fixed my post so now it becomes:
This is simply wrong. A geocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.
-
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
Wrong again. A geocentric UNTILTED round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
-
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
This is the same as saying, if Earth is my frame of reference then there is no tilt. So tilt is relative to which frame of reference you are using.
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
This is simply wrong. A heliocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.
Why don't you read before you comment? Did you use to leave comments without reading what you comment?
It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.
Why the need to split the globe along a meridian?
And when you say to direct the light toward the tropic, I think I see where you're confusing yourself. Sunlight isn't directed in any single direction; it floods out in all directions. Directing a light source doesn't achieve what you're trying to show. What you want to do is align your light source with the tropic of your choice and the center of the earth so light source, tropic, center, and other tropic (on the far side) are all in a straight line. If the light source is sufficiently far away (diagonally across a moderately large or large room from a 1' [30 cm] globe should suffice), you will see the effect you are trying to disprove.
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
If the Earth were spherical but untilted, the length of days would be unchanging. It is not untilted, however, and the length of daylight does change depending on latitude and season. All this is exactly explained by a spherical, rotating earth.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420)
In addition:
HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).
Again, is it really necessary to use pejorative terms like 'maniac' when discussing ideas you disagree with? This sort of style is often used when an argument is weak.
To the point, the apsides (perihelion and aphelion) happen to be close to the solstices now[nb]about two weeks currently[/nb], but are actually unrelated to them. This will slowly change as precession moves the direction earth's axis tilts.
This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.
Since there's no actual FE Theory in the formal sense, only conjecture and vague notions, and this is in no way in contradiction with the HC model, this statement is untrue.
As already noted, the line of apsides has to be somewhere, and, by chance, is close to (but not exactly on) the places where solstices occur, for the time being. Wait 5,500 years or so and the apsides will coincide exactly with the equinoxes.
Regarding the alleged tilt of the Earth:
I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics ,
The simple answer is that the Earth is spin stabilized. A spinning object will maintain its orientation wrt the inertial frame (universe as a whole) unless perturbed by outside forces; if perturbed, the axis of rotation will precess. The largest outside force in the case of the Earth is due to the Moon, which causes a 26,000-year precession.
The spin tends to remain constant because angular momentum is conserved. The Earth is slowly transferring some of its angular momentum to the Moon, causing the rotation of the Earth to slow down very slightly with the passage of time, and the Moon to ever so slightly speed up in its orbit, causing its orbit to increase in size. The fact that earth is spinning in a vacuum helps it maintain its rotational speed. If earth were in a physical medium, friction with this would tend to transfer angular momentum to the medium and slow it down.
The interior dynamics mentioned in the linked Guardian article will cause tiny (accumulating to the order of mm, I think), slow, and unpredictable movement in the location of the poles on the surface, and very slight and unpredictable irregularities in the rate of rotation, that aren't really significant in the short term except for very precise work. The best answer of the first few (all I read) is the second one given.
but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ?????????????????????? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html)
What? Do you want someone to create a planet in a room-sized zero-gravity vacuum chamber to study? Gee... I can't think of any reason we can't create a zero-gravity chamber on earth. Why don't you "float" [pun intended] the proposal to your country's Academy of Sciences or whoever funds basic research and see if you can get funding to do this. Since you will first have to create an anti-gravity machine to do it, and such a device would be incredibly useful, I'm sure they'll be all over it! This would be a sure Nobel Prize for you.
In order to render this question even clearer we could reformulate it like this:
What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?
(http://i.imgur.com/rncSW91.jpg)
In relation to what are we tilting? The plane of the ecliptic, which is the plane of the Earth's orbit.
Didn't we already discuss this? Maybe that was Sculeos and not you.
On top of that:
1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
The stars making up the constellations are very distant. Even if some of the stars have great proper motion with respect to us, the apparent motion in the sky is still small. It takes a long time for even the nearest stars to move appreciably.
2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
Actually, they do, just not by much from one year to the next. Sagittarius is currently a summer constellation in the northern hemisphere. In 13,000 years it will be a winter constellation due to precession.
3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.
"Uniformity of their irregularities"? Either it's uniform or it's irregular.
Finding the underlying patterns in what appears chaotic and creating theories and mathematical models that describe these is what it's all about. If you have a good theory and valid mathematical model, you can use it to make accurate predictions.
4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.
OK. So? Do you think that Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindu, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers, after careful study, ascribed eclipses to the relationship between earth, sun and moon even though you don't?
Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate the 4 above facts with the next fact (no. 5):
5. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!
What observations and experimental evidence does the HC model go against? Observations and evidence are why the HC model is universally accepted among scientists. It's intuitive and fits "common sense" very nicely because it's simple and elegant. Simple and elegant alone aren't compelling evidence, but do satisfy Occam's Razor as a tiebreaker (as if that were needed here).
You throw out these numbers in red as though their apparently large values meant something significant. They look big at a human scale, but the Earth, solar system and galaxy are really, really big compared to humans. In context, even at that 1,000 mi/hr rotational speed, it still takes the Earth 24 hours to rotate once. That's half the rate of the hour hand on a clock, which is turns really slowly to humans (especially when waiting for quitting time).
5.a It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Don't you read the replies to your posts? This was previously answered here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644503#msg1644503), near the bottom.
Any more progress on how a sunset works on a flat earth? Your last effort, parroting Mr. Rowbotham, was clearly wrong. Until you can get a plausible alternative to the simplest of the simple for a spinning spherical earth, your notion is going to get nowhere.
Repeating it again still doesn't make it true. Sheesh! ::)
Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
And don't forget the replies to that rehash, too.
-
Why don't you read before you comment? Did you use to leave comments without reading what you comment?
It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420)
In addition:
HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).
This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.
Regarding the alleged tilt of the Earth:
I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics , but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ?????????????????????? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html)
In order to render this question even clearer we could reformulate it like this:
What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?
(http://i.imgur.com/rncSW91.jpg)
On top of that:
1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.
4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.
Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate the 4 above facts with the next fact (no. 5):
5. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!
5.a It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Thank you for proving my theory that flat earthers know nothing about science. Allow me to educate you.
HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).
Earth's orbit is quite (not perfectly) circular, and the speed that it orbits (which hardly changes) has no effect on the seasons. Seasons are caused by the Earth's axis being tilted.
I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics , but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ??????????????????????
You say that as if it's easy, and even if somebody were to do that, things work differently at different sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law). Things the size of the Earth can't really be anything but a sphere because of gravity and the square-cube law, but yet it's possible to have smaller objects that can easily overcome their own gravitational pull. A small scale model of something as big and complex as planets can't be replicated at a small scale and have the same things happen. I know this sounds like it's propaganda that makes this stuff believable, but the square-cube law has mathematical proofs for it, which is something that FET lacks. Unless math was made up by the government as a part of the conspiracy :o
What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?
The answer to this is simple: Earth's axis is not a physical object, so don't treat it like one, it's an imaginary line that represents how the Earth rotates. If the axis rotated, it wouldn't be an axis. The reason that the axis has a (more or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Changes_in_rotation)) stationary axis is for the same reason that gyroscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope) and other spinning objects are so rotationally stable. If you were to take a basketball or a similar object and throw it into the air with some rotation that it will spin on an axis just like Earth does. (Note: the basketball experiment doesn't work on pencils and other long thin objects because such objects rotate in more complex ways.)
The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
Yes they do (http://www.astronexus.com/node/81), it's just too small of a change for someone to notice in his or her lifetime.
The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
I don't know if you are talking about what I explained above or if you are talking about stellar parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax), but both of those happen, it;s just too small to be perceptible.
The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.
All of the observations seem to be in favor of the round Earth model.
Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.
There have also been many civilizations in history that independently proved that the Earth is round.
If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour
More proof that you don't know what you are talking about. If you are in a car going on the freeway and you throw a penny up into the air, it comes back into your hand even though you are going really fast, and that is what momentum is. You can't feel how fast you are going. As for the rotation related things: most of that can be explained by gravity. As the Earth orbits the sun, the sun attracts the Earth and it also attracts us with it, and same goes for the earth and sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, we don't feel it because we are orbiting the sun with the Earth, we just happen to be on the Earth. When you measure the rotation speed of something, it is really misleading to use miles per hour, especially in this case. In different terms, the Earth rotates at 0.000694 revolutions per minute, which is half the speed of the hour hand on a clock. The reason that this rotation does not fling the Earth apart is because of gravity, but this rotation can actually create a measurable difference in the strength of gravity between the poles and the equator.
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
3,959 miles is the radius of the Earth and even though Earth's rotation speed seems like a lot when measured in miles per hour, it adds up to only 0.000694 RPM. As I mentioned previously, this is a minor effect that is easily overcome by gravity. I can prove this with math if you want me to.
-
Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science". The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie. Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism in every aspect of man’s "knowledge" about the Universe, the Earth, and Himself.
Many people consider the Encyclopedia Britannica the FINAL AUTHORITY on all scientific matters. No publication is as anxious to see the earth moving as the Rockefeller owned Britannica. So we won't be amiss if we consult this final authority on heliocentricity and see their PROOFS for the moving earth. Here is a quote from the New Encyclopedia Britannica:
Basic planetary data. The mean distance of Earth from the Sun is about 149,600,000 km (92,960,000 miles). The planet orbits the Sun at a speed of 29.8 km (18.5 miles) per second, making one complete revolution in 365.256 days. As it revolves around the Sun, Earth spins on its axis and rotates completely once every 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. (New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 4, p. 320).
You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours. It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
By 1851, despite Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler no proof existed of the rotation/revolution of the earth.
Heliocentric "astronomers" greatly exaggerate the size of the solar system and the universe. They make the universe so big that it cannot possibly orbit the earth in 24 hours.
Take the sun for example, the ancient Greeks said that the sun was only about 3,000,000 miles (4,828.032 km) from the earth. This was the number given by Ptolemy and the great Arab astronomer al-Battani. Even Copernicus in his book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. gives the number at about 3,000,000 miles. The rotating earth people stuck a 9 in front of the 3 and with this mathematical sleight of hand we have a sun whose distance from the earth is exaggerated 30 times!!
ONCE MORE ON GEOCENTRISM WITHOUT THE FET:
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
2. HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).
This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.
3. Now, if we assumed that the ancient Greeks and Copernicus were much closer to the truth (regarding the Earth-Sun distance) than the contemporary astronomers, what would be the alleged speed of the Sun around the Earth? The answer is 780 000 miles per hour = 1 250 000 km per hour....
4. Now, if we assumed that the contemporary astronomers are much closer to the same truth than the ancient astronomers and Copernicus were, what would be the alleged speed of the Sun around the Earth? The answer is 24 000 000 miles per hour = 38 000 000 km per hour!
Would we notice such a tremendous speed of the Sun in the sky? You bet we would!
What is the consequence of all this? THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!
1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.
4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.
5. By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, the entirety of astrology, a science of consciousness coveted and used obsessively by the elite, is made null and void. If the Earth is the center of the Universe and all the planets (ancient gods) revolve around us, then birth charts, alignments, and astrology are measurable, calculable, repeatable, and thus scientifically verifiable. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then astrology disappears into the realms of pseudo-science believed by our ignorant ancestors.
Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate the 5 above facts with the next fact (no. 6):
6. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour
6a. It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
If you have forgotten how it looks like when the wind blows JUST 260 miles per hour: (http://)
Every heliocentrists should spend one whole day spinning like this: (http://)
Next exercise for heliocentrists: (http://)
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Don't forget : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18
Then spake Joshua to JEHOVAH in the day when JEHOVAH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
And there was no day like that before it or after it, that JEHOVAH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for JEHOVAH fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14).
-
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.
You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
-
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.
You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
Well, we are all eager to see how is it possible...
-
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.
You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
It is strange that even Wikipedia claims something else:
"In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)
-
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.
You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
Well, we are all eager to see how is it possible...
This is your hypothetical geocentric untilted round earth. You can see how midnight sun can be seen at poles depending on the time of the year. So even if the Earth was untilted in a geocentric universe, it would still be round. Your argument shows clearly how your lack of imagination leads you to such ignorance.
(http://s12.postimg.org/3pzbwa12l/geo1.png)
(http://s2.postimg.org/jwh029tnt/geo2.png)
-
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
@ Saros, if i were Obama or Putin or Mao Zedong or Kim Jong Un, i would give an order according to which all heliocentrists should spend one whole day enjoying like this: (http://)
Saros, what do you think, what would happen with the ratio between: A) Number of HC women before one whole day Myrtle Beach exercising & B) Number of HC women after enjoying a whole day Myrtle Beach exercise?
A huge number of conversions (to Flat Earthism) would occure, i suppose, don't you think so? ;D
-
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.
-
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.
Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)and you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."
Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.
-
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.
Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)and you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."
Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.
Saros, that is in reference to the ecliptic plane which applies to heliocentrism. The Wikipedia article isn't implying what is or isn't possible if the earth is geocentric. If the earth is fixed then one can't say it is tilted and if that is the case, then the sun just makes its own motion causing variation.
-
Speaking of which, cikljamas has referenced me a couple of times because I said that if the earth was not tilted then there would ve no variation in daylight. I hope my comment above cleared this up as I was referring to the heliocentric model. If the earth were not tilted and the earth was orbiting the sun then there would be no variation. If the solar system is geocentric though, then I don't see the problem. Of course the earth is tilted though. If it isn't, then I want to know what governs the suns movement on a round, fixed, geocentric earth.
-
Of course the earth is tilted though. If it isn't, then I want to know what governs the suns movement on a round, fixed, geocentric earth.
A geocentric earth is just hypothetical, you can't apply RE laws to understand the geocentric sun orbit.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)
Note that the only thing that can make the difference regarding different angles under which Sun's rays hit different parts of the Earth, is the alleged tilt of the Earth. If the Earth were UNTILTED and If the Sun went up or down (no matter if the Sun were 3 000 000 miles or 92 000 000 miles away from the Earth) for certain number of degrees, it wouldn't make any difference, Sun's rays would still hit the whole surface of the Earth evenly!
That is why the alleged tilt of the Earth is a holy grail of HC theory, and that is why i am saying very often that the Geocentrism (WITHOUT taking into account flatness of the Earth) is even much more outrageous theory than the HC theory itself!
The tilted earth probably came from Galileo as he looked through the telescope and saw that some of the planets were tilted in their orbits around the sun. A tilted EARTH could be an explanation for the seasons, he reasoned, as people were still apt to ask difficult questions about the reason for the seasons!!
Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)
Yes for Heliocentrism. But in order to have seasons in a geocentric Earth the sun's orbit would need to move between above and below the Equator, like this:
(http://s12.postimg.org/3pzbwa12l/geo1.png)
(http://s2.postimg.org/jwh029tnt/geo2.png)
-
Heliocentric "astronomers" greatly exaggerate the size of the solar system and the universe. They make the universe so big that it cannot possibly orbit the earth in 24 hours.
The universe doesn't need to orbit Earth in 24 hours. Earth only needs to rotate once every 24hrs.
1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
They would change a lot overnight on a flat Earth since we would be viewing them at different angles as the night progresses.
6a. It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour
Here's an experiment. Stand in one place, now spend the next 24 hours turning in a complete circle. Not a lot of rpm was there.
-
When ever I want some astronomy teaching, 16th century Protestant preachers are my go-to guys. :P
-
Do you remember this post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)
Let's take up where we left off:
(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole.[5][6] The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet's north pole and enter the magnet's south pole.
Well, how the above claim fits with the next assertion:
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)
Why is there only ONE location where this occurs if the North and South Magnetic poles are counterpart magnetic poles?
-
You lost me. Are you having issues with the fact that the magnetic north pole is in a different place than the geographic one?
-
Do you remember this post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)
Let's take up where we left off:
(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole.[5][6] The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet's north pole and enter the magnet's south pole.
Well, how the above claim fits with the next assertion:
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)
Why is there only ONE location where this occurs if the North and South Magnetic poles are counterpart magnetic poles?
The reason that there is only one point where compares point down is because there is only one north pole, that doesn't happen at the South Pole because it has a north magnetic field while the North Pole has a south magnetic field. In the North Pole compares point down and in the South Pole compasses point up, not down. The South Pole is opposite of the North Pole.
-
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.
As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
Does that answer your question?
-
Does that answer your question?
I dont think it was really a question as much as a mad rant.
-
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.
Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)
As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!
03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:
I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)
Here is the picture of his compasses:
(http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)
It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round? Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
-
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.
Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?
Are you seriously using wikipedia as the only source of your information? Because yes, wikipedia can be a lie, anyone can edit it. you know that right?
-
Many people consider the Encyclopedia Britannica the FINAL AUTHORITY on all scientific matters.
It's a good thing that none of those people are scientists.
-
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.
Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)
As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!
03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:
I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)
Here is the picture of his compasses:
(http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)
It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round? Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
-
Here is the picture of his compasses:
http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)
It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round? Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
It's not pointing directly through Earth at magnetic n. pole's geographic position on the surface, it's pointing north along the surface aligned with the magnetic field.
Do a google image search for 'Earth magnetic field', and maybe you figure it out, but I doubt it.
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
That is odd. I have a magnet and some button compasses. Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
That is odd. I have a magnet and some button compasses. Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
That is odd. I have a magnet and some button compasses. Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.
The flat magnet and flat desk represent the flat Earth and its poles. When I flip the magnet over and repeat the experiment, all of the south pointers on the compasses point towards the middle. I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding.
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
That is odd. I have a magnet and some button compasses. Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.
The flat magnet and flat desk represent the flat Earth and its poles. When I flip the magnet over and repeat the experiment, all of the south pointers on the compasses point towards the middle. I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding.
The flat earth model as I understand it does not state anyone lives on the other side of the planet, we are all on the same side of this coin correct? So if you had two magnets, one with north one with south in the same place, as a flat earth with the poles in the same place would be, those magnets wouldnt know which pole to orientate towards, or they would orientate towards the nearest magnet always, which would be North, because if the south pole was on the bottom of the flat earth there would be literally no way for you to ever be closer to it than the north pole.
-
Actually, forgive me, I see the point you are making. I forgot my basic compass composition. For whatever reason I was deciding that the compass would want to orientate to south if it were closer to it. Carry on.
-
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.
Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)
Not in this case; what you quoted sounds pretty much like what I was saying. How do you think it's different? As already noted, Wikipedia is crowd sourced - anyone can make entries - so it's not infallible.
As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!
03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:
I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)
Here is the picture of his compasses:
(http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)
Those Bruntons and Suuntos are nice compasses. Apparently they work well at about -45° magnetic inclination. I'm not surprised, but it's good to see. For reference, the USA is at about +60° magnetic inclination, so, if anything, this was easier for those compasses.
It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round?
Sure. The compass needle lines up with the magnetic field lines, which (by convention) "emerge" from the surface in the southern (magnetic) hemisphere, follow a curved path toward the north magnetic pole, and dive back into the surface in the north (magnetic) hemisphere. Here's a picture from a Google search on magnetic field lines earth and scrolling through the myriad of images offered[nb]Note that the "bar magnet" inside the Earth representing the source of the Earth's magnetic field in the illustration has its S end in the northern hemisphere. Because of this the N pole of your compass needle points to the north, toward this end of the "bar magnet".[/nb].
(http://newton.cnice.mec.es/materiales_didacticos/magnetic_field/images/Mundo.gif)
The mechanical compass needles shown are free to rotate in azimuth, but constrained from tilting too much vertically, so they align with the horizontal component of the direction of the field lines in the area, which are generally N-S in southern South America. The phone contains a magnetometer that can determine the orientation of the field lines in, possibly in 3D (and probably their intensity), and an app running on the phone displays this information as a conventional compass display.
Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
Same as it is everywhere except the poles themselves. North (geometrically) is 180° from south. In the picture, magnetic north is to the upper right (south to the lower left), in the direction the red ends of the needles are pointing. Geographic north is probably about 15° east of where the needles are pointing.
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
That is odd. I have a magnet and some button compasses. Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.
-
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets? If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other. The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?
It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
That is odd. I have a magnet and some button compasses. Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.
The flat magnet and flat desk represent the flat Earth and its poles. When I flip the magnet over and repeat the experiment, all of the south pointers on the compasses point towards the middle. I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding.
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
-
I'm truly astounded that after wading through the FE dross in this thread that they all seem to think that 21st century navigation still requires a device invented 2,000 years ago—the magnetic compass—to navigate around the earth or in the sky or wherever.
I can assure the FEs that the SatNav device in my car has no magnetic compass within its workings, nor do I even possess a magnetic compass. However, I can accurately find my way, in daylight or at night, from Melbourne to Darwin or Sydney to Perth without any form of map.
Now, most of the FEs will not believe this, and/or possibly not be aware of what a SatNav device is, or how it works. So that research can be their homework for tonight. And don't forget the apple.
-
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.
Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole.[5][6] The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet's north pole and enter the magnet's south pole.
Well, how the above claim fits with the next assertion:
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole.
At a magnetic pole, a compass held in the horizontal plane points randomly, while otherwise it points nearly to the North Magnetic Pole or away from the South Magnetic Pole!!!
The strength of the field at the Earth's surface ranges from less than 30 microteslas (0.3 gauss) in an area including most of South America and South Africa to over 60 microteslas (0.6 gauss) around the magnetic poles in northern Canada and south of Australia, and in part of Siberia. Read more : http://web.ua.es/docivis/magnet/earths_magnetic_field2.html (http://web.ua.es/docivis/magnet/earths_magnetic_field2.html)
(http://i.imgur.com/lQzJR5x.jpg)
IS THERE ANYONE WHO CAN EXPLAIN HOW IN THE WORLD (IF THE EARTH IS ROUND) IN THE SAME CIRCLE THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD CAN BE SO DIFFERENT AT DIFFERENT LONGITUDES?
SOUTH AMERICA 0,3 GAUSS
SOUTH AFRICA 0,3 GAUSS
AND NOW:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0,6 GAUSS
NOTE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA IS EVEN MUCH MORE NORTH THAN SOUTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AFRICA!!!
THIS IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH RET!
ON THE OTHER HAND THIS IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH FET:
NORTHERN CANADA 0,6 GAUSS
SIBERIA 0,6 GAUSS
(http://i.imgur.com/u6yeYV2.jpg)
WHY IS THIS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH FET? BECAUSE NORTHERN CANADA AND SIBERIA ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME (ARCTIC) CIRCLE, AND THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE VALUES OF THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD BETWEEN NORTHERN CANADA AND SIBERIA!!!
BUT HOW WE CAN EXPLAIN SUCH HUGE DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA, SOUTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA???
If the needle is in a horizontal position (since "dipping needle" instrument is kind of a vertical compass) it means that the needle is in a perpendicular or vertical position on it's axis (on it's vertical line).
Since the needle is in a horizontal position in "dipping needle" instrument while we are on the equator it seems that the needle points to sky (see figure 87. in the first post), and not towards north magnetic pole.
In my diagram:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/8y3asv5c3z2by04mv3k.jpg)
you can see where (at what latitude) we should expect needle to be in a horizontal position (perpendicular to the vertical line of a "dipping needle" instrument). Somewhere in north Canada or north Sweden or north Russia, but not on the equator (as it is in reality).
In addition, on a globe acting of a "dipping needle" instrument would be in chaotic manner (increasing-decreasing-increasing etc...), but on the flat Earth we would expect linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle (of the needle) as we go away farther from north magnetic pole to south, and vice versa. And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth? Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/255947-post23.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255947-post23.html)
Dipping needle instrument:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/2p78dhgyv8fcxurtt12f.jpg)(http://www.zaslike.com/files/3unrvcsa9eutwbk0ox8d.jpg)
-
Please provide a flat earth map with field strengths.
-
And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?
On a globe, because that dipping needle would not 'act in a chaotic manner' when moved from the equator to the magnetic pole. Your diagram shows it trying to point at the spot on the surface where the magnetic pole would be, hence that 'increasing, decreasing, increasing' you theorize. That's not how it works. It aligns with the lines of the field, and therefore a "linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle". This has been explained a couple times now.
-
And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?
On a globe, because that dipping needle would not 'act in a chaotic manner' when moved from the equator to the magnetic pole. Your diagram shows it trying to point at the spot on the surface where the magnetic pole would be, hence that 'increasing, decreasing, increasing' you theorize. That's not how it works. It aligns with the lines of the field, and therefore a "linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle". This has been explained a couple times now.
Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!
-
What part of RET requires a constant magnetic field?
-
And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?
On a globe, because that dipping needle would not 'act in a chaotic manner' when moved from the equator to the magnetic pole. Your diagram shows it trying to point at the spot on the surface where the magnetic pole would be, hence that 'increasing, decreasing, increasing' you theorize. That's not how it works. It aligns with the lines of the field, and therefore a "linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle". This has been explained a couple times now.
Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!
No it does not.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/earth-magnetic-south-1800-miles-from-true-south-pole.jpg (http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/earth-magnetic-south-1800-miles-from-true-south-pole.jpg)
The magnetic south pole is pretty far offset from the true south pole.
-
Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!
I have noticed that your assumptions on how a round earth should behave are always baseless.
-
Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!
I have noticed that your assumptions on how a round earth should behave are always baseless.
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!
That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
1. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645652#msg1645652 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645652#msg1645652)
2. Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_lengthand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_lengthand) you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."
Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.
3. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645611#msg1645611 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645611#msg1645611)
4. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127)
5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
The most important ancient document describing Hebrew cosmology is 1 Enoch (sometimes called the Ethiopic Book of Enoch), one of those long, disjointed, scissors and paste jobs beloved by ancient scribes. For a dozen or so centuries, European scholars knew 1 Enoch only from numerous passages preserved in the patristic literature. In 1773, the Scottish adventurer James Bruce found complete copies in Ethiopia.
Numerous manuscripts of 1 Enoch have since been found in Ethiopian monasteries. Turn of the century scholars concluded that parts of the book are pre-Maccabean, and most (perhaps all) of it was composed by 100 B.C. [Charles, 1913]. These conclusions were largely vindicated when numerous fragments of 1 Enoch were found among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. There have been two major English translations of 1 Enoch, the 1913 translation of R. H. Charles and the 1983 translation by E. Isaac. All of the quotations that follow come from the newer translation.
The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:
There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder, therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and Church Fathers [1986, 10].
First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in 2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery (or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion” as follows:
It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: “I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15).”
The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.
First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.
The Ends of the Earth
The angel Uriel guided Enoch in most of his travels. They made several trips to the ends of the earth, where the dome of heaven came down to the surface. For instance, Enoch says:
I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1 Enoch 33:1-2).
(The sharp-eyed reader will note what I suspect is an editing error in the Isaac translation. The earth resting on the heaven makes no sense. R. H. Charles has “whereon the heaven rests.”)
Again, Enoch says, “I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2).” This accords well with Jeremiah 51:16 which says, “he brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses.” In subsequent chapters, Enoch journeys “to the extreme ends of the earth” in the west, south, and east. In each place he saw three more “open gates of heaven.”
There were other things to be seen at the ends of the earth. Earlier, we deferred discussion of the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” On several occasions when Enoch and the angel are out beyond the dome of heaven, Enoch comments that there is nothing above or below. For instance, “And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place (1 Enoch 21:1-2).” Could this be the kind of nothingness referred to in Job?
An angel also showed Enoch the storerooms of the winds (18:1) and the cornerstone of the earth (18:2).
The Sun and Moon
And what of the sun and moon? Psalm 19:4-6 (quoted earlier) suggest that the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. Enoch expands upon this idea. In 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they return...” Further, “they keep faith one with another: in accordance with an oath they set and they rise.”
Enoch discusses the solar and lunar motions at length, explaining why the apparent azimuths of their rising and setting varies with the season. The explanation, found in the section called “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” begins thus:
This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).
From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.
*****************************************************************
IN USA today, as in Russia in '20s and NAZI Germany in '40s full scale campaign to create USA ALSO A BEAST NATION... no God... no right no wrong no up no down 2 added to 2 is whatever scientists say it is... Adults today either jailed or shot down... at own homes for even teaching their own children... GOD EXISTS and Right and Wrong exists!!!
The International Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous Society existing on the world today. It began with the Creation of the Creation. First the water...the face of the deep...without form or limits...just Water. Then the Land sitting in and on the Water, the Water then as now being flat and level, as is the very Nature of Water. There are, of course, mountains and valleys on the Land but since most of the World is Water, we say, "The World is Flat." Historical accounts and spoken history tell us the Land part may have been square, all in one mass at one time, then as now, the magnetic north being the Center. Vast cataclysmic events and shaking no doubt broke the land apart, divided the Land to be our present continents or islands as they exist today. One thing we know for sure about this world...the known inhabited world is Flat, Level, a Plain World.
We maintain that what is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of jibberish theory-theology...unrelated to the real world of facts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars, airplanes and other Real and Good things in life; technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science. The Wright brothers said: "Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we invented the airplane." By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth.
Our Society of Zetetics have existed for at least 6,000 years, the extent of recorded history. Extensive writing from 1492 b.c. We have been and are the Few, the Elite, the Elect, who use Logic Reason are Rational. Summed up, we are Sane and/ or have Common Sense as contrasted to the "herd" who is unthinking and uncaring. We have absorbed the Universal Zetetic Society of America and Great Britian, ZION U.S.A., the work of Alexander Dowie 1888, Wilber Glen Voliva 1942, Samuel Shenton, Lillian J. Shenton of England 1971. Zetetic: from Zeto, to seek and search out; Prove, as contrasted to theoretic which means to guess, to hope, to suppose, but NOT to 'prove'. Science 'proves' earth a 'ball' by 'scripture' words. We PROVE earth Flat by experiment, demonstrated and demonstrable. Earth Flat is a Fact, not a 'theory'!
Our aim is not to 'disturb the herd' or wreck the Government, but rather to be an aid to the Elite Human Being in coming to KNOW earth flat...to then FREE his or her mind from such blind unreasoning 'theory-superstition' and so go on "to carefully observe...think freely...rediscover forgotten facts and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions." As Sir Fields, owner of newspapers in England, has said about us, "They are the Last pocket of individual Thinkers in English speaking world."
-
Earth Flat is a Fact, not a 'theory'!
At least we agree on this point LOL. A "theory" is supported by peer-reviewed, empirical scientific evidence.
Any notion of a flat earth barely even qualifies as a working hypothesis. And a notion is nothing more than a vague or imperfect idea, or an abstract conception.
And until—if ever—the flat earthers can provide any empirical evidence supporting their notions, the idea of a flat earth will remain forever a quaint curiosity from the Dark Ages of scientific history.
-
You are not able to [...]
The first part of your post has been answered in that thread. There is no point bringing your lost cause into here as well. The second part of your post is simply too biblical, I don't buy it at all. Sorry.
-
Cikljamas off topic biblical spew puts the lie to the "This forum is strictly moderated!" guff on the header.
-
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!
That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
Wow... you posted a copypasta with multiple links to previous copypastas, linking to even more copypastas, with other links to copypastas on other sites... all of which are your own.
You might just be on par, or a step above, Sandokhan after all. :o
-
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!
That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
Wow... you posted a copypasta with multiple links to previous copypastas, linking to even more copypastas, with other links to copypastas on other sites... all of which are your own.
You might just be on par, or a step above, Sandokhan after all. :o
I personally find cikljamas better than sandokhan. At least cikljamas makes an effort to draw diagrams, scan and upload them to help us in visualising his idea better.
-
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!
That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
Wow... you posted a copypasta with multiple links to previous copypastas, linking to even more copypastas, with other links to copypastas on other sites... all of which are your own.
You might just be on par, or a step above, Sandokhan after all. :o
I personally find cikljamas better than sandokhan. At least cikljamas makes an effort to draw diagrams, scan and upload them to help us in visualising his idea better.
LOL, that reminds me of this comic (http://xkcd.com/978/).
-
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.
What makes you so sure of this?
-
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.
What makes you so sure of this?
Are you claiming that the (flat earth's) magnetic field doesn't weaken as one approaches more southerly latitudes?
The magnitude of the earth's magnetic field—measured at its surface—ranges from 0.25gauss to 0.65gauss across the planet. How can you explain this difference, and can you tell me roughly what the field strength is in (say) Australia and in Alaska?
-
I have not personally measure the flux density at every location across the world. I am fairly sure that you have not either. I simply posted a picture of a cheap experiment that I conducted that shows that it is possible for compasses to work on the flat Earth.
-
I have not personally measure the flux density at every location across the world. I am fairly sure that you have not either. I simply posted a picture of a cheap experiment that I conducted that shows that it is possible for compasses to work on the flat Earth.
Okay jroa... I'll attempt to address yet another of your disingenuous posts.
Of course I don't expect that you have measured the flux density across the entire planet—and I never even suggested that you should've. Please don't put words in my mouth. And also logically, neither have I. That's just as silly.
This doesn't preclude either of us sourcing and citing scientists who have however (as I did). So all I'm asking you is to cite references for the flux in those two pretty large countries. Or are you unable to even do that?
It's also impossible to realistically "show" how a magnetic compass would work on a flat earth for the simple reason you have no flat earth model to work with. This means, at best, you're only guessing.
And at the same time you've neatly avoided addressing the varying planetary flux strengths alluded to by me, mikeman7918 and sokarul.
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can. I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up. Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.
No you didn't. And you cannot, however hard you try. You obviously missed this part of my comment: "It's also impossible to realistically "show" how a magnetic compass would work on a flat earth for the simple reason you have no flat earth model to work with. This means, at best, you're only guessing".
You also need to know that toroidal and/or disc magnets are manufactured with specific polarities (N-S) which can differ from two apparently physically similar magnets. All circular magnets have a distinct, fixed north and south poles.
-
What? All magnets have two poles. Another poster was confused about how magnets and compasses work, so I performed a simple experiment to show him. What exactly is your problem?
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can. I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up. Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can. I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up. Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
Are you asking for a 1:1 scale? Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
-
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
-
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
-
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment. If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.
You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.
-
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment. If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.
You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.
All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...
There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:
There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”
The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth, no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric Parallax.” . . If that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles. Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point; and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See diagram 13.) It would be as reasonable to say that all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.
In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can. I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up. Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
Are you asking for a 1:1 scale? Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
Why would I want 1:1 scale? We already had this conversation. I wanted the experiment done with scale distances related to the size of the magnet. You could also put compasses to represent the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn along with the equator.
-
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment. If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.
You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.
All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...
There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:
There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”
The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth, no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric Parallax.” . . If that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles. Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point; and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See diagram 13.) It would be as reasonable to say that all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.
In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
By the way, I totally know what I am doing with this experiment. What I plan on doing with the data is I will make some digital 3D models, one of a flat Earth and one of a round Earth, and it's mathematical impossible for the results to agree with both models assuming that light moves in a strait line and not like a drunk mouse.
As for the video that you linked me to, the effect that is mentioned that would happen if the Earth orbited the sun, AKA stellar parallax, is observed. It is usually just a few ark seconds (1 ark second = 1/2600 of a degree), and that's just tiny. It has been measured, but it's a tiny effect.
-
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment. If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.
You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.
All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...
There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:
There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”
Are you suggesting that mikeman's experiment is invalid unless it compensates for solar parallax on the order of seconds of arc? The participants will be doing well to get measurements on the order of 1 degree, maybe better if everything is very carefully measured, level, and plumb. If the participants are widely spaced, covering many degrees distance, degree-accuracy should be sufficient to deduce the overall shape and size of the earth.
The instruments available in Tycho Brahe's time were too crude to measure stellar parallax - it's too small because of the very large distances to even the nearest stars. If Tyco really said that [citation needed], it may have been true then, but it's obsolete now that instrumentation has vastly improved. You keep bringing this up. It's still irrelevant. Please stop.
You (yes, you!) can check some things instead of just parroting them here if you know anything about what they're trying to talk about. When your source gives the degree spacing as "about three-quarters of an inch" and then goes on to describe the length on the vernier circle to represent 0.31 seconds of arc, to five digits of precision, that's a clue that he's not particularly competent in the subject.
If the vernier circle is, in fact, six feet diameter, then its circumference would be pi * 6 ft * 12 in/ft, or about 226.2 inches. 226.2 inches/360° = 0.628 inches per degree, or just barely over 5/8 inch degree spacing, an error of about 1 part in 6 compared to "three-quarters of an inch". To actually have 3/4" degree spacing, the vernier circle would have to be more than seven feet in diameter.
OK, 0.628 in/deg rounded to the nearest quarter degree is three-quarters inch per degree, but just barely, and there's no real problem with that. The problem your source then takes this 0.75 inch/degree as exact, divides by 3600 seconds/degree and then divides by exactly 0.31 seconds to come up with 0.0000645833 inches which, inverted, is the exact-sounding 1/15484 of an inch. It may be exact sounding, but it's about 16% off.
Your quote looks like drivel that is supposed to sound "scientific".
The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth,
Citation needed.
no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric Parallax.” . .
Citation needed.
If that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles.
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?
[Spoiler] It's just arm waving and technical-sounding words. It doesn't mean a damn thing.
Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point;
No shit. Has anyone who knows what he's talking about ever said it would?
and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See diagram 13.) It would be as reasonable to say that all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.[/i]
No one who knows what he's talking about suggests the stars are perpendicular to the center of the Earth - because that has no meaning. Nor have they said the stars are necessarily perpendicular to, or tangent to, or any fixed angle to the surface of the earth.
Have you ever looked at the hub of a bicycle wheel? The spokes are almost tangent to the hub - they don't radiate straight out from it.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/BicycleWheelHub_zps665705b5.jpg)
This whole argument is a complete strawman and totally ludicrous.
In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : <url to some youtube video>
-
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?
I would say that an author wanted to say something like this:
From the pen of one another author:
...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)
From the pen of one another author:
I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:
-He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."
Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis. The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.
I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.
I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":
(http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg)
And i can corroborate that above words of our second author are really true!
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, α 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 α 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)
-
I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.
Probably too busy laughing and shaking his head.
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.
I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":
http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg)
If you're viewing a polar star, you're turning with Earth's rotation. I'm not sure what remaining stationary while rotating the pipe away from you is supposed to prove.
http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge of photography. You also apparently never tried the experiment I suggested a while back to do with your camera.
-
The Earth is 8 light minutes from the sun, but the closest star is about 5 light years. The closest star is over 300,000 times further from the Sun then the Earth is, and that is just the closest star, many of the stars that we see are 50 or more light years away. Even the closest star at about 5 light years away and according to some simple trigonometry the anual parallax is about 0.0001 degrees. Stellar parallax is tiny, the only way it can be measured is with the precision instruments that are in the hands of those that you claim are in on the conspiracy. Just because I can't observe it with my hobbyist telescope doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
Challenge accepted.
(http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg)
(http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif)
What do you have to say now?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
Challenge accepted.
http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg (http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg)
http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif (http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif)
What do you have to say now?
Yeah, this is too easy. Shot this a while back driving through town. I'll get a better one next time, with a cleaner windshield and my newer camera that does longer exposures.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/intownatnight_zps767914b7.jpg)
-
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?
I would say that an author wanted to say something like this:
From the pen of one another author:
...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?
From the pen of one another author:
I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:
-He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."
Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis. The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.
I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.
It sounds like the writer didn't understand the purpose of the cart-wheel experiment. If the astronomer was well known, I'm sure he got a lot of letters from cranks.
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.
I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":
(http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg)
And i can corroborate that above words of our second author are really true!
"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!
But, hey! At least you're trying experiments. Good on you for that.
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″)
Lyra is a constellation, not a star - the author is no doubt referring to the bright star Vega in the constellation Lyra. Errors like this cast doubt on the competence of the author in the subject at hand. A real astronomer simply would not make an error like this; a gadfly trying to sound presumptuous would almost be expected to.
How many times have you brought this up? Stellar parallax was simply too small to measure with the instruments available in Tyco's time. Stars are too far away!
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, α 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 α 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.
The unit of length one Parsec (parallax-second, abbreviated pc) represents the distance where a baseline equal to one AU (average radius of earth's orbit) will produce one second of parallax. 1 pc is about 3.26 light years. Alpha Centauri is now estimated to be at a distance of about 1.34 pc based on a measured parallax of 0.747 seconds of arc. The measurement above puts it at just barely over 1 pc. Distance in pc = 1 / parallax in seconds.
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."
A much more precise way to determine parallax is to measure the apparent motion of a star against much more distant stars in a photographic plate. Such techniques, not available in Herschel's time, eliminate most of the corrections and confounding factors listed above.
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.
See above. Most of these problems simply go away using different techniques.
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
-
Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
Or maybe that the ground itself would be blurry because it's 'moving' while the picture is being taken? He'll probably never address this, nor the pictures posted, only re-post the same thing again in a month or so.
-
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?
"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."
"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!
Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
Please don't be ridiculous!
A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.
Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???
Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...
I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!
Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
On top of that:
If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
-
Please don't be ridiculous!
A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.
Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???
Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...
I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!
Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
On top of that:
If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
About the effect of rotation vs translation, imagine that you drive a car on a motorway and look at a distant mountain. Even if you drive very fast in a straight line, the mountain seems to hardly move at all relative to you. But as soon as you turn your car even a by a little bit, you can see that the mountain moves.
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can. I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up. Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
Are you asking for a 1:1 scale? Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
Why would I want 1:1 scale? We already had this conversation. I wanted the experiment done with scale distances related to the size of the magnet. You could also put compasses to represent the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn along with the equator.
Let us know how that experiment works out for you. :)
-
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
Not crazy, just smart enough to understand that what is seen works quite well with a spherical Earth.
On top of that:
If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
The polar star and the circular trails around it would be higher above the horizon.
Also, look up the difference between 'time-lapse' and 'long exposure' photography, and let us know which one you're talking about.
-
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth. I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can. I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up. Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
Are you asking for a 1:1 scale? Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
Why would I want 1:1 scale? We already had this conversation. I wanted the experiment done with scale distances related to the size of the magnet. You could also put compasses to represent the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn along with the equator.
Let us know how that experiment works out for you. :)
Work is tough isn't it?
-
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?
"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."
Have you actually checked this for yourself - an attitude that seems popular with the supporters of the notion that the Earth is flat? I have. It's wrong.
Or, are you simply parroting (another popular term here) something you copied from some anonymous author? Was this Rowbotham again? If so, anonymous is better. Do you really think Sirius, Canopus, and Alpha Centauri appear to circle Polaris? They don't.
"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!
Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
Please don't be ridiculous!
A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.
Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???
Still confusing translation with rotation, I see. Here's an easy way to tell which is which: if you're referring to linear measure such as km, meters, miles, feet, furlongs, etc. (even if it's per second or other unit of time) you're referring to linear distances (or velocities). If you work with angles, such as, most commonly, degrees and, sometimes, radians, it's angles (if per second, angular velocities).
That said, to your "these 236 meters per second make a huge difference" and at the same [one second] "our time-lapse camera moves 30 km", I have to ask: make a huge difference in what? What angles have changed? How far away is what we're looking at?
Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
Thanks a lot. Note that in all these arguments I've never questioned your sanity or your intelligence, only your premises and conclusions. I don't think you're crazy or stupid, you're just wrong sometimes. It happens to all of us. The remedy is learning good information and how to apply it. It's not always easy, but usually easier than trying desperately to fit bad ideas to what we can easily see.
This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...
Again, it's the change in angle (due to the rotating earth wrt the stars) that causes the streaks stars make in a fixed (wrt earth) long-exposure photo, not the distance traveled.
I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!
This is true if the point you're observing is nearby. Try this with something, say, 30 miles away and report back. It's all in the angles, and they strongly depend on the distance to the object if you're moving laterally. They don't depend at all on the distance to the object if you're rotating instead of moving laterally.
Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
How far away is Polaris? How significant is 300,000,000 km (Wow!!! that seems like a lot!!!) compared to that? How "slight" is "slight"? Polaris does actually have measurable parallax, by the way, but it is, indeed, slight, because it's far away.
On top of that:
If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
None at all if it's stars that are circumpolar from 25 N. There will be those and a lot more stars that are circumpolar from the Arctic Circle, if that's the question you're asking.
-
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
Not crazy, just smart enough to understand that what is seen works quite well with a spherical Earth.
On top of that:
If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
The polar star and the circular trails around it would be higher above the horizon.
Also, look up the difference between 'time-lapse' and 'long exposure' photography, and let us know which one you're talking about.
I think he meant long exposure photography.
-
"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."
Yes; this is simply a cut 'n' paste from the flat earthers' hero Samuel Rowbotham. And it's completely erroneous—as is 99% of all Rowbotham's other pseudo-science. It never ceases to amaze me (and give me a good laugh at the same time) how flat earthers such as cikljamas blindly accept as truth the nonsensical 150-year-old ramblings of a snake-oil salesman in preference to 21st-century science.
Then again, every comment posted by cikljamas shows an inexplicable acceptance of combined quasi-religious/quack science beliefs rolled into one massively distorted world view. He seems to be totally out of touch with reality, or suffering from some major delusional disorder.
Unless he can comment with scientific logic and facts relevant to the 21st-century, the vast majority of his claims can be dismissed without further argument.
-
1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :
(http://i.imgur.com/iFiQp2D.jpg)
2. From a pen of one another author:
For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:
(http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg)
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!
Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!
4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127)
6. A movie clip : (http://)
Pay attention to this comment:
placeksue via Google + 6 months ago:
This is a PERFECT movie for those that want to know what TRANSHUMANISM is about.....YOU will be TRUMAN ....and the rest are your actors TODAY on CNN/FOX/presidents/queen/vatican.....but when they get rid of who they want and chip the zombie dumbied down DNA....voila....New World Order. I suppose for many they don't care....mostly because they are already zombies, they actually think their football, baseball, sports are REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well since they already are sleeping, its only for those that don't WANT to go to sleep with Bush Senior and company of nazi's
7. I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html)
8. WAKE UP!!!
9. If you still refuse to wake up, then i must admit that i am very curious about what would be your possible answer to this very question : Why are you still defending such a garbage of a theory??? Or should i let Brad Pitt to put a question to ausGeoff: #t=2m46s (http://#t=2m46s)
10. 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!"
Does this make any difference?
Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
If such was the conviction of Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of Pythagoras, and of Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth ? Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."
-
2. From a pen of one another author:
For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
Your concept about Polaris is mistaken. Polaris is not completely motionless in the sky. It has its own apparent orbit (it's the arc at the centre of the star trails below). If you can see Polaris through your tube all night while the Earth rotates then obviously it will remain visible in your tube throughout the year because the effect of Earth revolution is less noticeable than that of the Earth rotation.
(http://www.twilightlandscapes.com/Twilight_Landscapes/Star_Trail_-_NMSkies_Pole_files/NMSkies_StarTrails2.jpg)
4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
This is just a copy paste from ENaG right?
-
This is just a copy paste from ENaG right?
Of course it is. ALL of the rubbish that cikljamas posts is. I'm guessing he's not had an original thought in years, but hopefully for him that could change when he attains adulthood. We can all live in hope?
For anybody bringing 150-year-old pseudoscience to a nominally science-based 21st-century forum, it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight LOL.
-
1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :
http://i.imgur.com/iFiQp2D.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/iFiQp2D.jpg)
2. From a pen of one another author:
I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth.
3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:
http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg)
4. The following diagram will show the arrangement.
5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127)
6. A movie clip : (http://)
Pay attention to this comment:
7. I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html)
8. WAKE UP!!!
9. Or should i let Brad Pitt to put a question to ausGeoff: #t=2m46s (http://#t=2m46s)
10. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute
1. Can you explain the purpose of the remote controls.
2. The astronomers are correct.
3. Your equator is still in the wrong place.
4. Where is the diagram?
5. A link to more random stuff that has been addressed.
6. No.
7. Aliens are at least possible.
8. Ok.
9. What's in the box?
10. Lot's of stuff. Let's just go with the part about "a force more than sufficient to kill every everyone". Since you have gone to the effort of rigging up pipes to view through, here's another device you can make. Mount a ball onto a pole, but allowing it to be spun, with a rod coming off it with another smaller ball on the end of that. Spin the larger ball at a rate allowing the smaller ball to make one revolution per year. Might I suggest having a calender on hand to keep track of time. If, after only a few hours, you think the force upon the smaller ball is enough to kill everyone, let us know. Or keep spinning it slowly for a few more hours or days. Feel free to report back with results.
-
1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :
(http://i.imgur.com/iFiQp2D.jpg)
What is the purpose of this instrument? Why does the material it's made of matter?
2. From a pen of one another author:
For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period.
The field of view sighting through this tube with the observer's eye centered at one end would be just slightly over 1°. Polaris is currently at declination 89°19'40", or 0°40'20" = 0.672° from the North Celestial Pole (NCP)[nb]According to Stellarium, Polaris was more than 1° from the pole 100 years ago; in 1848 it was 1.5° from it.[/nb]. This means it would appear to have moved 1.34° from the original point 12 hours later. If we relax the requirement that the observer's eye be centered at his end, we can double the "field of regard" (the total field that can be seen, although not necessarily all at the same time) to twice the FOV, or just over 2°. In order for Polaris to be continually visible, the tube must be aligned close to the NCP and observer's eye must look through the tube at an angle[nb]Polaris could just barely skirt around the very edge when viewed from the edge of the author's sight tube early in the 20th century if it were exactly aligned to the NCP. When did this supposedly take place?[/nb]. Remember this.
The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations.
Argument from incredulity. What "practical calculations" are those?
Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
Nope. The author expects us to believe it's possible to discern parallax of much less than one second of arc using an uncalibrated sight tube with a FOV of about 1° and FOR of about 2°.
3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:
(http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg)
I'm not sure I see how that illustration is supposed to show much of anything. The equator is also mislocated; haven't we seen this before, and commented about it then, too? You keep reposting junk. Please stop.
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator [as what?] we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
Does that somewhat incoherent statement mean that Polaris, about 0.7° from the pole (41' is a bit less than 0.7°; where did 0.8° come from?) should be at culmination geometrically 0.7' above the horizon from the equator at the local stroke of New Year's Day? It's not.
Polaris has a geometric elevation of 0°21'29" (0.36°) at 2015/01/01 00:00:00 UTC from 0° longitude on the equator. Stellarium estimates its apparent (refracted) elevation to be 0°47'17" viewed from sea level at that location and time. At culmination (20:09:27, almost 4 hours earlier) , Stellarium predicts Polaris will have an apparent elevation angle of 1°03'54" at the equator and just barely be above the horizon at about latitude S 1°13' then.
Almost half a year later (1 July 00:00:00 UTC - not 1 June), Polaris is on the opposite side of the pole as it was at midnight Jan 1. about 30' below the horizon geometrically and 2' above it with refraction.
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!
Yes, seeing Polaris at all from 1° south latitude requires it to be offset from the pole. Atmospheric refraction alone isn't going to do it.
Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!
Polaris is not going to be visible from S 12° from within 50 miles of the surface. Period. Who said it was - other than some unattributed mid 19th-century newspaper article of questionable veracity?
4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
Has anyone tried to carry out the aforementioned experiment? How did they align the two tubes? What are their diameters? Do you remember the part above where a non-centered eye will cause the FOV to shift? What was done to eliminate this source of error? Do you know how far a star will appear to move at sidereal rate in 1 second? [ans: about 1/4 of one minute of arc, or about 1/240 of 1°] How closely coaligned were those two tubes again?
<re-hash and woo>
10. 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!"
Does this make any difference?
And you bring this old stuff up yet again. Debunked several times already. Please stop.
Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
If such was the conviction of Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of Pythagoras, and of Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth ? Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."
Citation needed.
-
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA)
The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
Let's take a closer look at above sentence and the meaning of these words.
If the Earth moved in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit, and even if we allowed that HC bull shit assumption (regarding "endless" distances of the stars) is true, what kind of change we would be able to observe in the sky, anyway?
1. This information comes from World Almanac. The distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years...
2. Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years
3. Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08. Located around 131 light years away from Earth
4. At magnitude 4.95. the dimmest of the seven stars of the Little Dipper is Eta Ursae Minoris. An F-type main sequence star of spectral type F5V, it is 97 light-years distant. It is double the Sun's diameter and is 1.4 times as massive and shines with 7.4 times its luminosity. Nearby Zeta lies 5.00-magnitude Theta Ursae Minoris. Located around 855 light-years distant.
5. The Orion nebula is located at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years
6. Casiopeia is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way.
7. The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation.
So, for example, Casiopeia constellation is 11 000 ly away from us, and the distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years, and while the Earth whirls in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit around the Sun there is no change in relative position of the stars (for the observer on the Earth) due to their very different distances from the Earth???
" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."
To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.
If you can buy this utter nonsense, go ahead, buy it, all i can do is to repeat once more: Not one sane person will ever buy this crap of a theory which is utter insult to the dignity of every man on the Earth!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
" HONEST AND NOBLE CONFESSIONS.
When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary and central position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we can ours, in adition to which they have the evidence of their senses, and SCRIPTURE and FACTS in their favour. WHICH WE HAVE NOT : it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system .... However perfect our theory may appear in our estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth that, IF OUR PREMISES BE DISPUTED AND OUR FACTS CHALLENGED, THE WHOLE RANGE OF ASTRONOMY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROOFS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.— Dr. Woodhouse, a late Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge."
Those who believe the plain and provable facts of the Bible are set down as lunatics, but the above shows where the lunacy really lies. John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the men of the modern astronomical school, although most of his followers do. In his Journal he writes :
"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth, some affirm it lo be only three, and others ninety millions of miles."
Gravitation is a clever illustration of the art of hocus-pocus—heads I win, tails you lose ; Newton won his fame, and the people lost their senses.
Lord Beaconsfield wisely said—"A subject or system that will not bear discussion is doomed." Both Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an " exact science," yea, according to them, " the most exact of all the sciences."
I shall just add the vigorous testimony of Gothe: "It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."
I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.
Parallax believed that the proved levelness of water would ultimately lea'd to the death of Modern Astronomy. He remarks, as follows, in his "Zetetic Astronomy," p. 362
" The great and theory-destroying fact was quickly discovered that the surface of standing water was perfectly horizontal Here was another death-blow to the universal ideas and speculations of pseudo-philosophers. Just as the ' universal solvent could not be preserved or manufactured, and, therefore, the whole system of Alchemy died away, so the necessary proof of convexity on the waters of the Earth could not be proved, and, therefore, the doctrine of rotundity, and of the plurality of worlds, must also die. The death is now a mere question of time."
-
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA)
This has been debunked in the same page. Stop bringing old stuff again and again.
The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
Let's take a closer look at above sentence and the meaning of these words.
If the Earth moved in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit, and even if we allowed that HC bull shit assumption (regarding "endless" distances of the stars) is true, what kind of change we would be able to observe in the sky, anyway?
1. This information comes from World Almanac. The distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years...
2. Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years
3. Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08. Located around 131 light years away from Earth
4. At magnitude 4.95. the dimmest of the seven stars of the Little Dipper is Eta Ursae Minoris. An F-type main sequence star of spectral type F5V, it is 97 light-years distant. It is double the Sun's diameter and is 1.4 times as massive and shines with 7.4 times its luminosity. Nearby Zeta lies 5.00-magnitude Theta Ursae Minoris. Located around 855 light-years distant.
5. The Orion nebula is located at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years
6. Casiopeia is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way.
7. The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation.
So, for example, Casiopeia constellation is 11 000 ly away from us, and the distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years, and while the Earth whirls in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit around the Sun there is no change in relative position of the stars (for the observer on the Earth) due to their very different distances from the Earth???
And if you had done your home work, you could have found the following analogy:
- Earth orbit diameter = 300 million km
- One light year = 9.5 million million km
So observing a star located 1 ly away from the moving Earth is like observing an object 31.5 km away while you move one meter!
If it is 68 or 210 ly then just multiply that by the same factor.
-
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA)
Read the replies. None of this is going to change. Please stop reposting this old stuff.
The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
Let's take a closer look at above sentence and the meaning of these words.
If the Earth moved in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit, and even if we allowed that HC bull shit assumption (regarding "endless" distances of the stars) is true, what kind of change we would be able to observe in the sky, anyway?
1. This information comes from World Almanac. The distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years...
2. Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years
3. Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08. Located around 131 light years away from Earth
4. At magnitude 4.95. the dimmest of the seven stars of the Little Dipper is Eta Ursae Minoris. An F-type main sequence star of spectral type F5V, it is 97 light-years distant. It is double the Sun's diameter and is 1.4 times as massive and shines with 7.4 times its luminosity. Nearby Zeta lies 5.00-magnitude Theta Ursae Minoris. Located around 855 light-years distant.
5. The Orion nebula is located at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years
6. Casiopeia is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way.
7. The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation.
So, for example, Casiopeia constellation is 11 000 ly away from us, and the distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years, and while the Earth whirls in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit around the Sun there is no change in relative position of the stars (for the observer on the Earth) due to their very different distances from the Earth???
This is very interesting. As you point out, even "near" stars and "deep sky" objects are far away, so they don't visibly move due to parallax from the Earth's orbit except when very carefully measured, and then the nearest ones are seen to move very, very slightly. How many times do you have to be told this? The proper motion of stars appears very small to us (because they are so far away) so they don't appear to move relative to each other except over vast periods of time. Because of this the constellations haven't changed shape appreciably over recorded history.
What in the list above disagrees with that?
You might want to check your distance to Cassiopaea, though. Like the other constellations, her stars are at varying distances from earth; Wikipedia says the nearest, η Cas (Achird), is about 20 LY away - closer than others you listed, but by no means the closest star. The bright radio source Cas A, a supernova remnant, is on the order of the distance you gave for the whole constellation. Perhaps that is what you meant?
Calling something bullshit doesn't mean it is. Why are you so angry?
<more stale quotes>
Already dealt with.
If you can buy this utter nonsense, go ahead, buy it, all i can do is to repeat once more: Not one sane person will ever buy this crap of a theory which is utter insult to the dignity of every man on the Earth!
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Your comment will be given all the consideration it deserves. Have a nice day.
<more stale quotes>
Parallax believed that the proved levelness of water would ultimately lea'd to the death of Modern Astronomy. He remarks, as follows, in his "Zetetic Astronomy," p. 362
" The great and theory-destroying fact was quickly discovered that the surface of standing water was perfectly horizontal Here was another death-blow to the universal ideas and speculations of pseudo-philosophers. Just as the ' universal solvent could not be preserved or manufactured, and, therefore, the whole system of Alchemy died away, so the necessary proof of convexity on the waters of the Earth could not be proved, and, therefore, the doctrine of rotundity, and of the plurality of worlds, must also die. The death is now a mere question of time."
"Parallax" [Rowbotham] believed a lot of things that were wrong. His book "Zetetic Astronomy" is Chock Full o'ErrorsTM and misinformation; relying on this book for anything other than its entertainment value is a mistake.
Alchemy died away because it was based on the wrong model - its foundation was that elements could be transmuted into other elements using chemical reactions. It failed utterly in its intended purposes, among them turning common metals into valuable ones, but served the noble purpose of being the predecessor to chemistry, and many of the former's careful lab experiments and observations became basis for the latter. Chemistry is based on a better model and has produced phenomenal results, including better living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry).
Little-known facts: Isaac Newton's day job for much of his life was alchemy. His much better known (and far more successful) work in physics and invention of the calculus was a sideline. In later life he was assigned to be Master of the Royal Mint, brought in to solve problems with counterfeiting, which he did successfully. Did you ever wonder why many coins have milled edges? Newton's idea. He's also credited by some with inventing paper currency while he was Master of the Royal Mint.
At any rate, alchemy died out because it wasn't based on a sound idea (even though Newton himself believed in it; he didn't know what we have learned since, and science will replace inadequate models with better ones, no matter who believed in the old one). The spherical model of earth does not have this shortcoming; this is continually and independently verified in many ways, so it's unlikely to die out anytime soon (if ever). If a better model is found, it can displace the spheroidal Earth, but to do that it has to explain all the observations already neatly explained by the current model at least as well, and at least some of them better. This will be a tall order, and nothing presented by those proposing a flat earth comes remotely close. How do sunsets work on a flat earth, again?
Have you considered typing less and reading and listening more? I'd suggest finding better material to read than long-debunked mid-nineteenth-century pseudoscience if you want to learn about life, the universe, and everything.
-
Have you considered typing less and reading and listening more? I'd suggest finding better material to read than long-debunked mid-nineteenth-century pseudoscience if you want to learn about life, the universe, and everything.
Unfortunately, if cikljamas were to do just this, his whole belief system would crumble in a matter of minutes. He seems to revel in living in the past, along with its antiquated science and ignorance of the universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. Bear in mind that in cikljamas's favoured period in science, radio wasn't invented, now were airplanes or radar or telephones.
The poor guy must be totally confounded by GPS, television, cellphones, DVDs, computers etc. I'm actually surprised that he's even been able to hook up with an ISP, and set up a router, and use a PC and keyboard—considering his absolute dismissal of 21st century science. Then again, it doesn't surprise me at all whenever rabid conspiracy theorists choose to conveniently ignore anything that's at odds with their conspiracy of the day.
And cikljamas doesn't actually type much himself. Zero original thought. Most of "his" comments are simply those of others collectively culminating in his regular tsunamis of copypasta.
-
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?
Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:
Noun: SHILL
A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
Act as a SHILL:
"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).
Fuck you NASA employees!
Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!
As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.
Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : (http://)
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : (http://)
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : (http://)
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : (http://)
HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
-
Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!
Particularly for providing unequivocal proof that the flat earthers have absolutely no idea about mathematics, astronomy, geophysics, astrophysics, jet propulsion and satellites, radio communications, astronautics, logic, or even common sense.
And I'd also like to offer special "thanks" to cikljamas for exactly the same attributes. Well done boys! Keep up the stupidity in 2015. ;D
-
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?
Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:
Noun: SHILL
A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
Act as a SHILL:
"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).
Fuck you NASA employees!
Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!
As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.
Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : (http://)
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : (http://)
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : (http://)
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : (http://)
HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
They are running scared of you. That's why the attacks on you are getting more frequent. The attempted ridicule of your work, almost to frenzy status by the usual suspects is, or should be telling to all who have the ability to use their heads.
Don't give up with these clowns. Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.
-
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?
Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:
Noun: SHILL
A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
Act as a SHILL:
"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).
Fuck you NASA employees!
Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!
As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.
Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : (http://)
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : (http://)
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : (http://)
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : (http://)
HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
They are running scared of you. That's why the attacks on you are getting more frequent. The attempted ridicule of your work, almost to frenzy status by the usual suspects is, or should be telling to all who have the ability to use their heads.
Don't give up with these clowns. Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.
Scepti, i don't give up, i am still here with you!!!
Great croatian singers sing just for you:
JACQUES HOUDEK - Christmas in New York (2011) : (http://)
CHRISTMAS WALTZ - TOMISLAV MUŽEK - VIP HNK CHRISTMAS CONCERT 2013 : (http://)
Marko Tolja & Olja'zz band - Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : (http://)
Special addition:
I'll be seeing you & Learnin' the blues sung by Tomislav Mužek : (http://)
Marko Tolja - A Song For You : (http://)
-
They are running scared of you.
Of course we are, he posted a Michael Bublé video.
Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.
;)
-
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?
Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:
Noun: SHILL
A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
Act as a SHILL:
"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).
Fuck you NASA employees!
Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!
As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.
Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : (http://)
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : (http://)
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : (http://)
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : (http://)
HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
They are running scared of you. That's why the attacks on you are getting more frequent. The attempted ridicule of your work, almost to frenzy status by the usual suspects is, or should be telling to all who have the ability to use their heads.
Don't give up with these clowns. Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.
Scepti, i would like to refer to your words by this question:
Why would president of the USA himself, subtly attacked Flat Earth Society?
Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’ : http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society)
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2804727/There-NO-climate-crisis-Man-global-warming-lie-not-backed-science-claims-leading-meteorologist.html#ixzz3MSnbX5js (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2804727/There-NO-climate-crisis-Man-global-warming-lie-not-backed-science-claims-leading-meteorologist.html#ixzz3MSnbX5js)
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". : http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence)
At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.
Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.
Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!
We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.
Read more : http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/ (http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/)
I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html)
-
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!!
You use such big words, too, and color them red to make them more convincing.
Can you provide a link to where this supposedly happened? Most of us think the only thing you have proved so far is that you don't think clearly; I'm certainly convinced of that! Do you consider ignoring rebuttals and requests for clarification "proof"? If so, then I can see why you would think you have "proved" a lot of things.
For instance, did you get a chance to check on this from your previous rant post?
"6. Casiopeia [sic] is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way."
A constellation's stars aren't at even approximately the same distance from earth, so this appears to be an error. Was it Cas A you were thinking of?
Any comments about the rest of the reply to that post? Do you see why the constellations won't change shape rapidly enough to be significant in only 5,000 years? Since you just moved on, does that mean you are satisfied with the reply and don't have answers to the questions?
There are several unanswered questions from the earlier parallel-tube post as well.
Is this how to "prove" something?
<wow!>
Happy Holidays to you, too!
-
Is this how to "prove" something?
This is how to PROVE something:
ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST:
A) Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
B) ZIGZAG ARGUMENT:
Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...
Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?
Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!
However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
Quote from: rottingroom on December 10, 2014, 10:50:21 AM
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.
How much??? How much is between SUNRISE and SUNSET? Fucking morons...
C) POLARIS ARGUMENT:
A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.
Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???
Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...
I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!
Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
- From a pen of one another author:
For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
D) NO ORBITAL MOTION WHATSOEVER:
Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
E) THE SHAPES OF "CONSTELLATIONS" DON'T CHANGE OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824)
F) GRAVITATION = GREAT ABSURDITY:
Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a “great absurdity."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.
But after so many years of “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments?
"Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”
If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.
Since the theories of Astronomical “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.
No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted.
The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”
All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed, no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!
Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth” truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.[/quote]
Happy Holidays to you, too!
Why i am not surprised with cognition that you don't celebrate Christmas as such?
Happy Holidays to you (from the bottom of my heart), too!
No hard feelings on my part, nor I hope on yours.
As for the proofs, they speak for themselves!
-
the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
No, you're confused and your diagram is wrong. This has been explained before.
A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.
Everything seen in a long exposure, or time-lapse (whichever one you're talking about, because I doubt you know the difference), show what would be expected of a round Earth.
Fucking morons...
No, you are.
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!!
Nope.
-
Fucking morons...
No, you are.
Thanks, Merry Christmas to you, too!
I am very sorry that i had to use such rude words, but you shills have left me out of options at that moment!
Nevertheless, Santa Claus is coming to town, bringing the gifts for you shills:
I hope that you will never forget this Christmas gift:
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)
So, what is wrong with above illustration?
Nothing wrong with an illustration, but something terribly wrong with both theories:
1. Heliocentricity : The Sun is not vertically above the tropic of cancer!!!
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/wPg6cyg.jpg)
ON WHAT BASIS YOU CAN CALL THIS ANGLE "A VERTICAL ANGLE", OR EVEN "ALMOST VERTICAL ANGLE"???
TYPICAL HC WARRIOR:
(http://i.imgur.com/7b28otx.jpg)
2. Geocentricity : The Sun is vertically above the tropic of cancer, but since the Sun is allegedly so far away, in this case the sun would be practically - vertically above every single point on the Earth!
On top of that: A geocentric theory is unsustainable for one another important reason: Even if we supposed that the Sun is much, much closer (if the Sun were (for instance) at the alleged distance to the Moon), there is no possibility for the Sun to follow curved parallel lines of the Earth's parallels (tropic of Cancer, tropic of Capricorn, Equator) WITHOUT the LITTLE help of one of the heliocentric holly grail assumptions: "THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH". But if we assume that the Earth rotates, then we don't talk about geocentric theory anymore...On the other hand if we cast out of our "equation" Earth's tilt, we don't talk about heliocentric theory anymore...
The only possible solution that remains is the Flat Earth Theory!!!
Shills, how many more flat cakes i have to throw in your round face, before you admit inevitable conclusion?
Shills never get enough of my cakes, i would say...
-
Fucking morons...
No, you are.
Thanks, Merry Christmas to you, too!
I am very sorry that i had to use such rude words, but you shills have left me out of options at that moment!
Nevertheless, Santa Claus is coming to town, bringing the gifts for you shills:
I hope that you will never forget this Christmas gift:
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)
So, what is wrong with above illustration?
Nothing wrong with an illustration, but something terribly wrong with both theories:
1. Heliocentricity : The Sun is not vertically above the tropic of cancer!!!
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/wPg6cyg.jpg)
ON WHAT BASIS YOU CAN CALL THIS ANGLE "A VERTICAL ANGLE", OR EVEN "ALMOST VERTICAL ANGLE"???
TYPICAL HC WARRIOR:
(http://i.imgur.com/7b28otx.jpg)
2. Geocentricity : The Sun is vertically above the tropic of cancer, but since the Sun is allegedly so far away, in this case the sun would be practically - vertically above every single point on the Earth!
On top of that: A geocentric theory is unsustainable for one another important reason: Even if we supposed that the Sun is much, much closer (if the Sun were (for instance) at the alleged distance to the Moon), there is no possibility for the Sun to follow curved parallel lines of the Earth's parallels (tropic of Cancer, tropic of Capricorn, Equator) WITHOUT the LITTLE help of one of the heliocentric holly grail assumptions: "THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH". But if we assume that the Earth rotates, then we don't talk about geocentric theory anymore...On the other hand if we cast out of our "equation" Earth's tilt, we don't talk about heliocentric theory anymore...
The only possible solution that remains is the Flat Earth Theory!!!
Shills, how many more flat cakes i have to throw in your round face, before you admit inevitable conclusion?
Shills never get enough of my cakes, i would say...
In trying to disprove RET you neglected to take into account it's namesake of the theory, the Earth is round. On a round Earth, up is a different direction depending on your location, meaning that despite the incredible distance and size of the sun it's only above one point on the Earth because there is only one point in Earth that has up facing in the exact opposite direction of the sun.
-
Thanks, Merry Christmas to you, too!
Merry Christmas.
I am very sorry that i had to use such rude words, but you shills have left me out of options at that moment!
Don't be mad just because your arguments are usually easily debunked.
Nevertheless, Santa Claus is coming to town, bringing the gifts for you shills:
I hope that you will never forget this Christmas gift:
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)
So, what is wrong with above illustration?
You have the sun in the wrong place in the lower half.
1. Heliocentricity : The Sun is not vertically above the tropic of cancer!!!
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/wPg6cyg.jpg)
ON WHAT BASIS YOU CAN CALL THIS ANGLE "A VERTICAL ANGLE", OR EVEN "ALMOST VERTICAL ANGLE"???
Vertical from whatever spot along the tropics or anywhere in between (depending on season and time of day) where the sun is directly overhead.
2. Geocentricity : The Sun is vertically above the tropic of cancer, but since the Sun is allegedly so far away, in this case the sun would be practically - vertically above every single point on the Earth!
No, this image you posted, http://i.imgur.com/wPg6cyg.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/wPg6cyg.jpg) , actually explains it.
-
This is how to PROVE something:
<bunch of old stuff that has already been shown to be wrong>
Not only is this not proof, it's not even correct, as already shown, sometimes repeatedly.
1. Heliocentricity : The Sun is not vertically above the tropic of cancer!!!
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/wPg6cyg.jpg)
ON WHAT BASIS YOU CAN CALL THIS ANGLE "A VERTICAL ANGLE", OR EVEN "ALMOST VERTICAL ANGLE"???
The arrow from the center of the Sun on the left image strikes the Earth normal to the surface at the Tropic of Cancer. That means it's vertical. Similarly the right image at the Tropic of Capricorn. How is this not obvious?
<off-topic image>
2. Geocentricity : The Sun is vertically above the tropic of cancer, but since the Sun is allegedly so far away, in this case the sun would be practically - vertically above every single point on the Earth!
Returning to the image above, since the rays from the Sun are parallel (because it's so far away) others arriving north or south (above or below in the drawing) of the one shown hitting the tropic, will strike the Earth at an angle, therefore the Sun is not vertically above the Earth at those points. The ray represented by the top of the yellow-shaded area just grazes the Earth at the left of the red-shaded Arctic region; it's on the horizon - no anywhere close to vertical - there. Why is this not obvious to you? The distances in that drawing are greatly distorted in that drawing - at the scale of the Earth (about 1" in my monitor), the sun should be several city blocks away to be at scale. Is that why it confuses you?
On top of that: A geocentric theory is unsustainable for one another important reason: Even if we supposed that the Sun is much, much closer (if the Sun were (for instance) at the alleged distance to the Moon), there is no possibility for the Sun to follow curved parallel lines of the Earth's parallels (tropic of Cancer, tropic of Capricorn, Equator) WITHOUT the LITTLE help of one of the heliocentric holly grail assumptions: "THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH". But if we assume that the Earth rotates, then we don't talk about geocentric theory anymore...On the other hand if we cast out of our "equation" Earth's tilt, we don't talk about heliocentric theory anymore...
The only possible solution that remains is the Flat Earth Theory!!!
<inane remark>
That last bit is nothing but unfounded speculation and incorrect assumptions. This does not constitute proof (or even evidence) of anything except, perhaps, your utter confusion.
Since your premise is wrong, there's no surprise your conclusion is wrong.
-
Poor old cikljamas doesn't seem to even understand what the two tropics represent, or why they're located where they are.
The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices—near June 21 and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21—the beginning of summer in the Northern hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern hemisphere, and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21—the beginning of winter in the Northern hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern hemisphere.
The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the earth which is inclined at 23.5º from the ecliptic plane.
I'm not sure as to why so many flat earthers are ignorant of even basic high school science. Maybe that single fact is why they're so easily convinced the earth is flat, despite veritable mountains of scientific evidence proving the opposite. Who can tell?
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
(http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
(http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
Earth's tilt is exadurated in that image, it's not really that extreme. It's 23.5 degrees, not 45 degrees.
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
(http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
I love this forum!
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
(http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
No. I don't think the Arctic Circle touches the Gulf of Alaska, either. Why does this matter to illustrate the principle? Do you really think schematic drawings are designed to be scaled?
The vertical blue line you drew that is tangent to the Earth at the line that represents the tropic in the drawing is perpendicular to the black dashed arrow representing a ray of light emanating from the center of the Sun. Since the ray is perpendicular to tangent to the surface (your blue line), it means the ray arrives from directly overhead - in other words, it's vertical.
But since you think this is an issue, what is the significance of red parallel you drew? Do you really believe the Tropic of Cancer is south of Hawaii, Cuba, and the Yucatan Peninsula?
Do you see why this doesn't really matter?
Out of curiosity, do you have Asperger's Syndrome or some other mild form of autism? I ask not to be mean or insulting; we have a nephew, now in his twenties, who exhibits almost all the published descriptions of Asperger's traits. He will obsess over mostly irrelevant details that, while he may be correct, have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of what was being said. He also has a single-minded pursuit of a topic he takes an interest in; come hell or high water, he would often keep returning to a point in a discussion long after it had been completed. Your discussions remind me of him. Knowing his situation made it a lot easier to get along with him (it had been very difficult at times) once we recognized that we needed to be utterly literal and exact almost all the time, or explain at the time when something was symbolic, approximate, or representative rather than literal.
So, here, you're right. In the diagram, the "Tropic of Cancer" looks pretty close to 30° N (New Orleans is exactly at 30°) instead of the more accurate 23.5° (approximately). But, it really just doesn't matter!
Nothing else about that post you disagree with? Are we done with that topic?
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
Wow, you've really confused yourself now.
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
Wow, you've really confused yourself now.
The poor guy is totally confused
-
Alpha2Omega, out of curiosity, are you completely freaked out or you just have some other mild form of autism? I ask not to be mean or insulting; we have a neighbour who everything sees upside down. He will overlook all relevant facts that, while he may be correct in some irrelevant details, these details have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of the whole matter.
Try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
Do you really think schematic drawings CAN'T BE designed to be scaled?
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg)
Nighty Night Heliocentricity!!!
-
Out of curiosity, are you completely freaked out or you just have some other mild form of autism? I ask not to be mean or insulting; we have a neighbour who everything sees upside down. He will overlook all relevant facts that, while he may be correct in some irrelevant details, these details have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of the whole matter.
Try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
Do you really think schematic drawings CAN'T BE designed to be scaled?
Watch this:
(http://Out of curiosity, are you completely freaked out or you just have some other mild form of autism? I ask not to be mean or insulting; [b][color=black][b]we have a neighbour[/b][/color][/b] who everything sees upside down. He will overlook all relevant facts that, while he may be correct in some irrelevant details, these details have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of the whole matter.
Try to find one ([b]just one[/b]) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
Do you really think schematic drawings CAN'T BE designed to be scaled?
Watch this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg)
Nighty Night Heliocentricity!!!
Does it ever cross your mind that this bloke might be the normal one.
-
Alpha2Omega, out of curiosity, are you completely freaked out or you just have some other mild form of autism? I ask not to be mean or insulting; we have a neighbour who everything sees upside down. He will overlook all relevant facts that, while he may be correct in some irrelevant details, these details have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of the whole matter.
Try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
Do you really think schematic drawings CAN'T BE designed to be scaled?
Watch this:
http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg)
Nighty Night Heliocentricity!!!
Lol, your understanding about latitude is wrong. No wonder you're so confused. Latitude is an angle you poor thing.
(http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/images/latlon400slice_3.gif)
-
Alpha2Omega, out of curiosity, are you completely freaked out or you just have some other mild form of autism? I ask not to be mean or insulting; we have a neighbour who everything sees upside down. He will overlook all relevant facts that, while he may be correct in some irrelevant details, these details have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of the whole matter.
Try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
Do you really think schematic drawings CAN'T BE designed to be scaled?
Watch this:
http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg)
Nighty Night Heliocentricity!!!
Lol, your understanding about latitude is wrong. No wonder you're so confused. Latitude is an angle you poor thing.
(http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/images/latlon400slice_3.gif)
I completely agree with Cikljamas that you guys are shills. There is no way you would believe so adamantly in round Earth after all the presented material unless you're here with an agenda. This is a FE forum, and you never ever contribute to it, always try to ridicule and derail the thread. Merry Christmas :)
-
I completely agree with Cikljamas that you guys are shills. There is no way you would believe so adamantly in round Earth after all the presented material unless you're here with an agenda. This is a FE forum, and you never ever contribute to it, always try to ridicule and derail the thread. Merry Christmas :)
Do you at least know what cikljamas is confused about?
-
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?
(http://i.imgur.com/jVUdeDa.jpg)
You see what i mean now?
This should clear up your confusion:
(http://i.imgur.com/bz9MNKK.png)
-
Cartesian, try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
(http://i.imgur.com/xb2Hfyc.jpg)
-
Cartesian, try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
(http://i.imgur.com/xb2Hfyc.jpg)
You got the meaning of latitude wrong mate. This should clear up your confusion:
(http://i.imgur.com/bz9MNKK.png)
And Merry Christmas !
-
Cartesian, the line of the tropic of cancer (in your diagram) is drawn 27 mm above the Equator, but it should be 17 mm above the Equator (measures are in accordance with how i see your diagram on my monitor)!
The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is 66 mm, so 66 / 3,8 = 17 mm (NOT 27 mm), am i right?
Marry Christmas to you, too!!!
-
Cartesian, the line of the tropic of cancer (in your diagram) is drawn 27 mm above the Equator, but it should be 17 mm above the Equator (measures are in accordance with how i see your diagram on my monitor)!
The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is 66 mm, so 66 / 3,8 = 17 mm (NOT 27 mm), am i right?
Marry Christmas to you, too!!!
Latitude is not about distance from the equator. It's the angle from the equator (23.5°). Check my diagram again, and find the two angles (tilt and latitude, both 23.5°). You need a protractor, not a ruler.
-
Alpha2Omega, out of curiosity, are you completely freaked out or you just have some other mild form of autism?
I possibly do; I tend to obsessively want to run topics that interest me completely to ground before moving on - far more than a lot of people. If that's why, it's mild enough that I don't get completely wrapped around the axle over insignificant details, and can function in social situations, so it isn't a problem.
I ask not to be mean or insulting; we have a neighbour who everything sees upside down. He will overlook all relevant facts that, while he may be correct in some irrelevant details, these details have no real significance in the discussion, while missing the overall point of the whole matter.
Now you're just funnin' us.
Try to find one (just one) diagram of the tilted Earth in which the line of the tropic of cancer/capricorn is drawn at the FOURTH part of the distance between Equator and North Pole!
Well, there's the one you provided. Can't say I've noticed any others.
The types of drawings like you originally presented showing the tilted earth, tropics (symbolically), sun, normal ray, etc. are designed to emphasize the point being made - in this case, tilted axis, parallels of the tropics with the direction of the vertical ray at the solstice that passes in at one tropic, through the center center, and out the other. They will often be exaggerated to make the relationship more clear. Thus, exaggerating the tilt a bit and placing the symbolic tropic at 30° (halfway up the axis) instead of 23.5° (about 40%) in this type of drawing isn't unusual at all.
90 / 23,5 = 3,829
Ah! That's where that 1/4 came from and why your tropic is also in the wrong place. You got the proportional distance along the circumference, not the "northing" distance (parallel to the axis) you need to show on your diagram. You want sin(23.5°) [that's the mathematical sine function, not the biblical "bad thing to do"], which is 0.399, or 40%, not the arc length (about 25% of the arc from equator to pole).
Do you really think schematic drawings CAN'T BE designed to be scaled?
I really think that isn't their purpose. Schematic diagrams are symbolic representations of systems and designed to enhance comprehension of how the system works. Accurate scale is not a primary consideration, if it's ever a consideration at all.
You're thinking of a "scale diagram", not a schematic.
Watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/2RtRZaU.jpg)
OK. This is an example of a scale drawing showing where you think the tropics should be (the parallel lines surrounding the equator), and where the sunlight would strike the Earth at a normal angle at the shown tilt (I presume that's a relatively accurate 23.5° since that's apparently your point).
Since the tropics are, by definition, the parallels of latitude where the Sun is vertical at the solstices, and in your scale drawing the vertical ray is landing well north of where you put the northern tropic, then, clearly, something is amiss. Your reaction is to start ranting "I've just shown that the heliocentric theory of the solar system is completely wrong!!!" instead of "hmmm... could there maybe, possibly, be a mistake in this drawing?" Unfortunately, it's the latter. Because your mind is closed, you will only consider the former.
Scale the length of a line between the equator and the point where the ray intersects the circle, in a direction normal to the equator (parallel to the axis). If your scale drawing is accurate, and if the angle of tilt is close to 23.5°, then that will be close to 40% of the distance between the equator and north pole along the axis, that's where the tropics are, and where the tropics should be in this drawing despite your protestations to the contrary.
Nighty Night Heliocentricity!!!
See. Wrong reaction. When you do stuff like this, please at least consider that you may have made a mistake.
-
Cartesian, the line of the tropic of cancer (in your diagram) is drawn 27 mm above the Equator, but it should be 17 mm above the Equator (measures are in accordance with how i see your diagram on my monitor)!
The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is 66 mm, so 66 / 3,8 = 17 mm (NOT 27 mm), am i right?
Marry Christmas to you, too!!!
Latitude is not about distance from the equator. It's the angle from the equator (23.5°). Check my diagram again, and find the two angles (tilt and latitude, both 23.5°). You need a protractor, not a ruler.
No, cikljamas. You're not right. Summarizing the long post here, you want to use
sin(Latitude) instead of Latitude / 90°
for linear distance from equator to pole.
sin(23.5°) = 0.399
0.399 * 66 mm = 26.3 mm, so 27 is about right (and shows why you really don't want to scale things off even scale drawings if you can help it).
-
Cartesian, the line of the tropic of cancer (in your diagram) is drawn 27 mm above the Equator, but it should be 17 mm above the Equator (measures are in accordance with how i see your diagram on my monitor)!
This is hilarious ;D . Try a protractor against your monitor instead of a ruler. Maybe try to gain access to a desktop globe even.
The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is 66 mm, so 66 / 3,8 = 17 mm (NOT 27 mm), am i right?
No, but you are funny.
Marry Christmas to you, too!!!
Happy Hanukkah and merry New year.
-
Bravo, you got that right. To be honest, this was joke from the beginning, i just wanted to see how fast you were going to solve this "problem"...
After i had crushed heliocentricity into pieces, better to say, into ashes and dust, i decided to play one little game with you, just for day or two, since you play the same kind of game with me all along. I believe that most of you (round heads) know very well, that this garbage of a theory (heliocentricity) is utter bull shit, but you will never admit it, am i right?
That is why we call you "shills", because you are shills indeed!
Well, sooner or latter, i expect of you to admit your utter wrongness in the same manner as i just have admitted my utter wrongness regarding this particular issue...
Haven't i told you that you will never forget this Christmas present?
Marry Christmas round heads!!!
If you want to see how one other guy had played similar game with some other guys, watch this:
(http://)
Mental defective league in formation...hahahahahah.....
@ Scepti, how do you like my sense for humor???
-
Bravo, you got that right. To be honest, this was joke from the beginning, i just wanted to see how fast you were going to solve this "problem"...
After i had crushed heliocentricity into pieces, better to say, into ashes and dust, i decided to play one little game with you, just for day or two, since you play the same kind of game with me all along. I believe that most of you (round heads) know very well, that this garbage of a theory (heliocentricity) is utter bull shit, but you will never admit it, am i right?
That is why we call you "shills", because you are shills indeed!
Well, sooner or latter, i expect of you to admit your utter wrongness in the same manner as i just have admitted my utter wrongness regarding this particular issue...
Haven't i told you that you will never forget this Christmas present?
Marry Christmas round heads!!!
If you want to see how one other guy had played similar game with some other guys, watch this:
(http://)
Mental defective league in formation...hahahahahah.....
@ Scepti, how do you like my sense for humor???
Very good. They play games all day long so it's only right they get a bit back. ;D
-
Bravo, you got that right. To be honest, this was joke from the beginning, i just wanted to see how fast you were going to solve this "problem"...
So then, which of your arguments are jokes and which are serious? Because they all honestly seem like jokes.
-
Bravo, you got that right. To be honest, this was joke from the beginning, i just wanted to see how fast you were going to solve this "problem"...
So then, which of your arguments are jokes and which are serious? Because they all honestly seem like jokes.
Aren't you able to discern joke from truth?
What would you think of me if i kept up the defense of the "trueness" of my joke although my joke is founded on obviously wrong argument?
Now, what any sane person can think about you and your "sanity" when you defend (at all cost) such obvious lie as HC theory really is?
When we call you "a shills", that is a huge compliment to you, because, weren't you a shills then you would be completely insane guys! (Mental defective league in formation...)
I hope that you realize now the true meaning/point of my joke that i have played with you.
So, don't worry, my Christmas present - (joke) is just one AND ONLY exception, all other arguments that i presented in this thread are absolutely true, relevant and irrefutable arguments!
And you know it, since you are not insane guys, you are just a shills!
Enjoy your holidays and stop enjoying your pretending lunacy!
@ 29silhouette, watch out, you are whirling 1000 miles per hour, you rush through space 67 000 miles per hour (in the orbit around the Sun), you are hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy, and you retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
And guess what, in spite all these unimaginable speeds to which you are submitted, you still don't feel a slightest breeze anywhere - around your round head!
And that is not all, what is absolutelly amazing is that you still don't see any problem with defending such a nonsense of a theory!
And Polaris still stands firmly FIXED in it's place, and the surfaces of all waters on the face of the Earth are still flatly flat!
Marry Christmas once more to all of you!
@ Scepti, do you know by chance, why i have to wait so long for pages on this forum to be opened? The speed of opening pages was much greater month ago...what is going on?
-
@ Scepti, do you know by chance, why i have to wait so long for pages on this forum to be opened? The speed of opening pages was much greater month ago...what is going on?
Don't worry it's not a problem on your part. It's this site, it's running extremely slow for all of us. It needs maintenance but there doesn't seem to be anyone around with access to do so.
There's a topic on it in announcements.
I seem to be able to type something - press post, go shopping, swimming, paragliding, skiing, then come back to the site just in time to see the post load in. ;D
-
@ Scepti, do you know by chance, why i have to wait so long for pages on this forum to be opened? The speed of opening pages was much greater month ago...what is going on?
Don't worry it's not a problem on your part. It's this site, it's running extremely slow for all of us. It needs maintenance but there doesn't seem to be anyone around with access to do so.
There's a topic on it in announcements.
I seem to be able to type something - press post, go shopping, swimming, paragliding, skiing, then come back to the site just in time to see the post load in. ;D
Skiing, is there snow in the UK?
-
Really? Get thoroughly proven wrong and then pull the "just trollin" card?
Thats a quick way to make it so no longer get responses, though I doubt you care. /shrug
-
And Polaris still stands firmly FIXED in it's place, and the surfaces of all waters on the face of the Earth are still flatly flat!
Actually, Polaris is moving within the Milky Way galaxy as well and was not always the pole star. It's just that it's far enough away that the movement relative to us is very slight. In fact, 5000 years ago Alpha Draconis was the pole star and in about 13,000 years, Vega will be the pole star.
-
Bravo, you got that right. To be honest, this was joke from the beginning, i just wanted to see how fast you were going to solve this "problem"...
So then, which of your arguments are jokes and which are serious? Because they all honestly seem like jokes.
Aren't you able to discern joke from truth?
What would you think of me if i kept up the defense of the "trueness" of my joke although my joke is founded on obviously wrong argument?
What would we think of you? The same we thought of you as you kept up the defense of the "trueness" of your arguments for your pipe aimed at polaris, long exposure photography, sun reversing it's path across the sky in the arctic, magnetic field dipping needle, 1000mph wind, water level, and rivers flowing into space, and some others I'm forgetting, all of which you have founded on obviously wrong arguments. Or were some of those actually also jokes for which you forgot to reveal?
Why would the latest, (for which you have dedicated time and effort into by making diagrams and such, all based on reasoning just as flawed as everything else you argue), suddenly be a joke? No, I think the others are correct. You actually realized you were mistaken, and are now trying to play it off.
-
Bravo, you got that right. To be honest, this was joke from the beginning, i just wanted to see how fast you were going to solve this "problem"...
So then, which of your arguments are jokes and which are serious? Because they all honestly seem like jokes.
Aren't you able to discern joke from truth?
What would you think of me if i kept up the defense of the "trueness" of my joke although my joke is founded on obviously wrong argument?
Almost everything you say is founded on an obviously wrong argument, yet you keep defending (and repeating, and repeating) a lot of it. The rest is just quietly dropped.
Now that something was so obvious that even you could see it, man up! It's better to admit you're wrong when you realize your error than to pretend it's a joke.
<lecture about how good it is to be a shill>
<Statement that we're traveling really really fast!!! Amazement we can't feel it!>
And Polaris still stands firmly FIXED in it's place, and the surfaces of all waters on the face of the Earth are still flatly flat!
First clause is clearly wrong. A moderately long-exposure photo will make that clear. No evidence in favor of the claim in the second clause.
No sanity clause in that at all. [Sorry... couldn't resist]
Marry Christmas once more to all of you!
Thanks! Happy Holidays, everyone!
-
@ Scepti, how do you like my sense for humor???
Has Sceptimatic shown you his frozen lake/laser experiment yet?
Very good. They play games all day long so it's only right they get a bit back. ;D
You should show cikljamas and Saros the evidence from your laser experiment. You'll put a damper on all us rounders once and for all with that info.
-
Really? Get thoroughly proven wrong and then pull the "just trollin" card?
Thats a quick way to make it so no longer get responses, though I doubt you care. /shrug
Haven't you noticed how your friends were throughly delighted after i throw before them one wrong, but absolutely insignificant argument (which intention was nothing else but to play a little game with them)?
But why they were so delighted? Because, from the beginning of this "joke-case", they were absolutely sure that i had pulled wrong card, only they haven't had a clue why i did it! Since they thought perchance i had lost my mind, their joy was tangible, we could almost touch it. So, you should ask yourself why we couldn't have felt ever before (before i gave them this Christmas joke wrapped as a present) such a joy and delight in their words?
Because they know very well that everything else that i previously brought forward in this thread was throughly true and they also very well know that HC theory is just a big joke from bottom to top, and nothing else but a joke!
Since they have lost every single battle with me, so far, they are eager to take control over at least one thing, no matter how insignificantly this could be, no matter if it is absolutely insignificant, pure joke.
So much joy over something so insignificant is the best proof of their absolute misery, and of utter wrongness of their insane HC religion...
Why shouldn't we enhance their happiness?
Christmas' joke was about the alleged Tilt of the Earth (HC holly grail), isn't it?
So, let them read something serious about this holly grail issue:
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:
- the alleged tilt of the earth's axis,
- the so called Copernican principle,
- positive stellar parallax,
- uniformitiy of the speed of light,
- lengh contraction
- time dilation
- denial of inertia (only accepting an imaginary and isolated "chosen" inertial frame of reference)
- the earth supposedly moving at a various speeds (in order to account for the observed eclipses)
Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun. What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos. It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies. As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact, but rather a metaphysical assumption supported by profoundly convincing ideas and theories.
For thousands of years, there was a prevailing geocentric view of the cosmos, in which the Earth was believed to be the centre of the universe. By looking up at the sky and seeing the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars moving about Earth along circular paths day after day, it seemed evident to ancient people that the Earth was stationary and the rest of the universe moved around it. Such a perspective was also in accordance with the God-centred worldview which maintained that a god or gods created us, and that there is a purpose to this creation.
The ancients were more than intelligent enough to understand that the same observational phenomena would be equally attributable to a rotation of the earth on its axis. So, why then was this perspective not adopted in ancient times?
“The simple truth is that the ancient world found it more plausible to believe that we were clearly the focus and centre of what we saw going around us”
The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), a brilliant experimental scientist whose measurements of the positions of the stars and planets surpassed any that were made prior to the invention of the telescope, proposed a model that attempted to serve as a compromise between the geocentric explanation and the Copernican theory. In this model, all planets except the Earth revolve around the Sun. In other words, the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
“The remarkable thing is that the Tycho system absolutely duplicates the observations we see in the sky just as the heliocentric system does. There is no visual distinction at all between the Tycho system and the Copernican system.”
“For two centuries the greatest scientists in the world tried to come up with an experiment that would measure that motion of the earth around the sun, that everyone almost knew was obviously occurring. But paradoxically, for two centuries every one of these experiments that tried to measure this universally assumed motion of the Earth around the Sun kept returning a value of zero for the motion of the earth, and this became a really big issue in science.”
Over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013. While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe. However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.
Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:
"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and others initially brushed off the strange finding as an artifact, and dozens of papers and reports followed trying to address the anomaly. But when the Planck results returned in March 2013, the alignment showed up in yet even higher resolution and detail, and has now been replicated across three separate missions, suggesting there is something more than an ‘artifact’ that is going on here.
“The thing that has really launched the media hysteria about our film, is that we are pulling the covers off the dirty little secret that not only is there structure, that structure is related in astonishing ways to one and precisely one location in the universe, and it happens to be us!"
So much about the alleged tilt of the Earth!
After you read above words, you should ask yourself what does it mean when you wish someone a MARRY CHRISTMAS!!!
-
Bold
Italics
Underline
Large font
Color
Just observe sunrise and sunset at different locations on earth to understand its shape.
-
Bold
Italics
Underline
Large font
Color
Just observe sunrise and sunset at different locations on earth to understand its shape.
Just observe this once more:
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:
- the alleged tilt of the earth's axis,
- the so called Copernican principle,
- positive stellar parallax,
- uniformitiy of the speed of light,
- lengh contraction
- time dilation
- denial of inertia (only accepting an imaginary and isolated "chosen" inertial frame of reference)
- the earth supposedly moving at a various speeds (in order to account for the observed eclipses)
Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun. What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos. It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies. As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact, but rather a metaphysical assumption supported by profoundly convincing ideas and theories.
For thousands of years, there was a prevailing geocentric view of the cosmos, in which the Earth was believed to be the centre of the universe. By looking up at the sky and seeing the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars moving about Earth along circular paths day after day, it seemed evident to ancient people that the Earth was stationary and the rest of the universe moved around it. Such a perspective was also in accordance with the God-centred worldview which maintained that a god or gods created us, and that there is a purpose to this creation.
The ancients were more than intelligent enough to understand that the same observational phenomena would be equally attributable to a rotation of the earth on its axis. So, why then was this perspective not adopted in ancient times?
“The simple truth is that the ancient world found it more plausible to believe that we were clearly the focus and centre of what we saw going around us”
The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), a brilliant experimental scientist whose measurements of the positions of the stars and planets surpassed any that were made prior to the invention of the telescope, proposed a model that attempted to serve as a compromise between the geocentric explanation and the Copernican theory. In this model, all planets except the Earth revolve around the Sun. In other words, the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
“The remarkable thing is that the Tycho system absolutely duplicates the observations we see in the sky just as the heliocentric system does. There is no visual distinction at all between the Tycho system and the Copernican system.”
“For two centuries the greatest scientists in the world tried to come up with an experiment that would measure that motion of the earth around the sun, that everyone almost knew was obviously occurring. But paradoxically, for two centuries every one of these experiments that tried to measure this universally assumed motion of the Earth around the Sun kept returning a value of zero for the motion of the earth, and this became a really big issue in science.”
Over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013. While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe. However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.
Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:
"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and others initially brushed off the strange finding as an artifact, and dozens of papers and reports followed trying to address the anomaly. But when the Planck results returned in March 2013, the alignment showed up in yet even higher resolution and detail, and has now been replicated across three separate missions, suggesting there is something more than an ‘artifact’ that is going on here.
“The thing that has really launched the media hysteria about our film, is that we are pulling the covers off the dirty little secret that not only is there structure, that structure is related in astonishing ways to one and precisely one location in the universe, and it happens to be us!"
So much about the alleged tilt of the Earth!
For additional clarification i suggest you to read this article:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html (http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html)
It's about this:
This Axis of Evil is aligned in astonishingly precise ways with:
1. The Galactic North Pole
2. The ecliptic plane
3. The equinoxes
The complete ensemble of such orientations being unlikely to a combined degree of approximately one in one hundred billion.
-
Bold
Italics
Underline
Large font
Color
Just observe sunrise and sunset at different locations on earth to understand its shape.
Just observe this once more:
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:
- the alleged tilt of the earth's axis,
- the so called Copernican principle,
- positive stellar parallax,
- uniformitiy of the speed of light,
- lengh contraction
- time dilation
- denial of inertia (only accepting an imaginary and isolated "chosen" inertial frame of reference)
- the earth supposedly moving at a various speeds (in order to account for the observed eclipses)
Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun. What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos. It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies. As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact, but rather a metaphysical assumption supported by profoundly convincing ideas and theories.
For thousands of years, there was a prevailing geocentric view of the cosmos, in which the Earth was believed to be the centre of the universe. By looking up at the sky and seeing the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars moving about Earth along circular paths day after day, it seemed evident to ancient people that the Earth was stationary and the rest of the universe moved around it. Such a perspective was also in accordance with the God-centred worldview which maintained that a god or gods created us, and that there is a purpose to this creation.
The ancients were more than intelligent enough to understand that the same observational phenomena would be equally attributable to a rotation of the earth on its axis. So, why then was this perspective not adopted in ancient times?
“The simple truth is that the ancient world found it more plausible to believe that we were clearly the focus and centre of what we saw going around us”
The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), a brilliant experimental scientist whose measurements of the positions of the stars and planets surpassed any that were made prior to the invention of the telescope, proposed a model that attempted to serve as a compromise between the geocentric explanation and the Copernican theory. In this model, all planets except the Earth revolve around the Sun. In other words, the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
“The remarkable thing is that the Tycho system absolutely duplicates the observations we see in the sky just as the heliocentric system does. There is no visual distinction at all between the Tycho system and the Copernican system.”
“For two centuries the greatest scientists in the world tried to come up with an experiment that would measure that motion of the earth around the sun, that everyone almost knew was obviously occurring. But paradoxically, for two centuries every one of these experiments that tried to measure this universally assumed motion of the Earth around the Sun kept returning a value of zero for the motion of the earth, and this became a really big issue in science.”
Over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013. While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe. However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.
Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:
"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and others initially brushed off the strange finding as an artifact, and dozens of papers and reports followed trying to address the anomaly. But when the Planck results returned in March 2013, the alignment showed up in yet even higher resolution and detail, and has now been replicated across three separate missions, suggesting there is something more than an ‘artifact’ that is going on here.
“The thing that has really launched the media hysteria about our film, is that we are pulling the covers off the dirty little secret that not only is there structure, that structure is related in astonishing ways to one and precisely one location in the universe, and it happens to be us!"
So much about the alleged tilt of the Earth!
For additional clarification i suggest you to read this article:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html (http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html)
It's about this:
This Axis of Evil is aligned in astonishingly precise ways with:
1. The Galactic North Pole
2. The ecliptic plane
3. The equinoxes
The complete ensemble of such orientations being unlikely to a combined degree of approximately one in one hundred billion.
The probability that you or me would exist in our exact form with our exact genetic code is even more unlikely then that, what's your point? Unlikely things can happen, for example, one time I met my friend that I knew through the internet in the lobby of a game that anyone in the world with that game could have joined, and against all odds it was him. Do you see what I mean, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it's impossible.
-
Bold
Italics
Underline
Large font
Color
Just observe sunrise and sunset at different locations on earth to understand its shape.
Just observe this once more:
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:
<Obviously another "joke">
So much about the alleged tilt of the Earth!
For additional clarification i suggest you to read this article:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html (http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html)
It's about this:
This Axis of Evil is aligned in astonishingly precise ways with:
1. The Galactic North Pole
2. The ecliptic plane
3. The equinoxes
The complete ensemble of such orientations being unlikely to a combined degree of approximately one in one hundred billion.
The "astonishingly precise" alignments are more like "kinda sorta", and some of those are a stretch, but interesting, nonetheless, if they're true. The linked blog mentions further studies, but doesn't give any actual citations. Any follow-up in Astronomy Magazine, the main source for this blog or, better, peer-reviewed journals?
The article from the December, 2007 issue of Astronomy linked from the blog is certainly a major improvement over the sort of references your sources relied on in the past, so there's a win. Do keep in mind, though, that Astronomy is trying to sell magazines, and publishes articles about research that is producing "interesting", but often unconfirmed, results that may tickle the fancy of the public. That's why the request for follow-on, especially, if possible, from refereed journals.
Oh, yes, on the last page of the pdf of the Astronomy article (p.43 of the magazine), referring to another team analyzing the same data set:
They have humorously dubbed this odd alignment — apparently the same one we found — the “axis of evil.”
It was a joke![nb]"Axis of evil" was a line from George W. Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech (the first following the 9/11/2001 attacks) describing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Cuba - all states very unfriendly to the US. The moniker was quite the thing for years afterwards, but is mostly forgotten now.[/nb]
-
The probability that you or me would exist in our exact form with our exact genetic code is even more unlikely then that, what's your point? Unlikely things can happen, for example, one time I met my friend that I knew through the internet in the lobby of a game that anyone in the world with that game could have joined, and against all odds it was him. Do you see what I mean, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it's impossible.
Cosmologist and mathematician Roger Penrose once attempted to calculate the probability that chance allowed the initial state of the universe and its entropy to be exactly 'right' to allow it to still exist now. His answer was 1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero. To get a picture of this number, note that the number of baryons (protons & neutrons) in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80. We could write that number as 1 followed by 80 zeros. But to write Penrose's number would require 1 followed by a zero on every baryon in the universe, and then more.
From: Eich
Subject: Googolplex
Can you tell me how many sheets of paper it will take to make a
googolplex if you can have 20,000 zeros on each page?
Thanks.
Date: 11/18/97 at 12:11:47
From: Doctor Rob
Subject: Re: Googolplex
Since a googolplex is N = 10^(10^100), there are 10^100 zeroes in
its decimal form. If 20,000 = 2*10^4 fit on one page, you will need
(10^100)/(2*10^4) = 5*10^95 pages.
-Doctor Rob, The Math Forum
Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ (http://mathforum.org/dr.math/)
Well, first let's make sure that you mean a googolplex, and not some
smaller number, like a googol. You will remember that a googol is the
number that is written by putting down a 1, then following that on the
right with 100 zeros, i.e., it is the number 10^100. (Just so you
know: computers are not good at writing exponents. So when I write
10^100, the 100 is the exponent.)
This is a really big number, of course. For instance, the number of
seconds since the beginning of time is only about a 1 followed by
18 zeros, and the number of atoms in the entire universe is
estimated to be only about 10^80, a 1 followed by 80 zeros, so you'd
need 10^20 (written out: 100000000000000000000 [that's a 1 followed by
20 zeros]) universes to have a googol of atoms. (Still with me? This
stuff gets pretty spacey after a while...).
Now a googolplex is a 1 followed by a *googol* of zeros. That's a
truly humungous number. In fact, if you took all the atoms in the
*entire universe* and lined them up, put a l on the first one, and 0's
on all the rest, you still would not have been able to write down a
googolplex, since there are only 10^80 atoms, and you need to write
10^100 zeros.
Read more : http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59174.html (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59174.html)
Origin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel points out:
"The self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of 'informational' catalysts would be a near miracle...It is hard to see how any..[of the potentially self-replicating] polymers that have been described up to now...could have accumulated on the early earth...[It is] to appeal to magic."
Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle has said:
"If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems toward living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning….No such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens…except the eventual production of a tarry sludge."
Modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the probability of abiogenesis. Such calculations are not a proof, but since neo-Darwinism is based on random mutations, they are an important predictor of its validity. Probability was not an issue up through 1965, when scientists believed an infinite amount of time was available because the universe was eternal. But it is a critical issue now that science estimates Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old, which allows substantially less time for slow evolutionary processes to produce the planet and life we observe.
As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of 10^-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment.7 To put this into perspective: a 10^-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!
But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of 10^-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of 10^-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.
How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10^-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10^-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!
Could the genetic code have been spontaneously generated? Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel conclude:
"The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex."
These probability arguments are irrefutable. Some evolutionists offer hand-waving contrary arguments, but even Richard Dawkins admits "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."
And these calculations do not even consider the seemingly insurmountable obstacle first discovered by Louis Pasteur. Life consists of only "left-handed" amino acids and "right-handed" sugars, but a random primordial soup would have contained equal proportions of molecules in left-handed and right-handed configurations.
Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both Orgel and Crick called it a miracle. Other scenarios have therefore been suggested. Hoyle and others postulate life was transplanted from outer space —which moves the origins problem to another time and place. The multiverse hypothesis, proposed by leading origin-of-life researcher Eugene Koonin, is currently in vogue—it replaces infinite time with an infinity of universes to account for the extraordinarily improbable existence of at least one life-sustaining planet.
The real answer may be that abiogenesis is the creation myth of a culture with no need for God—a culture to which physicist Lee Smolin can proclaim: "there is nothing outside the universe."16 This statement is an unsustainable myth, yet a creator is the only alternative to abiogenesis, and this undermines the mythological foundation of the faith of atheists.
According to Lynn Margulis, the proponents of Neo-Darwinism constitute “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology”. (Mann, C. (1991). "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Science 252 (5004): 378–381).
She also believed that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is in a complete funk." (Mann, C. (1991). "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Science 252 (5004): 378–381).
“I work in evolutionary biology, but with cells and micro-organisms. Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould all come out of the zoological tradition, which suggests to me that, in the words of our colleague Simon Robson, they deal with a data set some three billion years out of date.” (The New York Times, November 24, 2011)
There was another prominent biologist, Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005), who was the first author to develop a detailed model of the connection between speciation, evolutionary rates, and macroevolution in 1954. Although initially ignored, his theory of the importance of peripatric speciation in macroevolution is now widely recognized. It means that scientists from various sides have attacked Darwinism. Ernst Mayer’s theories of Speciational Evolution and Punctuated Equilibria, although consistent with Darwinism, nonetheless undermined Darwin’s “gradualism” in evolution just as Lynn Morgulis’ Serial Endosymbiotic Theory undermined the idea of invariable “selfishness” of the evolving species.
One of the reasons why Darwin’s theory remains so revered to this day can be explained by the words of Ernst Mayr, who wrote: "Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal”. (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html,) accessed 10-13-04).
People like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30s and 40s, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene.
People like Richard Dawkins are engaged in propaganda of anti-religion thoughts and sentiments. His quest is against Christianity even at the expense of science and scientific truth. The fact that the endosymbiotic theory had been actively suppressed for about a hundred years before it was finally accepted by the established scientific community is emblematic of the capitalist period of the Anglo-American civilization, which is more interested in propagating any pseudoscientific theory that most effectively justifies its rulers’ predatory, selfish foreign policies toward external nations and peoples. That is why natural sciences have been turned into a special instrument of indoctrination and ideological propaganda and true scientific discoveries so often met with “knee-jerk” reaction. As long as the predatory policies persist, the Neo-Darwinism will remain relevant to the contemporary level of social relations in traditional capitalist society, no matter how outdated it gets scientifically.
The ruling minority elite needs public consciousness to match their criminal, predatory policies. That is why primitive Darwinism retains its positions in public debate so far. Therefore, people in general are being educated that they are “predators”, who are destined to eat each other out. As long as the ruling classes continue to succeed in their quest to forestall the evolvement of the general social consciousness of the people, whom they desperately try to control, the gap between the proper scientific advances and general public’s scientific awareness will increase…
Read more : http://serge-malov.livejournal.com/28768.html (http://serge-malov.livejournal.com/28768.html)
In addition : Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God : http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew (http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew)
-
Why are old world monkeys only found in Africa and Asia and new world monkeys are only found in the Americas?
-
The probability that you or me would exist in our exact form with our exact genetic code is even more unlikely then that, what's your point? Unlikely things can happen, for example, one time I met my friend that I knew through the internet in the lobby of a game that anyone in the world with that game could have joined, and against all odds it was him. Do you see what I mean, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it's impossible.
Cosmologist and mathematician Roger Penrose once attempted to calculate the probability that chance allowed the initial state of the universe and its entropy to be exactly 'right' to allow it to still exist now. His answer was 1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero. To get a picture of this number, note that the number of baryons (protons & neutrons) in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80. We could write that number as 1 followed by 80 zeros. But to write Penrose's number would require 1 followed by a zero on every baryon in the universe, and then more.
From: Eich
Subject: Googolplex
Can you tell me how many sheets of paper it will take to make a
googolplex if you can have 20,000 zeros on each page?
Thanks.
Date: 11/18/97 at 12:11:47
From: Doctor Rob
Subject: Re: Googolplex
Since a googolplex is N = 10^(10^100), there are 10^100 zeroes in
its decimal form. If 20,000 = 2*10^4 fit on one page, you will need
(10^100)/(2*10^4) = 5*10^95 pages.
-Doctor Rob, The Math Forum
Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ (http://mathforum.org/dr.math/)
Well, first let's make sure that you mean a googolplex, and not some
smaller number, like a googol. You will remember that a googol is the
number that is written by putting down a 1, then following that on the
right with 100 zeros, i.e., it is the number 10^100. (Just so you
know: computers are not good at writing exponents. So when I write
10^100, the 100 is the exponent.)
This is a really big number, of course. For instance, the number of
seconds since the beginning of time is only about a 1 followed by
18 zeros, and the number of atoms in the entire universe is
estimated to be only about 10^80, a 1 followed by 80 zeros, so you'd
need 10^20 (written out: 100000000000000000000 [that's a 1 followed by
20 zeros]) universes to have a googol of atoms. (Still with me? This
stuff gets pretty spacey after a while...).
Now a googolplex is a 1 followed by a *googol* of zeros. That's a
truly humungous number. In fact, if you took all the atoms in the
*entire universe* and lined them up, put a l on the first one, and 0's
on all the rest, you still would not have been able to write down a
googolplex, since there are only 10^80 atoms, and you need to write
10^100 zeros.
Read more : http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59174.html (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59174.html)
Origin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel points out:
"The self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of 'informational' catalysts would be a near miracle...It is hard to see how any..[of the potentially self-replicating] polymers that have been described up to now...could have accumulated on the early earth...[It is] to appeal to magic."
Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle has said:
"If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems toward living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning….No such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens…except the eventual production of a tarry sludge."
Modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the probability of abiogenesis. Such calculations are not a proof, but since neo-Darwinism is based on random mutations, they are an important predictor of its validity. Probability was not an issue up through 1965, when scientists believed an infinite amount of time was available because the universe was eternal. But it is a critical issue now that science estimates Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old, which allows substantially less time for slow evolutionary processes to produce the planet and life we observe.
As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of 10^-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment.7 To put this into perspective: a 10^-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!
But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of 10^-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of 10^-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.
How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10^-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10^-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!
Could the genetic code have been spontaneously generated? Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel conclude:
"The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex."
These probability arguments are irrefutable. Some evolutionists offer hand-waving contrary arguments, but even Richard Dawkins admits "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."
And these calculations do not even consider the seemingly insurmountable obstacle first discovered by Louis Pasteur. Life consists of only "left-handed" amino acids and "right-handed" sugars, but a random primordial soup would have contained equal proportions of molecules in left-handed and right-handed configurations.
Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both Orgel and Crick called it a miracle. Other scenarios have therefore been suggested. Hoyle and others postulate life was transplanted from outer space —which moves the origins problem to another time and place. The multiverse hypothesis, proposed by leading origin-of-life researcher Eugene Koonin, is currently in vogue—it replaces infinite time with an infinity of universes to account for the extraordinarily improbable existence of at least one life-sustaining planet.
The real answer may be that abiogenesis is the creation myth of a culture with no need for God—a culture to which physicist Lee Smolin can proclaim: "there is nothing outside the universe."16 This statement is an unsustainable myth, yet a creator is the only alternative to abiogenesis, and this undermines the mythological foundation of the faith of atheists.
According to Lynn Margulis, the proponents of Neo-Darwinism constitute “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology”. (Mann, C. (1991). "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Science 252 (5004): 378–381).
She also believed that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is in a complete funk." (Mann, C. (1991). "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Science 252 (5004): 378–381).
“I work in evolutionary biology, but with cells and micro-organisms. Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould all come out of the zoological tradition, which suggests to me that, in the words of our colleague Simon Robson, they deal with a data set some three billion years out of date.” (The New York Times, November 24, 2011)
There was another prominent biologist, Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005), who was the first author to develop a detailed model of the connection between speciation, evolutionary rates, and macroevolution in 1954. Although initially ignored, his theory of the importance of peripatric speciation in macroevolution is now widely recognized. It means that scientists from various sides have attacked Darwinism. Ernst Mayer’s theories of Speciational Evolution and Punctuated Equilibria, although consistent with Darwinism, nonetheless undermined Darwin’s “gradualism” in evolution just as Lynn Morgulis’ Serial Endosymbiotic Theory undermined the idea of invariable “selfishness” of the evolving species.
One of the reasons why Darwin’s theory remains so revered to this day can be explained by the words of Ernst Mayr, who wrote: "Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal”. (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html,) accessed 10-13-04).
People like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30s and 40s, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene.
People like Richard Dawkins are engaged in propaganda of anti-religion thoughts and sentiments. His quest is against Christianity even at the expense of science and scientific truth. The fact that the endosymbiotic theory had been actively suppressed for about a hundred years before it was finally accepted by the established scientific community is emblematic of the capitalist period of the Anglo-American civilization, which is more interested in propagating any pseudoscientific theory that most effectively justifies its rulers’ predatory, selfish foreign policies toward external nations and peoples. That is why natural sciences have been turned into a special instrument of indoctrination and ideological propaganda and true scientific discoveries so often met with “knee-jerk” reaction. As long as the predatory policies persist, the Neo-Darwinism will remain relevant to the contemporary level of social relations in traditional capitalist society, no matter how outdated it gets scientifically.
The ruling minority elite needs public consciousness to match their criminal, predatory policies. That is why primitive Darwinism retains its positions in public debate so far. Therefore, people in general are being educated that they are “predators”, who are destined to eat each other out. As long as the ruling classes continue to succeed in their quest to forestall the evolvement of the general social consciousness of the people, whom they desperately try to control, the gap between the proper scientific advances and general public’s scientific awareness will increase…
Read more : http://serge-malov.livejournal.com/28768.html (http://serge-malov.livejournal.com/28768.html)
In addition : Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God : http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew (http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew)
I am actually a Christian, so you don't have to convince me that there is a God.
-
Yesterday I have announced next argument in this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647697#msg1647697 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647697#msg1647697)
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
TSUNAMI-RIVERS ARGUMENT:
A tsunami is basically a shallow-water wave, even in deep seas. Tsunamis typically have wave lengths of 200km, which makes them shallow water waves even in the ocean.
These waves have insignificant wave heights at sea, but in shallow coastal waters they can exceed 30m (100 ft). They may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Earthquakes in the Aleutian Trench regularly send large seismic waves across the Pacific Ocean, affecting Hawaii and the coastlines of the North Pacific Ocean.
When an earthquake occurs, energy will be transferred to the water, resulting in water waves. As the waves reach seashore, because the sea depth is getting shallower and wavelength is getting shorter, the height of the wave gets push up, resulting in tsunami. In other words in deep sea, water won't get pushed up as high as the water in shallow seashore.
Tsunami animation : http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm (http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm)
As you can see in animation above (and in explanation above animation), tsunami waves are shallow-water waves which may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Only when tsunami waves come closer to seashore, their depth is getting shallower, their wavelength is getting shorter, and the height of the wave becomes larger, resulting in destructive consequences...
So, what is wrong here?
FIRST OBSTACLE:
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination
Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?
5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!
SECOND OBSTACLE:
Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!
THIRD OBSTACLE:
Try to combine second obstacle with the alleged rotation of the Earth in a direction West-East!
HOW ABOUT THE RIVERS?
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
A foot = 30,48 cm
Now, try to apply SECOND OBSTACLE to Nile river example, and ask yourself what must be the only possible consequence (inference) of your futile logical attempt to solve this unresolvable problem (under RET assumption)?
The only possible inference is that the Earth is flatly FLAT!!!
-
Is this how you imagine water on round earth behaves?
(https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/rounwrld.jpg)
If so, you should first learn how gravity works. Gravity pulls object towards the center of the Earth, not towards underneath it somewhere. There is no up or down in space. Water is pulled towards the center of the Earth along with everything else. When we say water is flat we actually mean that it's following the curvature of the Earth. When we say that one end of Nile is one foot lower than the other, we actually mean that one end of Nile is one foot closer to the center of the Earth than the other end.
This simple concept may be difficult to grasp for you, but at least I tried.
-
You can't be seriously claiming all this. This has such basic errors I - and probably others - can only wonder if you are again going to claim this was meant as a joke after it's been put down?
So before we put the effort into detailed replies, please answer the following question honestly:
Is this a joke? Yes or no.
Yesterday I have announced next argument in this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647697#msg1647697 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647697#msg1647697)
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
TSUNAMI-RIVERS ARGUMENT:
A tsunami is basically a shallow-water wave, even in deep seas. Tsunamis typically have wave lengths of 200km, which makes them shallow water waves even in the ocean.
These waves have insignificant wave heights at sea, but in shallow coastal waters they can exceed 30m (100 ft). They may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Earthquakes in the Aleutian Trench regularly send large seismic waves across the Pacific Ocean, affecting Hawaii and the coastlines of the North Pacific Ocean.
When an earthquake occurs, energy will be transferred to the water, resulting in water waves. As the waves reach seashore, because the sea depth is getting shallower and wavelength is getting shorter, the height of the wave gets push up, resulting in tsunami. In other words in deep sea, water won't get pushed up as high as the water in shallow seashore.
Tsunami animation : http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm (http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm)
As you can see in animation above (and in explanation above animation), tsunami waves are shallow-water waves which may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Only when tsunami waves come closer to seashore, their depth is getting shallower, their wavelength is getting shorter, and the height of the wave becomes larger, resulting in destructive consequences...
So, what is wrong here?
FIRST OBSTACLE:
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination
Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?
5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!
SECOND OBSTACLE:
Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!
THIRD OBSTACLE:
Try to combine second obstacle with the alleged rotation of the Earth in a direction West-East!
HOW ABOUT THE RIVERS?
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
A foot = 30,48 cm
Now, try to apply SECOND OBSTACLE to Nile river example, and ask yourself what must be the only possible consequence (inference) of your futile logical attempt to solve this unresolvable problem (under RET assumption)?
The only possible inference is that the Earth is flatly FLAT!!!
-
cikljamas is wiping the floor with your globalists. If you people cannot genuinely see the errors in your own ways and have to hang onto silly explanations for your oceans to stay on your globe, then I feel sorry for you people, if you are genuinely sticking to this out of simply naivety and not simply playing games.
-
cikljamas is wiping the floor with your globalists.
Or, he is just making another joke.
-
One joke doesn't mean that everything else is a joke, also! I have stressed this many times, since that (ONE and ONLY) game with you had ended, last time i gave it (this explanation) to you here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647756#msg1647756 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647756#msg1647756)
So, you can begin with your plausible explanation, i am already dying of laughter...
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can belive such brazen stupidity!
And of course, after you "succesfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, aslo:
See a diagram below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?
Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!
(http://i.imgur.com/cuasGI0.jpg)
Scepti, we can only pity them if they really mean what they say. As for the shills, we must keep laughing, they leave us no other option, and the best part is that they are really funny guys, i mean REALLY funny guys, hahahahah....
-
The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.
Just think, all those meaningless equations and thought experiments that they studied for years on end are nothing more than the reliance on faith in people that sell the story, who examine them to make sure they too it all in by putting a tick against their answers, all for the sake of a certificate to say they learned to memorise crap.
-
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming
Name one (apart from the flatness of your back yard).
-
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can belive such brazen stupidity!
How does it prove RE vs FE argument? On flat earth, that stretch of Nile is almost flat. On round earth, that stretch of Nile almost follows the curvature of Earth. What is the problem with that?
-
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can belive such brazen stupidity!
How does it prove RE vs FE argument? On flat earth, that stretch of Nile is almost flat. On round earth, that stretch of Nile almost follows the curvature of Earth. What is the problem with that?
Wake up for crying out loud. He pulled your pants down. Just pull them up and just yourself down, then start using your common sense.
-
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can belive such brazen stupidity!
How does it prove RE vs FE argument? On flat earth, that stretch of Nile is almost flat. On round earth, that stretch of Nile almost follows the curvature of Earth. What is the problem with that?
Wake up for crying out loud. He pulled your pants down. Just pull them up and just yourself down, then start using your common sense.
How so?
-
cikljamas is wiping the floor with your globalists.
He's fucking mental.
-
The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.
blah...blah....blah...
Out your 11,000 posts, about 10,000 must be this post, or a slight variation on it. You're like a stuck record.
We know, we know: everyone else is weak and indoctrinated and you are strong and smart. We get it.
Instead of making the same post over and over insulting everyone, how about you try and explain how sunsets work under the ice dome? We are all too weak to work it out, so you will have to tell us, won't you? Common scepti, stop avoiding the question, like you've spent years already doing.
-
And of course, after you "succesfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, aslo:
See a diagram below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?
Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!
(http://i.imgur.com/cuasGI0.jpg)
The fact that the tsunami reached South Africa alone proves that the Earth is round. How did the tsunami hit South Africa on your FE map again?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png)
-
Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!
You're saying the top of the sphere is halfway between Sumatra and South Africa?
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
Now you're saying the top of the sphere is along the Nile River?
One joke doesn't mean that everything else is a joke, also!
Your river/Tsunami argument looks like a joke again because;
What would you think of me if i kept up the defense of the "trueness" of my joke although my joke is founded on obviously wrong argument?
Also, did Sceptimatic show you the frozen lake/laser experiment yet?
-
One joke doesn't mean that everything else is a joke, also! I have stressed this many times, since that (ONE and ONLY) game with you had ended, last time i gave it (this explanation) to you here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647756#msg1647756 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647756#msg1647756)
Just establishing this ahead of time so you don't try that as an excuse again. That's all. You tried it once, and this doesn't seem any less ludicrous than the idea you now claim was a joke.
Since you won't give a yes or no answer, I'll take your reply as no; despite all appearances to the contrary, this not a joke.
So, you can begin with your plausible explanation, i am already dying of laughter...
So are we. Are you sure you're not going to claim this is a joke?
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
Over which 1,000 miles of the Nile's length does this occur? In other words, citation needed.
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
You have a fundamental error here about what a change of elevation of one foot means, so even if your initial assertion is true (1 ft in 1000 mi), which I doubt, this conclusion is still wrong.
There's no such obstacle because 1) we haven't established that the "one foot" thing is true yet and, 2) even if we do, the "200-km high mountain obstacle" wouldn't exist, anyway.
I think it's in one of your other recent posts, but it seems like you have no idea what "up" and "down" mean. This is so basic it's why it seems like you're joking. This lack of understanding is carrying over to here, so I'll answer it here.
Down is simply toward the center of the Earth. Up is the direction away from the center of the Earth. Note that this will work at any place on the sphere, so there's no "bottom" or "top" of the spherical earth. By convention, maps are usually drawn with north toward the top of the page and globes mounted with north away from the floor, but that's only a human tradition, has no physical significance, and is not a physical requirement. This may be what's confusing you. Sometimes maps and globes have other orientations. I've heard that Islamic maps generally have "toward Mecca" at the top, but don't know if that's true. Maybe someone else knows or can research that.
At any rate, local level means perpendicular to the vertical (up and down - that is, away from or toward the center). A level surface maintains a constant distance above some datum, typically mean sea level, which means that a river that's nearly level for a long distance will follow the shape of the datum; it doesn't take a chord through the surface. Even if you believe with all your might that it should.
Yours is a pretty silly idea, which is why I keep wondering if you really are joking.
Only completely sick mind can belive such brazen stupidity!
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Please see my signature.
And of course, after you "succesfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, aslo:
We haven't even gotten to the tsunamis yet. Calm down.
See a diagram below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?
Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!
(http://i.imgur.com/cuasGI0.jpg)
Effects on humans depends on more than just distance from the epicenter. That was easy.
From the reply in the other thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647700#msg1647700):
See this gif:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#mediaviewer/File:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami_Complete.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#mediaviewer/File:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami_Complete.gif)
... and that reconstruction shows they got to the west coast of Australia a lot sooner than they got to the east coast of Africa.
Note the large-amplitude sea wave traveling west through the Indian Ocean directly toward east Africa? Note the much smaller-amplitude sea wave in the direction of Australia? Do you think that might have something to do with it? This is from your exhibit.
Tzunami Null effect on Australia's West Coast:
<figure above>
"Affected." Could that have anything to do with the number of people at low elevations near the coastline, among numerous other things, not to mention the relatively small amount of energy directed toward Australia that your exhibit showed?
Any comment about why the tsunami arrived in Australia in about half the time it took to reach South Africa? Could it be perhaps because South Africa is twice as far away? Remember, this it the gif that you provided that shows this, so you must think it's right.
Scepti, we can only pity them if they really mean what they say. As for the shills, we must keep laughing, they leave us no other option, and the best part is that they are really funny guys, i mean REALLY funny guys, hahahahah....
There's a novelty song from the 1960s titled "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha Ha!"[nb]Excerpt:
And they're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
They're coming to take me away ha ha...[/nb] This comment immediately reminded me of the guy singing it.
-
The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.
Just think, all those meaningless equations and thought experiments that they studied for years on end are nothing more than the reliance on faith in people that sell the story, who examine them to make sure they too it all in by putting a tick against their answers, all for the sake of a certificate to say they learned to memorise crap.
Relying on equasions is the opposite of faith, equasions can be proven. All the rational people are round eartgers for a reason. By the way, I have never heard any of this "overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is flat", have you been holding back?
-
The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.
Just think, all those meaningless equations and thought experiments that they studied for years on end are nothing more than the reliance on faith in people that sell the story, who examine them to make sure they too it all in by putting a tick against their answers, all for the sake of a certificate to say they learned to memorise crap.
Relying on equasions is the opposite of faith, equasions can be proven. All the rational people are round eartgers for a reason. By the way, I have never heard any of this "overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is flat", have you been holding back?
So, you have never read this thread:
ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054)
EARTH's TILT ARGUMENT - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469)
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
TSUNAMI-RIVERS ARGUMENT:
A tsunami is basically a shallow-water wave, even in deep seas. Tsunamis typically have wave lengths of 200km, which makes them shallow water waves even in the ocean.
These waves have insignificant wave heights at sea, but in shallow coastal waters they can exceed 30m (100 ft). They may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Earthquakes in the Aleutian Trench regularly send large seismic waves across the Pacific Ocean, affecting Hawaii and the coastlines of the North Pacific Ocean.
When an earthquake occurs, energy will be transferred to the water, resulting in water waves. As the waves reach seashore, because the sea depth is getting shallower and wavelength is getting shorter, the height of the wave gets push up, resulting in tsunami. In other words in deep sea, water won't get pushed up as high as the water in shallow seashore.
Tsunami animation : http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm (http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm)
As you can see in animation above (and in explanation above animation), tsunami waves are shallow-water waves which may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Only when tsunami waves come closer to seashore, their depth is getting shallower, their wavelength is getting shorter, and the height of the wave becomes larger, resulting in destructive consequences...
So, what is wrong here?
FIRST OBSTACLE:
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination
Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?
5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!
SECOND OBSTACLE:
Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!
THIRD OBSTACLE:
Try to combine second obstacle with the alleged rotation of the Earth in a direction West-East!
HOW ABOUT THE RIVERS?
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
A foot = 30,48 cm
Now, try to apply SECOND OBSTACLE to Nile river example, and ask yourself what must be the only possible consequence (inference) of your futile logical attempt to solve this unresolvable problem (under RET assumption)?
The only possible inference is that the Earth is flatly FLAT!!!
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can believe such brazen stupidity!
And of course, after you "successfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, also:
See a diagram below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?
Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!
(http://i.imgur.com/cuasGI0.jpg)
Scepti, we can only pity them if they really mean what they say. As for the shills, we must keep laughing, they leave us no other option, and the best part is that they are really funny guys, i mean REALLY funny guys, hahahahah....
-
cikljamas, do you even bother to read the replies here? How many times do you have to paste the same thing? Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it right. It just makes you boring.
-
cikljamas, do you even bother to read the replies here? How many times do you have to paste the same thing? Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it right. It just makes you boring.
Haven't you learned so far that i do not answer to stupid - hand waving - arguments. If you think, for example, that Alpha2Omega's last post contains anything but hand waving - bull shit - "explanation" for "only he knows what", then you are "a lost case" (it is literal for croatian phrase which means "a looser")!
(http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/09/waving-bear.gif)
-
cikljamas, do you even bother to read the replies here? How many times do you have to paste the same thing? Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it right. It just makes you boring.
Haven't you learned so far that i do not answer to stupid - hand waving - arguments. If you think, for example, that Alpha2Omega's last post contains anything but hand waving - bull shit - "explanation" for "only he knows what", then you are "a lost case" (it is literal for croatian phrase which means "a looser")!
http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/09/waving-bear.gif (http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/09/waving-bear.gif)
So reply to mine then ::)
-
So reply to mine then ::)
Why hasn't Australia been badly affected by recent tsunamis? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm)
The answer : Because the Earth is flat, that is to say :
It all comes down to geography, says Professor Goff from the Australian Tsunami Research Centre .
(http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg)
-
So reply to mine then ::)
Why hasn't Australia been badly affected by recent tsunamis? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm)
The answer : Because the Earth is flat, that is to say :
It all comes down to geography, says Professor Goff from the Australian Tsunami Research Centre .
http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg)
Hahaha, that's a really good joke cikljamas!!! I sincerely appreciate your effort in explaining tsunami on your smudged flat earth map (left) instead of the the original map (right). Thank you for making my day. LOL !!!
(http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg) (http://www.emapsworld.com/images/world-north-pole-azimuthal-equidistant-projection-map.gif)
Your flat earth is so distorted that my country doesn't even exist anymore. It all comes down to Photoshop, says Shantanu Narayen CEO of Adobe. LOL !!!
-
A quick search on Google reveals that one of the two sources of the Nile is over 2km above sea level. I think any mention of it just being one foot can be safely canned now. :P
-
A quick search on Google reveals that one of the two sources of the Nile is over 2km above sea level. I think any mention of it just being one foot can be safely canned now. :P
I found one reference to that. The stretch located in Sudan. The Nile forms the Sudd, a fast expanse of bogs and swamps, because it enters a land of almost absolute flatness. The average slope from south to north along 400 km of the Sudd is only 0.01%, which means a 4 cm drop over 400 km. But that doesn't prove anything. This thing can happen on flat earth or round earth.
https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/sudd.html (https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/sudd.html)
I haven't found any flat stretch longer than that though. It's just another cikljamas' delusional idea.
-
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat.
Erroneous generalisation. In Australia, numerous rivers actually flow inland, never to reach the ocean. For example: The Hale River, Plenty River, Todd River, Cooper Creek, Finke River, Georgina River, Neales River, Macumba River and Diamantina Rivers.
You're also unaware apparently that in river systems, the water finds its own lowest level, which is also its closest point to the centre of gravity of the spherical earth. The surfaces of oceans and lakes (restrained bodies of water) are spherical and follow the nominal curvature of the earth's surface beneath them. Within any body of restrained water—disregarding tidal and wind effects—the entire surface of the body of water is at the same distance measured from the centre of gravity of the earth. Which is why the waters' surfaces are not flat, as you seem to imagine.
-
cikljamas, do you even bother to read the replies here? How many times do you have to paste the same thing? Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it right. It just makes you boring.
Haven't you learned so far that i do not answer to stupid - hand waving - arguments. If you think, for example, that Alpha2Omega's last post contains anything but hand waving - bull shit - "explanation" for "only he knows what", then you are "a lost case" (it is literal for croatian phrase which means "a looser")!
<another irrelevant animated gif>
The linked article in your post here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647903#msg1647903) agrees with my answer and explains it in more detail, so it's not just a case of "only he knows what". Nice try at a diversion, though.
Don't like the explanations? Tough. This isn't surprising; if you could find any specific errors, no doubt you'd be all over them. Since there's apparently not anything you can rebut, you ignore. Got it.
There was a specific, relevant, question in there that wasn't answered.
Which 1,000-mi stretch of the Nile has only one foot of elevation change?
Honestly, I don't see where there could be one. If you're going to make a claim here, you'd be more convincing if you're prepared to back it up with factual information.
Protip: realizing that English isn't your native language - and you do pretty well in it - the term you're looking for is probably 'loser', not 'looser'. It's appalling how many native English speakers get this wrong, so it's a forgivable mistake for you. Even worse, sports fans do this all the time; if anyone ought to be familiar with basic terms like 'win' and 'lose' (not 'loose') it should be sports fans, but, alas, many of them are complete morons - and losers in real life.
-
Yeah .. He's a serial copy pasta-er and fact bender. And he also likes to "make jokes".
-
Yeah .. He's a serial copy pasta-er and fact bender. And he also likes to "make jokes".
And which makes it difficult to seriously debate with the guy. With any past mistakes he's been called out on, he simply claims he was being sarcastic, or just making a joke—and which should have been obvious. It's called hedging your bets.
-
The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.
Just think, all those meaningless equations and thought experiments that they studied for years on end are nothing more than the reliance on faith in people that sell the story, who examine them to make sure they too it all in by putting a tick against their answers, all for the sake of a certificate to say they learned to memorise crap.
Relying on equasions is the opposite of faith, equasions can be proven. All the rational people are round eartgers for a reason. By the way, I have never heard any of this "overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is flat", have you been holding back?
So, you have never read this thread:
ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054)
EARTH's TILT ARGUMENT - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469)
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
TSUNAMI-RIVERS ARGUMENT:
A tsunami is basically a shallow-water wave, even in deep seas. Tsunamis typically have wave lengths of 200km, which makes them shallow water waves even in the ocean.
These waves have insignificant wave heights at sea, but in shallow coastal waters they can exceed 30m (100 ft). They may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Earthquakes in the Aleutian Trench regularly send large seismic waves across the Pacific Ocean, affecting Hawaii and the coastlines of the North Pacific Ocean.
When an earthquake occurs, energy will be transferred to the water, resulting in water waves. As the waves reach seashore, because the sea depth is getting shallower and wavelength is getting shorter, the height of the wave gets push up, resulting in tsunami. In other words in deep sea, water won't get pushed up as high as the water in shallow seashore.
Tsunami animation : http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm (http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm)
As you can see in animation above (and in explanation above animation), tsunami waves are shallow-water waves which may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Only when tsunami waves come closer to seashore, their depth is getting shallower, their wavelength is getting shorter, and the height of the wave becomes larger, resulting in destructive consequences...
So, what is wrong here?
FIRST OBSTACLE:
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination
Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?
5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!
SECOND OBSTACLE:
Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!
THIRD OBSTACLE:
Try to combine second obstacle with the alleged rotation of the Earth in a direction West-East!
HOW ABOUT THE RIVERS?
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
A foot = 30,48 cm
Now, try to apply SECOND OBSTACLE to Nile river example, and ask yourself what must be the only possible consequence (inference) of your futile logical attempt to solve this unresolvable problem (under RET assumption)?
The only possible inference is that the Earth is flatly FLAT!!!
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can believe such brazen stupidity!
And of course, after you "successfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, also:
See a diagram below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?
Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!
(http://i.imgur.com/cuasGI0.jpg)
Scepti, we can only pity them if they really mean what they say. As for the shills, we must keep laughing, they leave us no other option, and the best part is that they are really funny guys, i mean REALLY funny guys, hahahahah....
On a round Earth, what is this force you speak of that would pull things like water off? Is it gravity? Universal acceleration? Denpressure? There is no reason why things would fall of the Earth because any force that could make that happen would effect the Earth as well. The Earth is actually in free fall around the Sun, meaning that things don't fall off if it and the reason that things fall on the surface of Earth is because Gravity makes things gravitate towards the center, and what makes an object be a higher altitude is that it's further from the center of the Earth. "Down" is always towards the center of the Earth no matter where you are on the surface, and that destroys your entire argument.
-
I see, your main complaint is that the flatness of the Nile river basin is doubtful, so we should remind all those who hadn't followed "Equator problem" thread and/or "North-South" thread at Energetic forum, to these words:
In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:
"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.3oo.ooo square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."
The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:
" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."
"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :
"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."
This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
In addition:
If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches, nearly. From the Age, of 5th August 1893, I extract the following:
" The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."
Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!
A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :
" In levelling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsall level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."
I think most will grant that a practical man is capable of forming a judgment, in all cases of more value than the merely theoretical calculator. Here, then, we have the evidence of practical men to the effect that no allowance for curvature is made in cutting canals, a clear proof that we are not living on a huge ball, but on a surface, the general contour of which is level, as the datum line from which surveys are made IS ALWAYS A HORIZONTAL LINE.
Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!
Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:
"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054) if you want...
Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!
If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.
I have played with you just one little game (giving you my ironic Christmas present), and you still can not get over it, how convinient for you, cause you play your little games with me all along since the first day when i came here to enlighten your deluded minds.
Alpha2Omega, how about "Tsunami" (avalanche) argument? No words from you about that? How about "geographical" argument regarding "lack of any Tsunami impact on Australian western coast" which is allegedly more then TWICE closer to the earthquake epicentre then South African eastern coast?
-
cikljamas, you obviously still can't get your head around how water behaves on a round earth. I will give you a clue. The surface of a body of water on RE is not flat, it follows the Earth's curvature.
-
cikljamas, you obviously still can't get your head around how water behaves on a round earth. I will give you a clue. The surface of a body of water on RE is not flat, it follows the Earth's curvature.
And here's another clue: for every point on that curvature, down is defined as pointing towards the center of the earth.
-
Is the length of the Nile mentioned above based on round or flat earth measurements?
-
If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.
No, that bulge is the almost constant elevation following the curvature. There would be no uphill, just the slight downhill grade as the water flows from the higher elevation at one end.
I have played with you just one little game (giving you my ironic Christmas present), and you still can not get over it, how convinient for you, cause you play your little games with me all along since the first day when i came here to enlighten your deluded minds.
You're arguing with wrong information again, and even using an obvious poorly manipulated 'map'. It therefore stands to reason you are joking again.
Alpha2Omega, how about "Tsunami" (avalanche) argument? No words from you about that? How about "geographical" argument regarding "lack of any Tsunami impact on Australian western coast" which is allegedly more then TWICE closer to the earthquake epicentre then South African eastern coast?
Look at the orientation of the fault line in relation to Australia, and then read about how that fault line caused the tsunami. Perhaps then you'll understand why the effects on Australia were minimal. (but I doubt it)
-
I see, your main complaint is that the flatness of the Nile river basin is doubtful, so we should remind all those who hadn't followed "Equator problem" thread and/or "North-South" thread at Energetic forum, to these words:
In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:
"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.3oo.ooo square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."
The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.
Is this the reference you're citing: Chambers's Information for the People, A Popular Encyclopedia, Fifteenth American Edition, 1854?
http://books.google.com/books?id=UP4QAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=UP4QAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)
[Be forewarned that in this Google Books volume, the Table of Contents links near the beginning don't work correctly; the links to pages before p.48 take you to p.48 and you have to scroll or use Page Back to earlier pages.]
The reason I ask is because page 513 is in the section about Kitchen Gardens, and I don't see a section about Physical Geography. Maybe you're looking at a different edition?
'FLAT' in this context clearly means "essentially devoid of topography", not a flat plane in the mathematical sense.
Are you sure that's PLANE and not plain? They sound the same and are vaguely related, but mean different things.
There's a key word, 'PERCEPTIBLY', in the description of the London-to-Moscow elevation profile. It's not saying it is dead level, just hard to tell it's not without using measurements. The elevation of London is about 35 m above sea level (ASL); Moscow is 74 m ASL. They are 2500 km (about 1600 miles) apart, and the low points between them, the North Sea and Baltic, are presumably at or close to 0 ASL. This doesn't particularly support your 1 foot in 1,000 miles assertion.
This isn't proof of anything but your cherry picking information and misunderstanding the parts you choose to believe.
Also noted is your willingness to accept as "proof" some writings in a published text, perhaps taken out of context and/or certainly misinterpreted, if you think it supports your view, while ignoring nearly everything else in the same (or similar?) text. For instance:
The Earth which we inhabit, as has been explained in the article Astronomy, is a nearly round globe or mass of matter, forming one of eleven[nb]He counts the current eight planets (excluding Pluto) less Neptune, and includes the four largest asteroids.[/nb] primary planets, which at various distances revolve round the sun as a centre, and receive from that splendid luminary the blessings of light and heat The earth is one of the smaller sized of the planets, being only about a fourth of the diameter of Uranus, and an eleventh of the diameter of Jupiter, and forms, therefore, a comparatively small portion of the planetary system, and, with reference to the stars, only a speck in the vast extent of creation.
Hmmm... that sounds suspiciously like all those things you don't believe. Any thoughts? Different Chambers's?
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:
"Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."
"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
Is this perhaps another Victorian-Era or older book? The style of writing suggests that it is, and using "Reverend" as part of the author's name for a book on geography kind of supports this. If this is correct, there has been a lot more detailed mapping since the time it was written.
"perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise". If there is any rise at all, it's not perfectly dead level. Self-contradictions like these show lack of rigor in the work, which means all details are suspect unless verified. Take the rest of the contents with some skepticism. Think for yourselves, people!
An area of 270 square miles could be a square about 16.4 miles on a side, or a circle with radius less than 10 miles. "270 square miles" sounds impressively large, but on the scale of the Earth, it's tiny. 270 square miles is about four millionths of 67 million square mile surface area of the spherical Earth. Tiny. Even so, "THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT" is difficult to believe. Did the reverend have a detailed topographic survey of the entire 270 mi2 area, or is this simply more of the supposition you could get away with back when this seems to have been published? See above about lack of rigor.
You are getting better about providing the sources for your quotes, so thank you for that.
These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe.
These prove nothing of the sort. In fact, the extract you didn't provide unequivocally states that it is a globe. Your extracts might be considered evidence upon cursory reading, but only before even the most basic examination or thought. After that, the "evidence" is seen to be faulty.
And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :
"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."
Changes in depth to the sea floor is at most a few miles in thousands. A profile drawn with no vertical exaggeration would be barely distinguishable, if at all, from a straight line. The author says as much on p.120. This is what the description is trying to convey: the oceans aren't nearly as deep as they are usually depicted, and have little topography compared to their size. Note that this description ignores the mid-ocean ridges (undiscovered or unrecognized at the time), which have very significant topography, usually not in the vicinity of land (although they are sometimes high enough to form islands like Iceland, the Canaries, etc.).
This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
Did you know that a square 200 miles on a side has an area of 40,000 mi2? "Tens of thousands of square miles" isn't large at all compared to the area of the oceans. Given the amount of sediment being more or less uniformly deposited on the ocean floor, it isn't surprising at all that it's relatively featureless (i.e. "flat") over comparatively (in human scale) large areas.
He says it's a plain, not a plane. You're making this mistake again. They're different.
In addition:
If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches, nearly. From the Age, of 5th August 1893, I extract the following:
" The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."
OK. So? The water in the canal simply follows the mean sea level geoid.
Haven't we seen this before?
Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!
A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :
" In levelling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsall level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."
I think most will grant that a practical man is capable of forming a judgment[nb]Unless it's RuSpinningAround?, but you could argue whether or not 'practical' applies in that case.[/nb], in all cases of more value than the merely theoretical calculator. Here, then, we have the evidence of practical men to the effect that no allowance for curvature is made in cutting canals, a clear proof that we are not living on a huge ball, but on a surface, the general contour of which is level, as the datum line from which surveys are made IS ALWAYS A HORIZONTAL LINE.
The datum for surveys is the geoid or another level a constant height above (or perhaps below) it. No specific allowance for curvature need be made, because the elevation changes from datum have it built in.
Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!
I never claimed there was a "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles". You did. I can't find any part of the Nile 1,000 miles long that has less than a few hundred feet of grade. Apparently you can't either, which begs the question why you brought it up in the first place. And, no, even if the Nile did have such a feature, it would follow the curvature of the Earth, not a straight-line chord. [See below]
Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:
"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054) if you want...
Not really, so I had to look that up, so thanks for providing the link. It's in red in that post, but that doesn't make it correct.
It had also been answered in a previous post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646768#msg1646768). Would you please read the replies you get instead of mindlessly bringing up already disproved stuff over and over again? Please.
If you have specific questions about the rebuttals, by all means, ask. Doing so in a timely fashion after they've been given, if possible, is best.
Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!
Does this mean you can't find any actual reference to verify your claimed "one foot in 1,000 miles"? I suspect this is the case because such a feature doesn't actually exist; you may want to check these things before parroting them here, or did you just make this one up - especially if you hate retracting arguments as much as you seem to.
If "it doesn't matter", then why did you bring it up in the first place? I happen to agree that it doesn't matter (but wasn't the one that brought it up) because that "bulge" you are asserting also doesn't exist. "Level for 1,000 miles" means "a constant elevation relative to the geoid", not a straight-line chord through the globe you want the Nile to follow. The middle of that chord would be the 200 km you claim (I haven't checked this) below level. It really is that simple.
If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.
Are you sure you're not joking here?
"Level" is a constant height relative to the geoid. Period. The water in the Nile is moving from higher elevations (further from center of earth) to lower elevations (closer to center) as it flows (always downhill, even if it's only slightly downhill).
I have played with you just one little game (giving you my ironic Christmas present), and you still can not get over it, how convinient for you, cause you play your little games with me all along since the first day when i came here to enlighten your deluded minds.
You'd be better off to just admit you're wrong when you do realize you're wrong. After several pages unsuccessfully trying to defend an absolutely preposterous claim, you must have finally realized you made an elementary error and then claimed it was just a joke. Your claims here are equally preposterous; we keep bringing up the "tell us this is not a joke" thing because we want to foreclose that type of shit. Man up.
Alpha2Omega, how about "Tsunami" (avalanche) argument? No words from you about that?
You mean this? I guess I never did bother with it because it had already been answered.
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination
Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?
5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!
There's no inclination. All those distances are at sea level. No "Everests" at all here. None, nada, zero, zip, nil, null, {}. Sea level is an equipotential surface, so it defines level on a spheroidal earth. Why in the world would you think a tsunami would be falling downhill like an avalanche? Which way would be "down"? Away from the epicenter? South? Toward the bottom of the page the map is drawn on? What would happen if you turned the paper upside down? Why would any of these be "down" when other directions aren't?
This is at least as obviously wrong as the assertion you now claim was "just a joke".
How about "geographical" argument regarding "lack of any Tsunami impact on Australian western coast" which is allegedly more then TWICE closer to the earthquake epicentre then South African eastern coast?
Didn't you read any of my replies? They are here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62485.msg1647700#msg1647700), here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647872#msg1647872), and here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647949#msg1647949).
In summary:
Most of the energy in the tsunami traveled westward across the Indian Ocean, toward India and Africa. Relatively little went southward toward Australia. This was explained in more detail in the ABC article (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm) you linked.
The map you present shows the effect of the tsunami on people. In addition to the height of the wave (which depends in part on sea-floor topography near shore), it also depends on the number of people at low elevation near shore.
South Africa is roughly twice as far from the epicenter as Australia. That's why it took roughly twice as long for the waves to get there according to your animated gif image.
Any words about that?
-
Many flat earthers—and invariably cikljamas—constantly refer to "scientific" texts written in the mid-nineteenth century. The classic example is Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Is Not A Globe" (ENaG) written as a sixteen page pamphlet in 1849. When he realised that he could fool enough of the scientifically-naive population in order to make lots of money peddling his nonsensical pseudo-science, he somehow managed to expand his little pamphlet into a 430-page book!
And one of his more detailed defences against my refutation of claims made by cikljamas? "Ausgeoff, you are full of shit again."
—Really deep and meaningful stuff LOL.
-
Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) at the Earth's surface!
The best way to visualize this concept would be if you imagined yourself standing in the middle of a relatively round frozen lake. On the hypothetic spherical Earth this would be a very privileged point of view, not only because of the relatively equidistant position with respect to all coastal points around you, but because you would observe these coastal points from an "elevated" position as if you stood on the top of a hill or a mountain.
Now, if someone above you (let's say God) spilled huge amount of water directly on your round head all this water should be dispersed equally, so to flow in all directions uniformly and DOWNHILL and AWAY from you.
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
Should i remind you to these words, once again:
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
Quite a few factors affect the direction a river takes. First of all, water runs downhill due to "gravity". It may flow northward or southward, to the east, or to the west, but always downhill. Where water is forced to move uphill, for short distances over rocks or small inclines, the force of the flowing water must be sufficient to overcome the "gravitational pull" downward or the water will stop flowing. The exact course a river or stream takes depends on a combination of many factors.
Topography plays a major role in determining a river's course. Water will always seek the path of least resistance. It will go around or under rather than up and over whenever possible. Confronted with a mountain chain or even a small ridge, the river will turn and flow parallel to the blocking feature unless or until it is able to erode a path across it. The composition of the terrain determines whether or not this is possible. Hard rocks allow little, or only very slow erosion. Sand, gravel and dirt are easily eroded and the river will make its path through these much more easily.
Water in nature never flows very far in a straight line. If you look at a map, you see that rivers, creeks, and streams twist and turn on their way seaward, even where there are no obstacles in their path. This twisting and turning is called meandering and develops not only in response to large obstacles, but also in response to very subtle differences in terrain, even to the the ease of flow over one grain of sand versus another. Slight deviations become magnified and the meander appears. Where natural rivers follow a straight path for any distance, they have been engineered by humans to do so. Rivers meander because it saves work, it is the most efficient use of the energy of flowing water over the ground.
As for the flatness of the Sudd area:
The most remarkable topographic feature of the Sudd area is its flatness: for 400 km, from south to north, the slope is a mere 0.01 % and much of it is even flatter.
This means that in the middle of this 250 miles (within which Nile falls but a few centimeters), we should imagine 5 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4347E/w4347e0k.htm (http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4347E/w4347e0k.htm)
Alpha2Omega, would you like to reckon an amount of Nile's inclination according to these words: "0,01 % and much of it is even flatter"?
In addition:
OLD RIVERS ARGUMENT from a pen of a noble and admirable man by the name Thomas Winship:
Rivers run DOWN to the sea because of the inclination of their beds. Rising at an altitude above sea-level, in some cases thousands of feet above the sea, they follow the easiest route to their level — the sea. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin. But if the world be a globe, the "Amazon" in South America that flows always in an easterly direction, would sometimes be running uphill and sometimes down, according to the movement of the globe. Then the "Congo" in West Africa, that always pursues a westerly course to the sea, would in the same manner be running alternately up and down. When that point of the globe exactly between them was up, they would both be running up, although in opposite directions; and when the globe took half a turn, they would both be running down ! We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.
Perfectly flat Lake (like a mirror) : (http://i.imgur.com/bvtoCmn.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ihGMyPk.jpg)
-
The best way to visualize this concept would be if you imagined yourself standing in the middle of a relatively round frozen lake. On the hypothetic spherical Earth this would be a very privileged point of view, not only because of the relatively equidistant position with respect to all coastal points around you, but because you would observe these coastal points from an "elevated" position as if you stood on the top of a hill or a mountain.
Anybody standing along those coastal points would see you out in the middle as being 'down over the curvature' from them.
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
No, because any given point along that curvature is level, not "down hill" or "up hill"
Also, you just recently argued that the tsunami would have to travel up and over a "hill". Now it's just going "down hill"?
Can you make up your mind?
Or is this another joke based on 'wrong arguments'?
-
29silhouette, you are right, it is very hard to depict and comprehend such a nonsensical concept as RET is. You would be placed (from any single point at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it? Very stupid indeed, so why don't you jut quit this stupidity? But you have gone too far, haven't you? In order to save your face just exit your stupidity, begin New Year with changed nick, and pretend your are someone else, nobody will notice...
-
29silhouette, you are right, it is very hard to depict and comprehend such a nonsensical concept as RET is. You would be placed (from any single point at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it? Very stupid indeed, so why don't you jut quit this stupidity? But you have gone too far, haven't you? In order to save your face just exit your stupidity, begin New Year with changed nick, and pretend your are someone else, nobody will notice...
Not really stupid. Or do hills not work? If I stand at the base of a hill and a friend at the base of the hill opposite to me, aren't we both down from each other if we traveled in a straight line?
-
29silhouette, you are right, it is very hard to depict and comprehend such a nonsensical concept as RET is.
Actually it's quite easy. Obtain a ball of some kind or a desktop globe. Look at it and "have a think about it.", as someone else here likes to say.
-
Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) at the Earth's surface!
No, down is toward the center of the Earth. That's exactly one and only one direction from any specific point on Earth. Why is that so difficult for you to see?
Protip: Making the text red does not automatically make it correct. In your case, it usually just draws attention to your errors.
The best way to visualize this concept would be if you imagined yourself standing in the middle of a relatively round frozen lake. On the hypothetic spherical Earth this would be a very privileged point of view, not only because of the relatively equidistant position with respect to all coastal points around you, but because you would observe these coastal points from an "elevated" position as if you stood on the top of a hill or a mountain.
You're standing on a surface below (i.e. closer to the center of the Earth) the surface of the shoreline above lake level (i.e. further from the center of the Earth). That's why the water in the lake stays in the lake. Unless the lake is very large, the curvature of its surface won't be apparent at all because it's so small. This is because the Earth is very big compared to us (and the lake).
Now, if someone above you (let's say God) spilled huge amount of water directly on your round head all this water should be dispersed equally, so to flow in all directions uniformly and DOWNHILL and AWAY from you.
Are you suggesting the water will flow away from the center of the lake and pile up against the shoreline leaving you high and dry (or in shallower water? Why? The surface of the ice follows the curvature of the globe (small for a small lake); the surface of the added water will also follow the curvature of the globe (ditto). The water will flow in all directions until it's a uniform depth on top of the ice (presuming it doesn't freeze before this happens), raising the level of the lake (assuming it doesn't spill out from the lowest point of the surrounding shoreline).
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
Which way is down slope? [Hint: there isn't one. Sea level is, well, level. That's why it's called sea level. This was already covered in the CONSPIRACY thread and elsewhere.]
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
If your notion were correct, this would be a problem. But it's not so it's not.
Should i remind you to these words, once again:
No, but you're going to anyway.
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
Quite a few factors affect the direction a river takes. First of all, water runs downhill due to "gravity". It may flow northward or southward, to the east, or to the west, but always downhill. Where water is forced to move uphill, for short distances over rocks or small inclines, the force of the flowing water must be sufficient to overcome the "gravitational pull" downward or the water will stop flowing. The exact course a river or stream takes depends on a combination of many factors.
Topography plays a major role in determining a river's course. Water will always seek the path of least resistance. It will go around or under rather than up and over whenever possible. Confronted with a mountain chain or even a small ridge, the river will turn and flow parallel to the blocking feature unless or until it is able to erode a path across it. The composition of the terrain determines whether or not this is possible. Hard rocks allow little, or only very slow erosion. Sand, gravel and dirt are easily eroded and the river will make its path through these much more easily.
Water in nature never flows very far in a straight line. If you look at a map, you see that rivers, creeks, and streams twist and turn on their way seaward, even where there are no obstacles in their path. This twisting and turning is called meandering and develops not only in response to large obstacles, but also in response to very subtle differences in terrain, even to the the ease of flow over one grain of sand versus another. Slight deviations become magnified and the meander appears. Where natural rivers follow a straight path for any distance, they have been engineered by humans to do so. Rivers meander because it saves work, it is the most efficient use of the energy of flowing water over the ground.
See. I told you.
You lost it at "On a globe there can't be up and down". Every conclusion based on this is, what's the word... oh, yeah... wrong!
As for the flatness of the Sudd area:
The most remarkable topographic feature of the Sudd area is its flatness: for 400 km, from south to north, the slope is a mere 0.01 % and much of it is even flatter.
This means that in the middle of this 250 miles (within which Nile falls but a few centimeters), we should imagine 5 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4347E/w4347e0k.htm (http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4347E/w4347e0k.htm)
Alpha2Omega, would you like to reckon an amount of Nile's inclination according to these words: "0,01 % and much of it is even flatter"?
slope = rise / run.
Presuming the numbers are right
0.01% = rise / 400 km
rise = 400 km * 0.01%
= 400 km * 0.0001
= .04 km
rise = 40 meters.
About 131 feet in 248 miles, or about 1/2 foot per mile.
More than a few centimeters unless you consider 4,000 of 'em "a few".
Not exactly one foot in 1,000 miles, either, but, what's three orders of magnitude between friends?
At any rate, as already stated again (and again, and again, and...), a "flat" river is not changing elevation - that is, it isn't getting closer to or further from the center of the Earth. If, as you suggest, it follows a straight line through the globe, the middle of the chord would be closer to the center of the Earth, thus, a low point. This is incorrect. Are you a really, really slow learner, or do you simply ignore responses to your posts?
In addition:
OLD RIVERS ARGUMENT from a pen of a noble and admirable man by the name Thomas Winship:
Rivers run DOWN to the sea because of the inclination of their beds. Rising at an altitude above sea-level, in some cases thousands of feet above the sea, they follow the easiest route to their level — the sea. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin. But if the world be a globe, the "Amazon" in South America that flows always in an easterly direction, would sometimes be running uphill and sometimes down, according to the movement of the globe. Then the "Congo" in West Africa, that always pursues a westerly course to the sea, would in the same manner be running alternately up and down. When that point of the globe exactly between them was up, they would both be running up, although in opposite directions; and when the globe took half a turn, they would both be running down ! We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.
<pretty pictures of lakes or mirages or something>
Oh, no! Not the old rivers argument!!
This author doesn't give any reason why he thinks the things he says are true. He just says them and claims they're true. Can you explain what "movement of the globe" he's talking about and why it should cause the "Amazon" [sic] to run uphill, ever? Similarly for the "Congo" [sic]. He seems to be as confused about which way is up as you are. If he had (or claimed to have) a PhD, did anyone ask him "What's up, Doc?"
I highly recommend a better quality of author than the ones you seem to go for.
-
No, down is toward the center of the Earth. That's exactly one and only one direction from any specific point on Earth. Why is that so difficult for you to see?
This very point is the one thing that cikljamas just can't seem to comprehend, nor does he understand that it totally destroys 99% of his arguments. The gravitational force of every single object on the surface of the earth is directed at the centre of gravity of the earth's mass, but cikljamas's knowledge of geophysics and mechanics appears to be very limited.
The best he could do with me was to call me a liar!
And yes; the red text is pretty juvenile ain't it. ;D
-
Perfectly flat Lake (like a mirror) :
(http://i.imgur.com/bvtoCmn.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ihGMyPk.jpg)
They curved 8)
-
They curved 8)
Only in your round head. ;D Happy New Year your round heads! 8)
I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :
Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !
"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!
The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!
SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?
If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!
The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:
You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?
Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:
1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."
If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!
2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!
3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.
4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.
(http://i.imgur.com/cmzzUKm.jpg)
(http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/STS006-43-235.jpg)
Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!
Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:
Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!
Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:
"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054) if you want...
Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!
If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.
On top of that:
If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot: "An EXTREMELY flat area"?
On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.
-
cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature. If you want a straight line, you need to use laser. Over a sufficiently long distance, you can see that water level ≠ laser level:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2014/01/spring_14_sketches_key_21.jpg)
-
cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature.
And again, this is a simple point that cikljamas is apparently unable to comprehend. He still seems to think that the surface of any restrained body of water is flat rather than curved. He also misinterprets the word "level" in the term sea level (although he calls it see level due to translation?). Sea level refers to a vertical datum point on the surface of the water at a specific distance from the earth's centre of gravity. To be precise, the term AMSL, above mean sea level, is used internationally. Therefore, a mountain peak at 1,000m AMSL at the coast of Sydney, Australia is exactly identical to the elevation of a mountain peak at 1,000m AMSL at the coast of California.
-
They curved 8)
Only in your round head. ;D Happy New Year your round heads! 8)
I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :
Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !
"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!
The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!
SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?
If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!
The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:
You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?
Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:
1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."
If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!
2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!
3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.
4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.
(http://i.imgur.com/cmzzUKm.jpg)
(http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/STS006-43-235.jpg)
Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!
Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:
Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!
Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:
"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054) if you want...
Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!
If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.
On top of that:
If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot: "An EXTREMELY flat area"?
On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
11. If the Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 “degrees” south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance—to say the least of it or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
12. The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him that there is an “UP” and a "DOWN” in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - eyes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
13. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so — the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, —it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.
14. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed “curvature” of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which — if anything were needed to do so — would show its utter absurdity. It is this: —If, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John’s, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would just as well “curvate” downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to “curvate” is interchangeable—depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface — the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage, and that the Earth does not “curvate” at all : — an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.
15. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth’s surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as avast “hill” - of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a “hill of water" more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such “science” as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU!
P. S. Round heads: EXIT STUPIDITY!!!
-
As clk is also allowed to call us stupid, I assume I can insult the flat heads all the time. Or maybe flatwits are excepted from the rules.
-
Proof of No. 11 please.
-
Cikljamas have a good think about this post.
cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature. If you want a straight line, you need to use laser. Over a sufficiently long distance, you can see that water level ≠ laser level:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2014/01/spring_14_sketches_key_21.jpg)
Now respond to it. What are you afraid of?
-
I love this forum!
-
Cikljamas have a good think about this post.
cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature. If you want a straight line, you need to use laser. Over a sufficiently long distance, you can see that water level ≠ laser level:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2014/01/spring_14_sketches_key_21.jpg)
Now respond to it. What are you afraid of?
Flat earthers think that light moves like a drunk mouse and that ut tends to bend up for no reason in such a way that it looks just like we are on a round Earth, how convenient.
-
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
11. If the Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 “degrees” south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance—to say the least of it or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
12. The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him that there is an “UP” and a "DOWN” in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - eyes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
13. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so — the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, —it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.
14. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed “curvature” of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which — if anything were needed to do so — would show its utter absurdity. It is this: —If, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John’s, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would just as well “curvate” downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to “curvate” is interchangeable—depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface — the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage, and that the Earth does not “curvate” at all : — an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.
15. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth’s surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as avast “hill” - of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a “hill of water" more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such “science” as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Is it possible for you to actually come up with some original thoughts of your own cikljamas?
You've simply plagiarized en masse this entire plethora of out-dated pseudo-science from this site, and without any due citation:
A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe (http://bit.ly/1K3rnAa) written by printer and publisher William Carpenter in 1885.
A couple of points need to be made: Carpenter was a proponent of Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-science; he had zero academic qualifications—particularly in the sciences; and the entirety of the 15 reasons is more than 125 years out of date.
Apparently you're unable to grasp—or willfully ignore the fact—that science has made enormous advances in the ensuing period? Why is it that you—like most flat earthers—cling desperately to so-called "scientific" texts that were written well over a century ago? If you were tomorrow stricken with a life-threatening illness, would you refer to a medical text written in 1914 or one written in 2014?
Copy-pasta does not a sound argument make. Sorry. ::)
-
@ ausGeoff, it seems that you have missed all these original thoughts of mine:
1.
The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.
The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.
Just think, all those meaningless equations and thought experiments that they studied for years on end are nothing more than the reliance on faith in people that sell the story, who examine them to make sure they too it all in by putting a tick against their answers, all for the sake of a certificate to say they learned to memorise crap.
ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054)
EARTH's TILT ARGUMENT - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469)
INTRODUCTION:
We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.
TSUNAMI-RIVERS ARGUMENT:
A tsunami is basically a shallow-water wave, even in deep seas. Tsunamis typically have wave lengths of 200km, which makes them shallow water waves even in the ocean.
These waves have insignificant wave heights at sea, but in shallow coastal waters they can exceed 30m (100 ft). They may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Earthquakes in the Aleutian Trench regularly send large seismic waves across the Pacific Ocean, affecting Hawaii and the coastlines of the North Pacific Ocean.
When an earthquake occurs, energy will be transferred to the water, resulting in water waves. As the waves reach seashore, because the sea depth is getting shallower and wavelength is getting shorter, the height of the wave gets push up, resulting in tsunami. In other words in deep sea, water won't get pushed up as high as the water in shallow seashore.
Tsunami animation : http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm (http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm)
As you can see in animation above (and in explanation above animation), tsunami waves are shallow-water waves which may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Only when tsunami waves come closer to seashore, their depth is getting shallower, their wavelength is getting shorter, and the height of the wave becomes larger, resulting in destructive consequences...
So, what is wrong here?
FIRST OBSTACLE:
If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!
If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.
1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination
Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?
5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!
SECOND OBSTACLE:
Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!
THIRD OBSTACLE:
Try to combine second obstacle with the alleged rotation of the Earth in a direction West-East!
HOW ABOUT THE RIVERS?
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
A foot = 30,48 cm
Now, try to apply SECOND OBSTACLE to Nile river example, and ask yourself what must be the only possible consequence (inference) of your futile logical attempt to solve this unresolvable problem (under RET assumption)?
The only possible inference is that the Earth is flatly FLAT!!!
Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!
This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!
How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?
Only completely sick mind can believe such brazen stupidity!
And of course, after you "successfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, also:
See a diagram below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?
Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!
(http://i.imgur.com/cuasGI0.jpg)
Scepti, we can only pity them if they really mean what they say. As for the shills, we must keep laughing, they leave us no other option, and the best part is that they are really funny guys, i mean REALLY funny guys, hahahahah....
2.
So reply to mine then ::)
Why hasn't Australia been badly affected by recent tsunamis? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm)
The answer : Because the Earth is flat, that is to say :
It all comes down to geography, says Professor Goff from the Australian Tsunami Research Centre .
(http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg)
3.
They curved 8)
Only in your round head. ;D Happy New Year your round heads! 8)
I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :
Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !
"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!
The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!
SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?
If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!
The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:
You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?
Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:
1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."
If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!
2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!
3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.
4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.
(http://i.imgur.com/cmzzUKm.jpg)
(http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/STS006-43-235.jpg)
Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!
Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:
Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!
Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:
"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054) if you want...
Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!
If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.
On top of that:
If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot: "An EXTREMELY flat area"?
On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.
4.
Only after you ponder on these arguments meticulously and carefully you will be ready for Carpenter's "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe"!!!
5.
The fact that you live in 21. century is disadvantage for you (and i understand that), however, you have no excuse since i have debunked (in details) fraudulence of all the hoaxes and scams that have been imposed upon you and you deluded "round" friends!
6.
Exit stupidity!
-
Cikljamas, how many times do we have to tell you that "down" on a globe is always towards the center?
-
And how many times do we have to tell you that repeating the same erroneous post over and over doesn't make it right, it just makes it more obvious how wrong you are.
-
@ ausGeoff, it seems that you have missed all these original thoughts of mine:
1.
-Same copypasta again.-
Exit stupidity!
That's all been explained and you were shown to be wrong or deceitful ...... or joking based on how wrong your arguments are.
Do you have anything new for us to rip apart?
-
Maybe cikljamas will be able to comprehend an easy (but only illustrative) example:
The head of a 1,000km long river is at an altitude of 400 metres. Its outfall is at an elevation of 4 metres. That means—obviously—it falls 396 metres over its length.
So... at its head it's 6,371,000m + 400m distant from the CoG of the earth. At its outfall it's 6,371,000m + 4m from the CoG of the earth.
One cannot draw a straight line from its head to its outfall as the mean surface of the water (theoretically) describes a shallow vertical curve which follows the nominal profile of the earth's surface beneath it.
He claims (without any attribution) the following:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
This is nothing more than a totally naive misconception by printer and publisher William Carpenter—a proponent of Samuel Rowbotham—posited in 1885. And we all know by now that cikljamas invariably supports his arguments—such as they are LOL—with science that's out of date by 150 years. The guy really needs to check out some scientific texts that've been written this century, but then that'd shoot all his absurd pseudo-science out of the water wouldn't it?
-
I love cikljamas' view of round earth:
(https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/rounwrld.jpg)
-
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/627/cache/tourists-salar-de-uyuni-bolivia_62758_990x742.jpg?01RI=94334B0706A8E7B,cm:akamai.mathtag.com%2Fevent%2Fimg%3Fakam_state%3D0%26akid%3D3Ma3dKAdodyXaTkYzTu90YNvV2lYgP1HyGQb6qUrDK8EixMF4ml-gaQ%26no_log&01NA=ck&)
Salt flats ( Bending oceans,,LOL
Now I am expecting Katara to be bending OCEANS
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/1213a9b95090c9829ef51015a1749fb9/tumblr_inline_nd7k0st6px1sr6hp2.gif)
A Round ''Plaine,.. LMAO
-
The salt lake looks round to me as some parts of the mountains disappear behind the horizon :)
-
How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820138/50-000-feet-high-no-oxygen-travelling-speed-sound-did-pilot-survive-Virgin-Galactic-crash-injured-shoulder.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820138/50-000-feet-high-no-oxygen-travelling-speed-sound-did-pilot-survive-Virgin-Galactic-crash-injured-shoulder.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490)
"Investigators are trying to piece together how SpaceShipTwo's surviving pilot managed to escape the rocket as it disintegrated around him and parachute to the ground from an altitude virtually devoid of oxygen.
Pete Siebold, 43, sustained just an injured shoulder when the Virgin Galactic spacecraft broke apart mid-flight and crashed in the Mojave desert last Friday, killing co-pilot Michael Alsbury, 39.
Christopher Hart, acting chairman for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that is leading the crash investigation, said Mr Siebold did not exit through the cockpit's escape hatch.
'We know it wasn't through there, so how did this pilot get out?' he said."
How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?
Hmm... let me guess... perhaps he's a liar - and never flew the plane in the first place?
===================================================
E= mc2 ' does this sound familiar,,,
(' Relativity is not only wrong, it’s an disgrace to common sense, and its creator, so could it be' that ,Albert Einstein, was no less than a 'Jweish Fcuk,,.
'The Einstein Bullshit' is intended for those who have been suspicious of the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood in terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite were privy.
The understanding of reality in concrete terms was presented as being beyond the capability of intelligent individuals.
Instead, reality turns out to be readily understandable in terms of common sense reasoning once the smoke and mirrors of mathematical obfuscation and the mathematical and logical errors associated with Special and General Relativity have been removed."
'The speed of light relative to what?'
accredited scientists ,,,, Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity.... why 'Could it be because its' Bullshit,,,
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41S550M4DXL.jpg)
[/quote]
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1082183/thumbs/r-POOP-IN-SPACE-large570.jpg?10)
Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.
(http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/10.14.2008/image081.jpg)
"ENOS THE CHIMP - first American to orbit Earth":
(http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2013/05/sheep-go-back-to-sheep.jpg)
(http://www.remotepatrolled.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UnderTheDome.jpg)
-
Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831884/Pilot-survived-Virgin-Galactic-crash-tells-dramatically-thrown-clear-spaceship-broke-up.html)
And they wore oxygen masks too:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130926092259-n-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-richard-branson-00021421-620x348.jpg)
But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
-
How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820138/50-000-feet-high-no-oxygen-travelling-speed-sound-did-pilot-survive-Virgin-Galactic-crash-injured-shoulder.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820138/50-000-feet-high-no-oxygen-travelling-speed-sound-did-pilot-survive-Virgin-Galactic-crash-injured-shoulder.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490)
"Investigators are trying to piece together how SpaceShipTwo's surviving pilot managed to escape the rocket as it disintegrated around him and parachute to the ground from an altitude virtually devoid of oxygen.
Pete Siebold, 43, sustained just an injured shoulder when the Virgin Galactic spacecraft broke apart mid-flight and crashed in the Mojave desert last Friday, killing co-pilot Michael Alsbury, 39.
Christopher Hart, acting chairman for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that is leading the crash investigation, said Mr Siebold did not exit through the cockpit's escape hatch.
'We know it wasn't through there, so how did this pilot get out?' he said."
How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?
Hmm... let me guess... perhaps he's a liar - and never flew the plane in the first place?
===================================================
E= mc2 ' does this sound familiar,,,
(' Relativity is not only wrong, it’s an disgrace to common sense, and its creator, so could it be' that ,Albert Einstein, was no less than a 'Jweish Fcuk,,.
'The Einstein Bullshit' is intended for those who have been suspicious of the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood in terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite were privy.
The understanding of reality in concrete terms was presented as being beyond the capability of intelligent individuals.
Instead, reality turns out to be readily understandable in terms of common sense reasoning once the smoke and mirrors of mathematical obfuscation and the mathematical and logical errors associated with Special and General Relativity have been removed."
'The speed of light relative to what?'
accredited scientists ,,,, Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity.... why 'Could it be because its' Bullshit,,,
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41S550M4DXL.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1082183/thumbs/r-POOP-IN-SPACE-large570.jpg?10)
Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.
(http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/10.14.2008/image081.jpg)
"ENOS THE CHIMP - first American to orbit Earth":
(http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2013/05/sheep-go-back-to-sheep.jpg)
(http://www.remotepatrolled.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UnderTheDome.jpg)
[/quote] Very well put. It astonishes me how easy it is to dupe so many supposed normal intelligent people, but I also have to understand that abiding by protocol and trusting the authority has been ingrained into the psyche from birth.
The problem I have is when things like this space venture stuff comes out with that pilot parachuting from 50,000 feet out of a supposed disintegrating space ship and survives.
You see, the average person is brought up on movie stunts and special effects. They see this stuff all the time so a man escaping from a space ship is possible to the point of being regular. It's absolutely nuts.
We've been trained to accept fantasy for reality.
To keep the world alseep, give them fantasy to occupy their minds but let them know it is fantasy. This is called a movie.
This way you can also keep them alseep with other fantasies that can be passed of as fact with documentaries.
The difference between the truth and a lie is in how it's told and how interesting it can be portrayed.
A lie can become the truth if there is no way of finding the truth of that lie.
Being a liar can be a profession. It can pay well and can also put the liar on a pedestal.
The issue is in what constitutes a liar and what can be deemed a real lie.
The truth is, a lie is an untruth, so any untruth, no matter how it's told, is no less a lie.
Buying your child a magic wand from a shop will not make your kid a wizard or witch in reality but it will make them so in their fantasy.
Jumping off a shed roof in a made up cape, will not allow you to fly like superman but you will never know unless you try it and injure yourself.
Going into space can be every kids fantasy and can stay as a fantasy for the rest of their lives, whilst never experiencing it.
They can live on the fantasy of the story telling liars who turned their fantasy into real fantasy story telling, which to you is their fantasy turned into fact, because you have no reason to doubt the story teller, unless you're switched on enough to see them as a bad story teller.
They are lying to you but there's no harm done, right? I mean, if they're lying, then they gave you a dream - a fantasy to hold onto. Like the parent and the child. The parent gives the child a fantasy in santa claus.
Which one is worse?
Is it the fantasy astronaut selling you a lie of fantasy, or the parent selling you a fictional present giver?
The simple truth is this:
The stories you are told are the stories that you can never gain a reality from, physically.
You're as reliant on Harry Potter being a real wizard as you are of seeing astronauts shown to float in space.
When someone tells you that you can make fire from a stick and stone by friction, you can test it out.
When someone tells you that men can float in hundreds of miles high space, you have to apply to be an astronaut and wait until you see reality.
Our entire lives and history are a mixture of truth and fantasy. Our space adventures are absolute fantasy given out as truths in all apsects.
We are simply slaves that are fed just enough information to make us believe we are anything but. We are so used to it that we actually feel free. We are made to believe that we have a say and a thought on this Earth. We have neither, unless we are privvy to the reality, which 99.99% of the human population will never be.
Trying to make severely brainwashed people see a hint of reality is akin to trying to stop a herd of buffalo from stampeding over you by using a road crossing stop sign, such is the frenzied nature of people in allowing themselves to be controlled by the mere stamp of a foot.
-
Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831884/Pilot-survived-Virgin-Galactic-crash-tells-dramatically-thrown-clear-spaceship-broke-up.html)
And they wore oxygen masks too:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130926092259-n-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-richard-branson-00021421-620x348.jpg)
But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
All of this crap has everything to do with the global conspiracy as it all ties in. Anyone who believes this story - is child like.
-
septic have you been to Cavendish Laboratory yet to expand on your dunny pressure?.
I guess not your are not locked up in a nut farm yet. How did you fool yourself, was the flat cookies?.
-
Very well put. It astonishes me how easy it is to dupe so many supposed normal intelligent people, but I also have to understand that abiding by protocol and trusting the authority has been ingrained into the psyche from birth.
The problem I have is when things like this space venture stuff comes out with that pilot parachuting from 50,000 feet out of a supposed disintegrating space ship and survives.
You see, the average person is brought up on movie stunts and special effects. They see this stuff all the time so a man escaping from a space ship is possible to the point of being regular. It's absolutely nuts.
We've been trained to accept fantasy for reality.
To keep the world alseep, give them fantasy to occupy their minds but let them know it is fantasy. This is called a movie.
This way you can also keep them alseep with other fantasies that can be passed of as fact with documentaries.
The difference between the truth and a lie is in how it's told and how interesting it can be portrayed.
A lie can become the truth if there is no way of finding the truth of that lie.
Being a liar can be a profession. It can pay well and can also put the liar on a pedestal.
The issue is in what constitutes a liar and what can be deemed a real lie.
The truth is, a lie is an untruth, so any untruth, no matter how it's told, is no less a lie.
Buying your child a magic wand from a shop will not make your kid a wizard or witch in reality but it will make them so in their fantasy.
Jumping off a shed roof in a made up cape, will not allow you to fly like superman but you will never know unless you try it and injure yourself.
Going into space can be every kids fantasy and can stay as a fantasy for the rest of their lives, whilst never experiencing it.
They can live on the fantasy of the story telling liars who turned their fantasy into real fantasy story telling, which to you is their fantasy turned into fact, because you have no reason to doubt the story teller, unless you're switched on enough to see them as a bad story teller.
They are lying to you but there's no harm done, right? I mean, if they're lying, then they gave you a dream - a fantasy to hold onto. Like the parent and the child. The parent gives the child a fantasy in santa claus.
Which one is worse?
Is it the fantasy astronaut selling you a lie of fantasy, or the parent selling you a fictional present giver?
The simple truth is this:
The stories you are told are the stories that you can never gain a reality from, physically.
You're as reliant on Harry Potter being a real wizard as you are of seeing astronauts shown to float in space.
When someone tells you that you can make fire from a stick and stone by friction, you can test it out.
When someone tells you that men can float in hundreds of miles high space, you have to apply to be an astronaut and wait until you see reality.
Our entire lives and history are a mixture of truth and fantasy. Our space adventures are absolute fantasy given out as truths in all apsects.
We are simply slaves that are fed just enough information to make us believe we are anything but. We are so used to it that we actually feel free. We are made to believe that we have a say and a thought on this Earth. We have neither, unless we are privvy to the reality, which 99.99% of the human population will never be.
Trying to make severely brainwashed people see a hint of reality is akin to trying to stop a herd of buffalo from stampeding over you by using a road crossing stop sign, such is the frenzied nature of people in allowing themselves to be controlled by the mere stamp of a foot.
Very well put Scepti! As always! :) Thumb up!
(http://)
This is the life we live in.
Almost everything is faked.
Our realities are given to us.
We live in the real life version of the Truman Show.
If enough people snap out of their slumber and realize the news is faked to scare us in to submission, maybe we can put a stop to this.
Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831884/Pilot-survived-Virgin-Galactic-crash-tells-dramatically-thrown-clear-spaceship-broke-up.html)
And they wore oxygen masks too:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130926092259-n-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-richard-branson-00021421-620x348.jpg (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130926092259-n-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-richard-branson-00021421-620x348.jpg)
But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
How about this:
If you want to know just a half of the truth then read this : EARTH's TILT ARGUMENT - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469)
If you want to be acquainted with the whole truth then you should read this : ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054)
That is why i have put both links above in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526)
If you want to know just a half of the truth then watch this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ji5VurV.jpg)
If you want to be acquainted with the whole truth then you should ponder on this :
(http://i.imgur.com/rW88EoO.jpg)
Now, a RET excuse for inaccuracy of Mercator maps and for impossibility to correctly draw the continents using Peter's Projection maps, is that it is impossible to present reality (as it is on a globe) on a flat paper.
So, i have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth, and then i have put them into perspective so to compare some sizes, and voila:
Example no.1 : HOW TO PUT 9 GREENLANDS IN 1 SOUTH AMERICA :
(http://i.imgur.com/w2Gmdqz.jpg)
This example is not so far away from reality but we still lack almost one whole Greenland within South America...
Example no. 2 : HOW TO PUT 5 USA IN 1 AFRICA :
(http://i.imgur.com/YCa79W6.jpg)
In the example above we see the representation which is totally off the reality!!!
Why?
Edit: Inquisitive, should i repeat these words for you once more:
So, i have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth...
-
Simple,understand projection for maps.
-
That is why i have put both links above in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526)
Good joke. A link to this very very page.
If you want to know just a half of the truth then watch this:
http://i.imgur.com/Ji5VurV.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Ji5VurV.jpg)
Watch it for what? It's an imaged of two overlayed projections. What is your point? Your other image with the triangle is all blurry still too. I guess you want to post 'accurate' information.
-
I haven't been on here much recently, so this is going back a couple of days.
They curved 8)
Only in your round head. ;D Happy New Year your round heads! 8)
I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :
Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !
Happy New Year! Thanks for the compliment.
How is your reformulated assertion any different than the original? "Down" is toward the center of the Earth (more precisely, normal to the geoid in the direction toward the center of the geoid) from any point on or near its surface. This will be true regardless of your elevation.
"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!
The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!
SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?
Yes, a level has a constant distance from the geoid. Note this is not a flat plane as in mathematics; it has curvature (very slight for a small area, larger for larger areas because the geoid is really big).
If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!
Sure it would. You're thinking of "tangent to the geoid, or parallel to it", not "a level", which is a constant distance from the geoid.
The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:
You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?
This may seem counterintuitive to you, but not to people who can actually understand how this works - for them, it's obvious. If you're both at the same level then, by definition, you're not down from each other. You're at the same elevation, therefore neither is "down" from the other. Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand this?
Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:
1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."
If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!
2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!
3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.
4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.
(http://i.imgur.com/cmzzUKm.jpg)
<Image: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/STS006-43-235.jpg. (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/STS006-43-235.jpg.) Confluence of Blue and White Nile from space, I think. Not sure what the point is.>
Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!
OK, just to be clear, from all the above, it looks like you are abandoning your claims that
1) The Nile only drops one foot in 1,000 miles
2) The White Nile has a grade of 0.01% for 400 km.
Is that right?
There's a lot of wrong information circulating on the Internet. You're responsible for the information you post here; it's people like you that cause bad information to propagate, so don't act so indignant. We can start by asking you why you parroted (to use a favorite term here) that particular item of misinformation. Check your information before you post it. If everyone did this, what you complain about here will stop.
Given that you routinely assert bad information as "facts", why should anyone believe anything you post without independent confirmation.
Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:
No, no, no! Down is a single direction. Toward the center of the Earth. Since your premise is completely wrong, any conclusions based on it are also wrong.
First it was one foot in 1,000 miles, then 40 m in 400 km, now this. Before that, you claimed that the tropics are only 1/4 of the way to the pole linearly, then defended it for a couple of pages before trying to pass that off as "only a joke." I don't believe you.
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."
[Citation needed.]
Now the White Nile falls but a foot in 400 km.
[Citation needed.] That chart is too coarse to draw any such conclusion. Please provide a better reference.
"Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
Do you have a detailed topographic map with contour interval 1' or less that shows this?
Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!
<repeated stuff>
On top of that:
If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot: "An EXTREMELY flat area"?
On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.
Since you have abandoned that claim, and don't know what "down" or "sea level" means, this is all just meaningless rambling, even the text in red.
-
Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831884/Pilot-survived-Virgin-Galactic-crash-tells-dramatically-thrown-clear-spaceship-broke-up.html)
And they wore oxygen masks too:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130926092259-n-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-richard-branson-00021421-620x348.jpg)
But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
All of this crap has everything to do with the global conspiracy as it all ties in. Anyone who believes this story - is child like.
Anybody who believes in a theory that requires half the world and math to be in on a conspiracy is childish.
-
Very well put Scepti! As always! :) Thumb up! Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.
Very well put. It astonishes me how easy it is to dupe so many supposed normal intelligent people, but I also have to understand that abiding by protocol and trusting the authority has been ingrained into the psyche from birth... Buying your child a magic wand from a shop will not make your kid a wizard or witch in reality but it will make them so in their fantasy.
I'm guessing it won't be too long before we hear the glad news that sceptimatic and cikljamas are having their first love child. They've been playing as a tag team for some time now, so it's probably imminent.
Isn't it funny though that two guys with the same whacky ideas eventually gravitate towards each other to the point of a relatively intimate on-line relationship. I guess when the whole world thinks you're nuts, it's any port in a storm, so to speak? ;D
-
Very well put Scepti! As always! :) Thumb up! Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.
Very well put. It astonishes me how easy it is to dupe so many supposed normal intelligent people, but I also have to understand that abiding by protocol and trusting the authority has been ingrained into the psyche from birth... Buying your child a magic wand from a shop will not make your kid a wizard or witch in reality but it will make them so in their fantasy.
I'm guessing it won't be too long before we hear the glad news that sceptimatic and cikljamas are having their first love child. They've been playing as a tag team for some time now, so it's probably imminent.
Isn't it funny though that two guys with the same whacky ideas eventually gravitate towards each other to the point of a relatively intimate on-line relationship. I guess when the whole world thinks you're nuts, it's any port in a storm, so to speak? ;D
ausGeoff, you have had plenty of warnings. Please take the rest of the day off to reflect on the notion of appropriate and inappropriate posting. See you tomorrow.
-
1.
"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!
The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!
SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?
Yes, a level has a constant distance from the geoid. Note this is not a flat plane as in mathematics; it has curvature (very slight for a small area, larger for larger areas because the geoid is really big).
You need citations?
Here we go:
In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:
"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.300.000 square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."
The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:
" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."
"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In "Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :
"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas. The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply-sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."
This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
Let's put it this way:
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/tm8tVau.jpg)
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
2. The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:
You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?
This may seem counterintuitive to you, but not to people who can actually understand how this works - for them, it's obvious. If you're both at the same level then, by definition, you're not down from each other. You're at the same elevation, therefore neither is "down" from the other. Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand this?
Should i remind you to this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645696#msg1645696 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645696#msg1645696)
(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him that there is an “UP” and a "DOWN” in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - eyes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
3. OK, just to be clear, from all the above, it looks like you are abandoning your claims that
1) The Nile only drops one foot in 1,000 miles
2) The White Nile has a grade of 0.01% for 400 km.
Is that right?
There's a lot of wrong information circulating on the Internet. You're responsible for the information you post here.
Oh, yeah, i am responsible for all heliocentric lies in the world, no problem...
Look at just one another example of that kind:
Question: What is surface area of the continental united states?
Answer: It depends how the total size of the United States is calculated: the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,630 km2),[1] the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km2),[24] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km2).
The truth: Not one of numbers above is correct!
The number closest to the reality is 3 537 436 sq miles, when we substract from that number Alaska and Hawaii we get 2 863 237 sq miles. Now, 11 677 239 sq miles (Africa) devided by 2 863 237 = 4,07.
On the other hand, in this video : (http://) ...you can here estimation according which the size of the USA could be only one fifth of the Africa, and not one fourth part of the Africa! I believe that this guy has a good reason for such estimation.
This is the page at which you can find the copy of the map that has been presented in a video above, and you can also read one interesting discussion on this issue: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-true-size-of-africa/ (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-true-size-of-africa/)
One excerpt (out of the discussion):
(http://i.imgur.com/9pwcf7H.jpg)
So, what is the true size of Africa indeed?
Who knows...
(http://i.imgur.com/GXZzrWC.jpg)
Shouldn't we pose this question: Should we abandon old claims (and show mistrust towards Carpenter's words which had been written down 100 years ago) and rather chose to believe in modern lies? Just because they are modern?
If i have to choose to whom i am going to believe then i am choosing to believe to Carpenter's words:
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
-
cikiljames, I think that this is the fourth time that I have had to tell you that down on a round Earth is always in the direction of the center of the sphere and altitude is distance from the center of the Earth.
-
1. ...
You need citations?
Yes.
Here we go:
In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:
This isn't an adequate citation to identify the work you're referencing.
I can't locate the quoted text in the citation provided. I did find a similarly-titled publication attributed to the same author (a more complete citation than yours and a link to the entire text in google books here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648097#msg1648097)); as already noted, page 513 of that volume is not about Physical Geography, it's about kitchen gardens. It's presumably a different edition of the same work; can you find your quoted passage in the linked text, or provide a link or usable citation to whatever it is you're quoting from, please.
Oh, yes... Chambers apparently believes the Earth is almost perfectly spherical, and also believes Darwin is correct in his theory of the Origin of Species. Be careful of who you quote.
<copy-paste of text from here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648028#msg1648028), with color and bolding added to make it more convincing>
Relevant part...
"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas. The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply-sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."
This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
Notice how the original author uses the term "plain" and it's subtly changed to "plane" in the commentary? These terms sound the same when spoken but have distinct meanings. A plain (in geomorphology) is not the same as a plane (in geometry), even if they're both described as "flat". In geometry, "plane" is a surface with infinite width and length, but no depth and no curvature. In geomorphology, a "plain" is a surface with little or no topography; the curvature of the Earth is not topography.
Let's put it this way:
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
<image representing ocean basins as chords within a circle>
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Go back and read your quoted source. That says PLAIN, not PLANE (your all-caps). They're different. The abyssal plains are large areas with little topography and almost constant depth bounded by steep continental rises and, often, mid-ocean ridges (which were unknown to Carpenter). This isn't what you are trying to show.
Isn't that obvious?
The sleight of hand? Yes. Maybe it's an honest mistake of confusing terms; in that case: The mistake? Yes.
2. The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:
You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?
This may seem counterintuitive to you, but not to people who can actually understand how this works - for them, it's obvious. If you're both at the same level then, by definition, you're not down from each other. You're at the same elevation, therefore neither is "down" from the other. Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand this?
Should i remind you to this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645696#msg1645696 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645696#msg1645696)
I don't see why you would want to. The question about the direction compass needles point and the errors in the claims you presented were thoroughly discussed afterward.
The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him that there is an “UP” and a "DOWN” in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - eyes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
"Up" is the direction toward your zenith; "down" is the opposite direction. This makes perfect sense on a spherical earth. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
3. OK, just to be clear, from all the above, it looks like you are abandoning your claims that
1) The Nile only drops one foot in 1,000 miles
2) The White Nile has a grade of 0.01% for 400 km.
Is that right?
There's a lot of wrong information circulating on the Internet. You're responsible for the information you post here.
Oh, yeah, i am responsible for all heliocentric lies in the world, no problem...
No, you're not responsible for what others publish, but you are responsible for what you post and you can refrain from spreading misinformation by checking it before parroting it elsewhere on the Internet as fact, which you did. Especially if you want to complain about it.
You never answered the question. Are you retracting those claims?
Look at just one another example of that kind:
Question: What is surface area of the continental united states?
Answer: It depends how the total size of the United States is calculated: the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,630 km2),[1] the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km2),[24] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km2).
The truth: Not one of numbers above is correct!
Are any criteria for what was counted in each of these areas provided? For instance, do they count lakes and offshore areas claimed by the US differently? This is alluded to in the comments you included below. Do they include territories like Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam? A couple of those copied numbers for area apparently have footnotes in the original text that might amplify this; did you read any of those? The third is taken from context that may have contained that information.
The number closest to the reality is 3 537 436 sq miles,
Citation needed.
when we substract from that number Alaska and Hawaii we get 2 863 237 sq miles. Now, 11 677 239 sq miles (Africa) devided by 2 863 237 = 4,07.
You're saying that Africa, the second-largest continent, has four times the area of the Continental US. OK. So?
On the other hand, in this video :
<youtube video>
...you can here estimation according which the size of the USA could be only one fifth of the Africa, and not one fourth part of the Africa! I believe that this guy has a good reason for such estimation.
This is the page at which you can find the copy of the map that has been presented in a video above, and you can also read one interesting discussion on this issue:
<link to outline of Africa with various countries fitted into it>
I'm not sure what the point is here, but, no, I didn't watch the video. From what you say, someone thinks Africa is five times the size of the US, but you show it's four. OK. So? Can you describe the method he uses and why you think the results differ, and why it matters? Is there any compelling reason to actually watch this video?
Oh, yes... you should also provide information about where your "closest to reality" area of the US and the area of Africa came from. You simply state them as fact here without attribution, and we know how well that's worked recently. If you know the "real" area of the US, why not just use that? If you don't know the "real" area, how do you know your figure is closest to it?
One excerpt (out of the discussion):
<discussion including possible errors in the map and whether or not lakes are counted in the published areas of various countries>
So, what is the true size of Africa indeed?
Who knows...
Is there an actual dispute about the area of Africa to any significance?
<outline of Africa with various countries fitted into it, crudely-traced outline of Africa with three crudely-traced outlines of CONUS plus Baja California overlayed>
Shouldn't we pose this question: Should we abandon old claims (and show mistrust towards Carpenter's words which had been written down 100 years ago) and rather chose to believe in modern lies? Just because they are modern?
Just because it's modern doesn't that mean it's a lie. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right (or even honest).
If i have to choose to whom i am going to believe then i am choosing to believe to Carpenter's words:
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
Are you back to "the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot"? The graph you presented in conjunction after the "40 meters in 400 km" claim - which was then retracted - shows otherwise.
Even if that "one foot..." was right, which it's not, proves nothing about the shape of the Earth. This discussion is strong evidence that you don't understand basic concepts like "up" and "down". Are you going to claim you were joking again?
-
This isn't an adequate citation to identify the work you're referencing...It's presumably a different edition of the same work; can you find your quoted passage in the linked text, or provide a link or usable citation to whatever it is you're quoting from, please.
(http://i.imgur.com/NSvBGuj.jpg)
Go back and read your quoted source. That says PLAIN, not PLANE (your all-caps). They're different. The abyssal plains are large areas with little topography and almost constant depth bounded by steep continental rises and, often, mid-ocean ridges (which were unknown to Carpenter). This isn't what you are trying to show.
Really now?
(http://i.imgur.com/WWdXwXC.jpg)
Now, i would like to remind you to these words:
If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. We must be able to see both phenomena or none!
Same goes with this case : "OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT & SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL argument"
FACT NO 1. OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
FACT NO 2. SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL:
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!
The first systematic survey of this kind brought out a set of facts which were then supposed to be exceptional, but which the sound ings of the Challenger, taken in connection with those of the United States ship Tuscarora and the German Gazelle, have shown to be general; viz. (i) that the bottom sinks very gradually from the coast of Ireland, westward, for a hundred miles or more; (2) that then, not far beyond the hundred-fathom line, it falls so rapidly that depths of from 1200 to 1500 fathoms are met with at only a short distance further west; (3) that after a further descent to a depth of more than 2000 fathoms, the bottom becomes a slightly undulating plain, whose gradients are so low as to show scarcely any perceptible alteration of depth in a section in which the same scales are used for vertical heights and horizontal distances; * and (4) that on the American side as on the British this plain is bordered by a very steep slope, leading up quickly to a bottom not much exceeding 100 fathoms in depth, which shallows gradually to the coast-line of America. Nothing seems to have struck the Challenger surveyors more than the extraordinary flatness (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the floor of the great oceanic area; the result of one day's sounding enabling a tolerably safe guess to be formed as to the depth to be encountered on the following day; and thus, if the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded by a plain only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas.
Thus our notions of the so-called "ocean basins" are found to require considerable modification; and it becomes obvious that, putting aside the oceanic islands which rise from the bottom of the sea, as mountain-peaks and ridges rise from the general surface of the land, the proper oceanic area is a portion of the crust of the earth which is depressed with tolerable uniformity some thousands of feet below the land area, whilst the bands of Sections drawn (as usual) with a vertical scale enormously in excess of the horizontal altogether misrepresent the real character of the oceanic sea-bed. READ MORE : http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Nature_and_Man_1000142291/325 (http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Nature_and_Man_1000142291/325)
Is there an actual dispute about the area of Africa to any significance?
In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 56, you can read this number: 12 256 000 SQ MILES! ("Modern number = 11 677 239 - WHY???)
(http://i.imgur.com/PrVhmOo.jpg)
Now, if we count like this : 12 256 000 / 2 863 237 we get number 4,28 which means that Africa is bigger than continental USA 4,3 times, not just 4,0 times, doesn't it?
If we subtracted 229,820 sq miles (Madagaskar - i don't know if Madagaskar was included in Chambers number) from Chambers number (12 256 000) then we should count like this: 12 026 180 / 2 863 237 = 4,2 which is still enough greater number than 4,0, isn't it?
What is obvious here is that modern cartographers try to make USA bigger than it is, and in the same time they try to make Africa smaller than it is.
What are they hiding?
Let me guess...
The Earth is flat?
So, how to put 4,2 (at least) USA in one Africa?
(http://i.imgur.com/YCa79W6.jpg)
I have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth
-
Elaborate on the sun zig zagging thing. How would that happen given that the sun were stationary and the Earth revolved around it? Be more specific then "right and left" because they are relative directions that depend on the posttion of the observer.
-
I have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth
Africa is much bigger than the US. I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.
FACT NO 2. SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL:
No, it means SEA level. Level as in maintaining a constant elevation that follows the curvature of the planet.
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface![/u]
No, the underwater plains also follow the curvature.
we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day
No, the sun would move one direction all day.
-
cikljamas can you please change your picture to better represent USA? You seem to have drawn it with Baja California. Baja California is part of Mexico.
Here is a topographical map stolen from wikipedia.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/Topographic_map_example.png) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/Topographic_map_example.png.html)
The lines follow a certain elevation. From what I gather, the book you are quoting is saying there is a certain path that can be taken from London to Russia on one elevation.(they must be ignoring the North Sea.)
They are not saying if you had a Craftsman Bubble Level that was 10,000 km long, you could put it from London to Moscow and it would show level over the whole thing.
-
This isn't an adequate citation to identify the work you're referencing...It's presumably a different edition of the same work; can you find your quoted passage in the linked text, or provide a link or usable citation to whatever it is you're quoting from, please.
<image of some text without attribution>
[/quote]
The quote above is extraneous to what we were discussing. You still didn't give a usable citation to the text you say is from Chambers. Do you even have one?
Go back and read your quoted source. That says PLAIN, not PLANE (your all-caps). They're different. The abyssal plains are large areas with little topography and almost constant depth bounded by steep continental rises and, often, mid-ocean ridges (which were unknown to Carpenter). This isn't what you are trying to show.
Really now?
(http://i.imgur.com/WWdXwXC.jpg)
OK. So?
Let's look at relevant definitions from the Glossary of Geology (http://www.agiweb.org/pubs/glossary/index.html)
plane A two-dimensional form that is without curvature; ideally, a perfectly flat or smooth surface.
plain (a) Any flat area, large or small, at a low elevation; specif. and extensive region of comparitively smooth and level or gently undulating land, having few or no prominent surface irregularities but sometimes having a considerable slope, and usually at a low elevation with reference to surrounding areas. (b) An extensive tract of level or rolliing, almost treeless country with with a shrubby vegetation; a prairie.
flat [geomorph] adj. Having or marked by a continuous surface or stretch of land that is smooth, even, or horizontal, or nearly so, and lacks any significant curvature, slope, elevations, or depressions. n. A general term for a level or nearly level surface or small area of land marked by little or no relief, as a plain; specif: mud flat; valley flat. Also, a nearly level region that visibly displays lower relief than its surroundings.
level [surv] n. ...[nb](a) and (b) describe instruments.[/nb] (c) A measurement of the difference of altitude of two points on the Earth's surface by means of a level.
altitude (a) The vertical distance of a level. a point, or an object considered as a point, above or below the surface of the Earth, measured from a given datum, usually mean sea level. Altitude is positive if the point or object is above the given datum and negative if it is below it. Cf: elevation [surv].
elevation [surv] The vertical distance from a datum (usually mean sea level) to a point or object on the Earth's surface; esp. the height of a ground point above the level of the sea.
Neuendorf, Klaus K.E., Mehl, James P., Jr., Jackson, Julia A. (2005) Glossary of Geology, Fifth Edition. American Geological Institute
The takeaway here is that a plane has no curvature, a plain has little topography (but can have some curvature, just not "significant" curvature). "Level" means no difference in vertical distance from datum (which is sea level, which curves).
Now, i would like to remind you to these words:
<repeat of zig-zag sun argument, already debunked>
Same goes with this case : "OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT & SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL argument"
FACT NO 1. OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
Note the incorrect use of plane. Most of the ocean beds are plains. They're different; see the definitions above.
This makes the stuff below meaningless.
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface![/u]
FACT NO 2. SEE[sic] LEVEL means a LEVEL:
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!
Since you're laboring under a misconception, both are irrelevant.
<repeated Challenger stuff>
Is there an actual dispute about the area of Africa to any significance?
In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 56, you can read this number: 12 256 000 SQ MILES! ("Modern number = 11 677 239 - WHY???)
<Image from Chambers>
Now, if we count like this : 12 256 000 / 2 863 237 we get number 4,28 which means that Africa is bigger than continental USA 4,3 times, not just 4,0 times, doesn't it?
If we subtracted 229,820 sq miles (Madagaskar - i don't know if Madagaskar was included in Chambers number)
There's the problem with just lifting these numbers and using them. You're not sure what they mean. You compare a number from some unspecified source to another number from more than 150 years ago that's 5% different, but you don't know exactly what it includes.
from Chambers number (12 256 000) then we should count like this: 12 026 180 / 2 863 237 = 4,2 which is still enough greater number than 4,0, isn't it?
What is obvious here is that modern cartographers try to make USA bigger than it is, and in the same time they try to make Africa smaller than it is.
What are they hiding?
Let me guess...
The Earth is flat?
Well, that's a guess. We'll leave it at that.
So, how to put 4,2 (at least) USA in one Africa?
<image of crude overlay that's supposed to show something or another, but doesn't show much of anything other than Africa is significantly larger than CONUS, which isn't in dispute>
I have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth
You have areas of the US and Africa. The ratio looks about right from your overlayed outlines. Can you please explain why you think the area given for the US is overstated? Didn't you say in your previous post that a smaller number than others you cited was "closest to the reality"? You argue one thing in one post and the opposite in the next. What the hell is your point here?
Please explain what you're getting at; don't just link some youtube video.
-
Now, i would like to remind you to these words:
If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. We must be able to see both phenomena or none!
Same goes with this case : "OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT & SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL argument"
FACT NO 1. OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
FACT NO 2. SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL:
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!
The first systematic survey of this kind brought out a set of facts which were then supposed to be exceptional, but which the sound ings of the Challenger, taken in connection with those of the United States ship Tuscarora and the German Gazelle, have shown to be general; viz. (i) that the bottom sinks very gradually from the coast of Ireland, westward, for a hundred miles or more; (2) that then, not far beyond the hundred-fathom line, it falls so rapidly that depths of from 1200 to 1500 fathoms are met with at only a short distance further west; (3) that after a further descent to a depth of more than 2000 fathoms, the bottom becomes a slightly undulating plain, whose gradients are so low as to show scarcely any perceptible alteration of depth in a section in which the same scales are used for vertical heights and horizontal distances; * and (4) that on the American side as on the British this plain is bordered by a very steep slope, leading up quickly to a bottom not much exceeding 100 fathoms in depth, which shallows gradually to the coast-line of America. Nothing seems to have struck the Challenger surveyors more than the extraordinary flatness (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the floor of the great oceanic area; the result of one day's sounding enabling a tolerably safe guess to be formed as to the depth to be encountered on the following day; and thus, if the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded by a plain only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas.
Thus our notions of the so-called "ocean basins" are found to require considerable modification; and it becomes obvious that, putting aside the oceanic islands which rise from the bottom of the sea, as mountain-peaks and ridges rise from the general surface of the land, the proper oceanic area is a portion of the crust of the earth which is depressed with tolerable uniformity some thousands of feet below the land area, whilst the bands of Sections drawn (as usual) with a vertical scale enormously in excess of the horizontal altogether misrepresent the real character of the oceanic sea-bed. READ MORE : http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Nature_and_Man_1000142291/325 (http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Nature_and_Man_1000142291/325)
Why BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!?
Let's consider next 4 possibilities (cases):
1. Ocean surface FLAT
Ocean bed FLAT
This is how it really is and how it only can be!
2. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed FLAT
Why is this option incorrect? Because the result of a measuring by a method which has been used at that time, could not have been consistent with a report above! Supposed curved line of ocean surface would have prevented correctness of such inference according which the bottom of the MID-OCEAN is EXTRAORDINARY FLAT (EXCEPT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LAND)!
3. Ocean surface FLAT
Ocean bed CURVED
Here goes the same explanation as in case no 2.
4. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed CURVED
In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!
See this diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/b726lu2.jpg)
The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."
This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
Special addition: UNDISCOVERY OF NON-EXISTANT ISLAND (Sandy Island, New Caledonia) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Island,_New_Caledonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Island,_New_Caledonia)
edit: - One correction: In a diagram above i wrote (by accident) for CASE 4 : O.B. FLAT instead of O.B. CURVED...
My apology!
-
Why should the shape of the ocean bed have anything at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface? ???
-
Why should the shape of the ocean bed have anything at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface? ???
Everything explained in a post above, but i can answer to your question in this way, also:
Because after the surface of all waters on the earth, abyssal plains are characterized by one of the flattest areas on Earth.
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain)
The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.
Read more: ocean: Trenches, Plains, and Ridges | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ocean-trenches-plains-ridges.html#ixzz3NxEXI3Hq (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ocean-trenches-plains-ridges.html#ixzz3NxEXI3Hq)
Abyssal plains illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/kLWYsWT.jpg)
Abyssal plains flat like South American pampas:
(http://i.imgur.com/Bg7TdVm.jpg)
-
What's your point?
-
4. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed CURVED
In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!
So the ocean floor has slightly more curvature than the ocean surface. What is the problem? Pretty basic geometry. Draw a circle and then draw a slightly smaller circle centered inside it.
-
Why should the shape of the ocean bed have anything at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface? ???
Because after the surface of all waters on the earth, abyssal plains are characterized by one of the flattest areas on Earth.
In other words, the shape of the ocean bed has nothing at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface. Glad that we have that sorted.
-
4. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed CURVED
In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!
So the ocean floor has slightly more curvature than the ocean surface. What is the problem? Pretty basic geometry. Draw a circle and then draw a slightly smaller circle centered inside it.
Consider this:
(http://i.imgur.com/7X4MlE5.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AukgImc.jpg)
Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?
Only, the Earth is not spherical at all...It's a pity (for engineers)...
-
Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?
That depends. How easy is it tunnel through the earth's liquid mantle layer?
-
Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?
Not really. In addition to what markjo said about drilling through the mantle and the extreme temperatures, you would also have some pretty steep grades away from the middle of the tunnel toward the ends. It would probably be easier to just follow the curvature just under the ocean floor.
-
Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?
Not really. In addition to what markjo said about drilling through the mantle and the extreme temperatures, you would also have some pretty steep grades away from the middle of the tunnel toward the ends. It would probably be easier to just follow the curvature just under the ocean floor.
If you wan to do that, then you would have to deal with the mid-Atlantic ridge where the North America and Eurasian plates are moving away from each other at the rate of about one inch per year.
-
4. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed CURVED
In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!
So the ocean floor has slightly more curvature than the ocean surface. What is the problem? Pretty basic geometry. Draw a circle and then draw a slightly smaller circle centered inside it.
Consider this:
(http://i.imgur.com/7X4MlE5.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AukgImc.jpg)
Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?
Only, the Earth is not spherical at all...It's a pity (for engineers)...
Drilling a tunnel strait down 8,000 miles is easier said then done because after you get a few miles down things get really hot and presure get's really high. It's not just a matter of being persistent with a shovel, just look it up, the interior of the Earth is not a very pleasant place to be.
-
Drilling a tunnel strait down 8,000 miles is easier said then done because after you get a few miles down things get really hot and pressure get's really high. It's not just a matter of being persistent with a shovel, just look it up, the interior of the Earth is not a very pleasant place to be.
Good observation, it means that on the spherical Earth, engineers should drill tunnels (for example - below Atlantic) uphill, instead in a straight line or downhill (how tunnels would really be drilled if somebody decided to realize such project).
And you, round heads, have no problem with defending such stupid claims (that tunnels below Atlantic should be drilled uphill)???
-
Drilling a tunnel strait down 8,000 miles is easier said then done because after you get a few miles down things get really hot and pressure get's really high. It's not just a matter of being persistent with a shovel, just look it up, the interior of the Earth is not a very pleasant place to be.
Good observation, it means that on the spherical Earth, engineers should drill tunnels (for example - below Atlantic) uphill, instead in a straight line or downhill (how tunnels would really be drilled if somebody decided to realize such project).
And you, round heads, have no problem with defending such stupid claims (that tunnels below Atlantic should be drilled uphill)???
I don't follow your reasoning, why would tunnels have to be drilled uphill on a round Earth?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AukgImc.jpg)
Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?
Only, the Earth is not spherical at all...It's a pity (for engineers)...
A similar work has been done in Japan Proton Accelerator Complex (J-PARC) facility where neutrino beam is shot towards a neutrino detector located ~300 km away (Super Kamiokande). In order to obtain a straight line from the generator to the detector, the nozzle for the neutrino beam from J-PARC had to be slightly tilted toward the center of the Earth due to the curvature of the Earth.
(http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/06/25/st/20110625_stc904.gif)
And here's a summary on how they take curvature into account while building the facility:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/010.PDF (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/010.PDF)
-
This is now the clkjmas super off-topic super thread.
-
Good observation, it means that on the spherical Earth, engineers should drill tunnels (for example - below Atlantic) uphill, instead in a straight line or downhill (how tunnels would really be drilled if somebody decided to realize such project).
And you, round heads, have no problem with defending such stupid claims (that tunnels below Atlantic should be drilled uphill)???
A tunnel following the curvature would be neither uphill or downhill as the elevation would be constant (a tunnel under the ocean would still have entrances sloping down until leveling out under the ocean floor obviously).
A tunnel 'straight' through with both entrances at the same elevation would be 'downhill' toward the middle (the elevation of the ends would be higher than the middle), gradually leveling out in the middle.
-
This is now the clkjmas super off-topic super thread.
He has no problems derailing his own derailments of his own threads.
-
Lol crayons. Come on man.
-
Round heads, your asses are up, and your heads are down, no doubts about that! ;D
-
Round heads, your asses are up, and your heads are down, no doubts about that! ;D
The funny thing is that if we are round heads that makes you flat heads which is generally considered an insult. Also, people standing on the opposite side of a round Earth side from you then they actually do have "their a**es up and their heads down" relative to you. So no matter what side is right, your comment is true.
-
The diagram that cikljamas posted earlier is laughably so much out of scale as to be totally worthless as a means of mounting any argument regarding the surface of the ocean and the surface of the sea bed. The average distance between the US and Ireland is 7500km whereas the deepest abyssal plains are only 6km deep, or a ratio of 1:1250. cikljamas's diagram shows a ratio of around 1:3 which completely distorts the vertical and horizontal scales, and destroys his argument.
(http://i.imgur.com/7X4MlE5.jpg)
His concept of tunneling between Ireland and North America is purely hypothetical anyway. And unproven hypotheses often can't work in the real world. The other major error with his sketch of course is that he shows the surface of the ocean as horizontal, when in actuality it's curved and follows the nominal curvature of the earth's surface beneath it. The surface of any restrained body of water is at exactly the same distance measured from the centre of gravity of the spherical earth. Rivers of course don't conform to this.
Put simply, if I fill my bathtub with water, there's a slightly convex curve on the water's surface from one end to the other (infinitesimally so of course).
I would like to thank cikljamas for the time and effort he's put into mounting his case with his diagrams in this instance. It's a lot more than most other flat earthers are prepared to do. It's a pity that people such as sceptimatic—with all his weird and whacky notions—isn't prepared to do the same. All to often, it's the round earthers who provide illustrations supporting their points, whereas the majority of flat earthers fail to do so. Too many share sceptimatic's attitude of: "You round earthers are idiots and totally wrong. My explanations are always correct because I say they are. I don't need to give you any verifiable evidence".
-
@AusGeoff, every time you try to be a smart boy, you just help our cause which is to reveal the truth about the utter wrongness of your RET religion!
The more we increase distances & make these diagrams closer to scale, the things get much worse for you!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/T8DXBaT.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/zWWcjqt.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/orwWWbM.jpg)
You should always bare in mind this:
The bottom of the MID-OCEAN is EXTRAORDINARY FLAT (EXCEPT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LAND)!
READ THIS ONCE MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649272#msg1649272 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649272#msg1649272)
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain)
The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.
Read more: ocean: Trenches, Plains, and Ridges | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ocean-trenches-plains-ridges.html#ixzz3NxEXI3Hq (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ocean-trenches-plains-ridges.html#ixzz3NxEXI3Hq)
Abyssal plains illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/kLWYsWT.jpg)
Abyssal plains flat like South American pampas:
(http://i.imgur.com/Bg7TdVm.jpg)
-
I thank you for the additional diagrams cikljamas, but your major error is indicating the surface of the ocean as being flat—when in actuality it's the locus of a rotated convex vertical curve.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/orwWWbM.jpg)
The tunnel you drew following the curvature would be level (neither uphill nor downhill) along it's course under the ocean bottom.
The tunnel you drew straight through would be the "up and down" tunnel. You do realize how steep the angles are where it intersects the surface in Ireland and America correct?
Also, why would we try to imagine that line somewhere lower where your arrows are pointing?
-
I thank you for the additional diagrams cikljamas...
You welcome!
(http://i.imgur.com/orwWWbM.jpg)
The tunnel you drew following the curvature would be level (neither uphill nor downhill) along it's course under the ocean bottom.
The tunnel you drew straight through would be the "up and down" tunnel.
I wonder, how insane one must be to say something like this, let alone to believe in such crazy claims?
-
I thank you for the additional diagrams cikljamas...
You welcome!
(http://i.imgur.com/orwWWbM.jpg)
The tunnel you drew following the curvature would be level (neither uphill nor downhill) along it's course under the ocean bottom.
The tunnel you drew straight through would be the "up and down" tunnel.
I wonder, how insane one must be to say something like this, let alone to believe in such crazy claims?
Remember: down on a round Earth is in the direction of the center.
-
I wonder, how insane one must be to say something like this, let alone to believe in such crazy claims?
At what angle do the ends of the "straight" tunnel intersect the surface at America and Ireland in your diagram? Can you answer this?
-
I wonder, how insane one must be to say something like this, let alone to believe in such crazy claims?
At what angle do the ends of the "straight" tunnel intersect the surface at America and Ireland in your diagram? Can you answer this?
Angles have nothing to do with this, plain and simple!
Shall we derail once more?
Is there any compelling natural (HC) explanation for the Star of Betlehem?
Of course there is not!
Many Christians see the star as a miraculous sign to mark the birth of the Christ (or messiah). Some theologians claimed that the star fulfilled a prophecy, known as the Star Prophecy. Astronomers have made several attempts to link the star to unusual astronomical events, such as a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, a comet or a supernova.
Many modern scholars do not consider the story to be describing a historical event but a pious fiction created by the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
In the Gospel of Matthew account, the Magi usually translated as "wise men" but in this context meaning "astrologer" arrive at the court of Herod in Jerusalem and tell the king of a star which signifies the birth of the King of the Jews:
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East or at its rising and have come to worship Him. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
Adoration of the Magi, Chartres Cathedral, by Jehan de Beauce, France, 16th century.
Herod is "troubled", not because of the appearance of the star, but because the magi have told him that a "king of the Jews" had been born, which he understands to refer to the Messiah, a leader of the Jewish people whose coming was believed to be foretold in scripture. So he asks his advisors where the Messiah would be born. They answer Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, and quote the prophet Micah.[nb 1] The king passes this information along to the magi.
Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also. When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy.
Matthew's account suggests that the magi knew from the star that the "king of the Jews" had been born even before they arrived in Jerusalem. They present Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. In a dream, they are warned not to return to Jerusalem, so they leave for their own country by another route. When Herod realizes he has been tricked, he orders the execution of all male children in Bethlehem two years old and younger, based on the information the magi had given him concerning the time the star first appeared.
Origen, one of the most influential early Christian theologians, connected this prophecy with the Star of Bethlehem:
If, then, at the commencement of new dynasties, or on the occasion of other important events, there arises a comet so called, or any similar celestial body, why should it be matter of wonder that at the birth of Him who was to introduce a new doctrine to the human race, and to make known His teaching not only to Jews, but also to Greeks, and to many of the barbarous nations besides, a star should have arisen? Now I would say, that with respect to comets there is no prophecy in circulation to the effect that such and such a comet was to arise in connection with a particular kingdom or a particular time; but with respect to the appearance of a star at the birth of Jesus there is a prophecy of Balaam recorded by Moses to this effect: There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel.[/b]
Origen suggested that the magi may have decided to travel to Jerusalem when they "conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually come into the world".
While Origen argued for a naturalistic explanation, John Chrysostom viewed the star as purely miraculous: "How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, "Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was."
A recent hypothesis is that the star of Bethlehem was a supernova or hypernova occurring in the nearby Andromeda Galaxy. Although supernovae have been detected in Andromeda, it is extremely difficult to detect a supernova remnant in another galaxy, let alone obtain an accurate date of when it occurred.
Read more : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem)
O star of wonder, star of night,
Star with royal beauty bright,
Westward leading, still proceeding,
Guide us to thy perfect light.
(http://)
-
Well this was unexpected.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/T8DXBaT.jpg)
The reason that a strait line looks curved in that map is because that map is a flat projection of a round Earth and the map in Google maps is one where a strait line appears curved on the map when it's not at the equator. That curve is actually a perfect ark (segment of a circle) while FET predicts that the shortest route between those points would look sort of parabolic. Your picture is in fact in favor of a round Earth.
-
Angles have nothing to do with this, plain and simple!
Sure they do. Traveling from America to Ireland, through that straight tunnel, one would first go downhill, level out, and then start heading uphill. Your own diagram shows it and explains why once the correct data is drawn in, plain and simple.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/level_zps625719c7.jpg)
-
The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.
FUCK OFF NASA : (http://)
TRUTH IN MOVIES : (http://)
Yes, it is really surprising that 99.9% of the people never question what they have been told but cannot personally verify. I understand that sometimes there is no point to check everything, but how can you argue ardently against those who question it without actually having verified it yourself? As far as I know the Earth might be even 10 times bigger than what we have been told. However, everyone takes it for granted that the real size and shape of the Earth are well-known.
And what about the folks such as myself that have personally verified the earth is more or less a sphere? Are we to be held hostage to the couch potatoes of the world?
-
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
It was a pretty monumental prediction. What is your point? It was only the beginning of the evidence that supports GR. Much more has come since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
3. Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.
Gravitational lensing is not touted as a great method for determining the distance to a star.
The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)
So the fact that science can and will change theories when new information is presented makes you suspicious? Shouldn't it do the opposite?
Science changes with new information, FET does not. FET can never change. I wonder though, has FET ever predicted anything at all? It seems like FET is a theory after fact, not a theory of fact. I can use geodetic theory to model plate tectonics, and make all sorts of predictions that can be tested etc. FET can only try to play catchup and add more childish scribbles to it's so called theory.
-
Angles have nothing to do with this, plain and simple!
Sure they do. Traveling from America to Ireland, through that straight tunnel, one would first go downhill, level out, and then start heading uphill. Your own diagram shows it and explains why once the correct data is drawn in, plain and simple.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/level_zps625719c7.jpg)
It's good that you now recognize that a chord through a sphere isn't level, even if it's a straight line. So at least there's that.
The takeaway is, even though a straight-line tunnel from Ireland to North America is the shortest distance, and even ignoring obvious engineering problems like drilling a tunnel through the semi-solid and very hot Mantle, it would present its own problems vis-à-vis drilling at a constant elevation below sea level, thus, level and shallower but somewhat longer (which would have its own engineering problems, like the upwelling of the Mantle and crustal spreading at a not-insignificant rate at the mid-Atlantic ridge).
Oh, wait!! It looks like it was 29silhouette that made those annotations to your drawing, so never mind. Do you understand what he's showing? Maybe something can be salvaged from this.
-
@29silhouette
1. How long would be this short level-portion of our straight tunnel which goes through alleged globe? 10 miles, 1 mile, half a mile, one feet, one inch, zero inches?
2. Of how many such short level-portions would be made your curved tunnel? Of countless?
Straight is straight, curved is curved, plain and simple!
When you follow curved line, then you go up and down, when you follow straight line, you go straight. Of course, you can go uphill/downhill in a straight line, but if we lived on a globe, curvature would result with inclination, that is why flat earthers always draw parallels between hills & mountains and supposed "water hills" (which would exist on alleged globe), this is why we use these Up & Down analogies, all the time, we just want to show utter wrongness of RT assumptions!
If you want to see one sensical & powerfull FET argument which concerns our Atlantic Tunnel Example, then watch this:
First of all, we have to repeat my argument:
Let's consider next 4 possibilities (cases):
1. Ocean surface FLAT
Ocean bed FLAT
This is how it really is and how it only can be!
2. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed FLAT
Why is this option incorrect? Because the result of a measuring by a method which has been used at that time, could not have been consistent with a report above! Supposed curved line of ocean surface would have prevented correctness of such inference according which the bottom of the MID-OCEAN is EXTRAORDINARY FLAT (EXCEPT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LAND)!
3. Ocean surface FLAT
Ocean bed CURVED
Here goes the same explanation as in case no 2.
4. Ocean surface CURVED
Ocean bed CURVED
In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!
See this diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/b726lu2.jpg)
The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."
This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
Special addition: UNDISCOVERY OF NON-EXISTANT ISLAND (Sandy Island, New Caledonia) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Island,_New_Caledonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Island,_New_Caledonia)
edit: - One correction: In a diagram above i wrote (by accident) for CASE 4 : O.B. FLAT instead of O.B. CURVED...
My apology!
Now, we have to read these chapter once more :
The first systematic survey of this kind brought out a set of facts which were then supposed to be exceptional, but which the sound ings of the Challenger, taken in connection with those of the United States ship Tuscarora and the German Gazelle, have shown to be general; viz. (i) that the bottom sinks very gradually from the coast of Ireland, westward, for a hundred miles or more; (2) that then, not far beyond the hundred-fathom line, it falls so rapidly that depths of from 1200 to 1500 fathoms are met with at only a short distance further west; (3) that after a further descent to a depth of more than 2000 fathoms, the bottom becomes a slightly undulating plain, whose gradients are so low as to show scarcely any perceptible alteration of depth in a section in which the same scales are used for vertical heights and horizontal distances; * and (4) that on the American side as on the British this plain is bordered by a very steep slope, leading up quickly to a bottom not much exceeding 100 fathoms in depth, which shallows gradually to the coast-line of America. Nothing seems to have struck the Challenger surveyors more than the extraordinary flatness (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the floor of the great oceanic area; the result of one day's sounding enabling a tolerably safe guess to be formed as to the depth to be encountered on the following day; and thus, if the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded by a plain only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas.
We have to stress these parts from the text above:
(2) that then, not far beyond the hundred-fathom line, it falls so rapidly that depths of from 1200 to 1500 fathoms are met with at only a short distance further west
(4) that on the American side as on the British this plain is bordered by a very steep slope, leading up quickly to a bottom not much exceeding 100 fathoms in depth, which shallows gradually to the coast-line of America.
Now, i am very curious to see some round earther who will be able to refute (successfully explain away using RET) validity of this FET argument:
(http://i.imgur.com/QMl5Jxh.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/94quYXz.jpg)
If you want to see how really steep these slopes (under the oceans) are, then pay attention to the left and to the right side/corner of next illustration...
Abyssal plains illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/kLWYsWT.jpg)
It is 70 - 80 degrees steepness...
after the surface of all waters on the earth, abyssal plains are characterized by one of the flattest areas on Earth.
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain)
The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.
-
The only conclusion I can come to is you were dropped as a child. You simply cannot understand that a round Earth model works.
-
@29silhouette
1. How long would be this short level-portion of our straight tunnel which goes through alleged globe? 10 miles, 1 mile, half a mile, one feet, one inch, zero inches?
Depends on method of measurement or how closely you want to measure it.
2. Of how many such short level-portions would be made your curved tunnel? Of countless?
Technically, yes.
Straight is straight, curved is curved, plain and simple!
Indeed. You finally got something right.
When you follow curved line, then you go up and down,
No. It's level (neither uphill nor downhill) as long as the elevation is the same.
when you follow straight line, you go straight. Of course, you can go uphill/downhill in a straight line, but if we lived on a globe, curvature would result with inclination, that is why flat earthers always draw parallels between hills & mountains and supposed "water hills" (which would exist on alleged globe), this is why we use these Up & Down analogies, all the time, we just want to show utter wrongness of RT assumptions!
You're just showing your utter confusion.
If you want to see one sensical & powerfull FET argument which concerns our Atlantic Tunnel Example, then watch this:
First of all, we have to repeat my argument:
Already read it.
Now, i am very curious to see some round earther who will be able to refute (successfully explain away using RET) validity of this FET argument:
(http://i.imgur.com/94quYXz.jpg)
You're confusing yourself again. Turn your image so that the American end is level, and then figure your angles. Turn it again and do the same for the other end if need be.
Here is a sensible and powerfull argument; Draw a circle, put a dot in the middle. Now draw a straight line from that dot outward any direction and away from the circle. That line is vertical. I'm not sure how to describe it any more simple. From this point on I can only assume your putting a lot of time and effort into another joke.
-
I got one more diagram for you, I'm not sure how to describe it any more simple:
(http://i.imgur.com/29NwxKD.jpg)
Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the spherical Earth we should go slightly downhill for the first 150 miles, then we should drill uphill for the next 1000 miles, then we should drill downhill for the next 1000 miles, and then we should drill slightly uphill for the last 150 miles!
Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the Flat Earth would be very simple as it is in reality: Down - Straight - Up! Plain and Simple!
It's amazing how you round earthers are so deluded so that you are ready to persuade people how curved tunnels are in fact EXTRAORDINARY FLAT tunnels, and vice versa. ;D
-
I got one more diagram for you, I'm not sure how to describe it any more simple:
(http://i.imgur.com/29NwxKD.jpg)
Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the spherical Earth we should go slightly downhill for the first 150 miles, then we should drill uphill for the next 1000 miles, then we should drill downhill for the next 1000 miles, and then we should drill slightly uphill for the last 150 miles!
Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the Flat Earth would be very simple as it is in reality: Down - Straight - Up! Plain and Simple!
It's amazing how you round earthers are so deluded so that you are ready to persuade people how curved tunnels are in fact EXTRAORDINARY FLAT tunnels, and vice versa. ;D
Maybe we didn't make this clear, Earth's mantle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29#Temperature) is not a great place to dig tunnels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole) because it's made of 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) rock that's under insanely high pressure and the pressure also makes it harder then obsidian but at the same time flow (bend?) somewhat like a liquid because high pressure, so digging a tunnel through it would be hard because just about everything melts at that temperature, no known material can hold up to that pressure, and it will liquify if it's exposed to lower pressure. Even though digging through the mantle is a slightly shorter distance, it's not practical (or possible) because of the insane conditions.
-
I got one more diagram for you, I'm not sure how to describe it any more simple:
(http://i.imgur.com/29NwxKD.jpg)
Ok, now for the 'spherical' half of that diagram, following the direction of your arrows, change "almost straight" to "down hill", the "up" and "down" segments to "level", and final "almost straight" segment to "uphill". Simple. Since you're drawing these on a piece of paper, rotate the paper so that the word America is now level. Do this and now observe how that part of the tunnel is orientated.
Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the spherical Earth we should go slightly downhill for the first 150 miles, then we should drill uphill for the next 1000 miles, then we should drill downhill for the next 1000 miles, and then we should drill slightly uphill for the last 150 miles!
No, your 2000 miles of uphill and downhill would following the curvature, and would be level over that distance.
Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the Flat Earth would be very simple as it is in reality: Down - Straight - Up! Plain and Simple!
If Earth was flat and there was no molten mantle to deal with.
It's amazing how you round earthers are so deluded so that you are ready to persuade people how curved tunnels are in fact EXTRAORDINARY FLAT tunnels, and vice versa. ;D
It's amazing how much trouble you have with drawing and understanding a circle and a couple straight lines. Are we sure you're not joking?
-
If you want to see how really steep these slopes (under the oceans) are, then pay attention to the left and to the right side/corner of next illustration...
Abyssal plains illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/kLWYsWT.jpg)
It is 70 - 80 degrees steepness...
Did you miss the part that says "vertical scale greatly exaggerated" and the horizontal and vertical scales, or do you simply not know what this means and why it matters?
Are you going to claim this is another joke to try to get out of this blunder, too?
-
Did you miss the part that says "vertical scale greatly exaggerated" and the horizontal and vertical scales, or do you simply not know what this means and why it matters?
Are you going to claim this is another joke to try to get out of this blunder, too?
LOL... cikljamas's diagrams show the ocean as 2,500km deep! He obviously has zero concept of non-proportional scaling.
-
Did you miss the part that says "vertical scale greatly exaggerated" and the horizontal and vertical scales, or do you simply not know what this means and why it matters?
Are you going to claim this is another joke to try to get out of this blunder, too?
LOL... cikljamas's diagrams show the ocean as 2,500km deep! He obviously has zero concept of non-proportional scaling.
Yeah, it's obviously the fact that he forgot to incorporate the hole to the civilisation in the center of the planet that houses the lizard demons. Amateur mistake.
OT: Please, cikljamas, please understand that you sound almost as insane as Sceptimaniac. Your models that are supposed to be revised as per ^^ their instructions aren't revised...you're skewing them to your belief to make them stupid.
-
Did you miss the part that says "vertical scale greatly exaggerated" and the horizontal and vertical scales, or do you simply not know what this means and why it matters?
Are you going to claim this is another joke to try to get out of this blunder, too?
LOL... cikljamas's diagrams show the ocean as 2,500km deep! He obviously has zero concept of non-proportional scaling.
Why do you always claim to have a better understanding of everything? What exactly do you do except shouting that people have zero concept and you have perfect understanding? If you're so intelligent why not try to come up with your own idea for a change?
-
You can easily remember my latter FET argument under this very short name:
"Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the spherical Earth we should go slightly downhill for the first 150 miles, then we should drill uphill for the next 1000 miles, then we should drill downhill for the next 1000 miles, and then we should drill slightly uphill for the last 150 miles, instead of drilling DOWN - STRAIGHT - UP, as any sane engineer would do in our FLAT reality!"
Reality: (http://i.imgur.com/8zh3zP6.jpg)
RET sick wet dreams: (http://i.imgur.com/6NMqOUx.jpg)
Something more on ocean basins - abyssal plains:
The ocean basins constitute one of the two major topographic features of Earth's surface, the other being the continents. Ocean basins occupy more than 76 percent of the total ocean area.
In contrast to the landforms of the continents so familiar to humans-features such as mountains, plateaus, hills, and rivers-the various topographic features of the ocean basins, the "oceanscape," are still not well understood by scientists. Some authorities claim that scientists know more about the surface of the Moon than they do about the ocean basins here on Earth. This situation exists because the ocean basins are thousands of meters below the water's surface, and they can be explored only with remote measuring equipment or, rarely, in special research submarines known as submersibles.
Among the things we do know about the ocean basins is that the familiar landscapes of continents are mirrored, and generally magnified, by comparable features in the ocean basin. The largest underwater mountains, for example, are higher than those on the continents, and underwater plains are flatter and more extensive than those on continents.
These "oceanscapes," at one time unseen and unknown, may resemble familiar landscapes, but on a much grander scale.
The four main ocean basins are those of the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. The Pacific Ocean, which occupies about one-third of Earth's surface, has the largest basin. Its basin also has the greatest average depth at approximately 14,000 feet (4,300 meters). The Atlantic Ocean basin is half the size of that of the Pacific Ocean and is not quite as deep, averaging about 12,000 feet (3,660 meters). While slightly smaller in size than the Atlantic Ocean basin, the Indian Ocean basin sits at a lower average depth, 12,750 feet (3,885 meters). The Arctic Ocean basin is less than 10 percent the size of the Pacific Ocean basin and lies at an average depth of 3,900 feet (1,190 meters).
These areas hold the majority of the planet's water. In fact, it will help you to recall this term if you remember that a 'basin' is a large bowl, much like your kitchen sink. So, an ocean basin can be thought of as a large bowl that holds ocean water.
The sea floor is a huge flat area. Abyssal plains are the flattest places on earth.
There is no light on an abyssal plain. The temperature averages around 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), much colder than at sea level, and atmospheric pressure is hundreds of times higher. Because there is no sunlight, plants cannot live here. The animals here eat decaying organic matter that sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
A tongue-in-cheek study a few years ago found that Kansas is flatter than a pancake. For their next work, the geographers who compared the two might want to study the ocean floor. Great stretches of it, called abyssal plains, are the flattest places on Earth.
(http://i.imgur.com/XXIoyhe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/SR2wUqr.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/xLl6Ut1.jpg)
Wow, what a curvature (at eye level - 35 km above the surface of the Earth):
(http://i.imgur.com/WdL1j1a.jpg)
Allow me to repeat this remarkable sentence:
Some authorities claim that scientists know more about the surface of the Moon than they do about the ocean basins here on Earth.
Since scientists know nothing about the surface of the Moon, then you can easily guess how much they know about the ocean basins, except that they are flatter than Kansas, let alone a pancake...hahahahhaha...
Come on shills, amuse me some more...
-
I can see the moon, I have pointed my telescope at it and done a lot of research about it. Abysaal planes I have never even heard of until you mentioned them. Sure some scientists don't really know anything about the moon, but more scientists have never even heard of Abyssal planes.
Fun fact: most of what we know about the topography of the bottom of the ocean including Abysaal planes was figured out via a sattelite orbiting the Earth called JASON that uses radar to measure slight changes in the surface of the oceas caused by the gravity of ocean bottom features.
-
You can easily remember my latter FET argument under this very short name:
"Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the spherical Earth we should go slightly downhill for the first 150 miles, then we should drill uphill for the next 1000 miles, then we should drill downhill for the next 1000 miles, and then we should drill slightly uphill for the last 150 miles, instead of drilling DOWN - STRAIGHT - UP, as any sane engineer would do in our FLAT reality!"
And you can easily remember my reply.
Reality: (http://i.imgur.com/8zh3zP6.jpg)
RET sick wet dreams: (http://i.imgur.com/6NMqOUx.jpg)
Why is the tunnel angled like that? Why not level along the bottom?
You also still seem unable to understand the simple concept of a sphere 'pulling' everything against it's surface.
-
This whole debate is only rattling on because CKllamapyjamas doesn't understand the concept of how gravity works in the round model. Teach him that and the rest will just slot into place.
-
This has become the disproving clkjmas super-thread.
-
Here is a picture of the Channel Tunnel. As you can see, the slope looks steep.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/Channel_Tunnel_geological_profile_1svg.png) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/Channel_Tunnel_geological_profile_1svg.png.html)
From this link, http://www.batisseurs-tunnel.com/amicale/doc%20UK/3%20Tunnels%20Tunnel%20sous%20La%20Manche_C%20.pdf (http://www.batisseurs-tunnel.com/amicale/doc%20UK/3%20Tunnels%20Tunnel%20sous%20La%20Manche_C%20.pdf),"Tunnel slope is between 0.2% and 1.1 %, often found at 0.6% on UK side and at 1.1% on French side."
If the earth was round, like it is, it would lesson the slope of the tunnel. So in conclusion, tunneling works better on a round earth.
-
This is how we started:
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/tm8tVau.jpg)
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of the ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)
Abyssal plain, flat seafloor area at an abyssal depth (3,000 to 6,000 m [10,000 to 20,000 feet]), generally adjacent to a continent. These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance. Irregular in outline but generally elongate along continental margins, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT KIND (and i can show you numerous examples of the same kind):
(http://i.imgur.com/MljviMP.jpg)
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
Now, you can continue to wave with your little hands around your round heads, as long as you wish! ;)
FLAT EARTH VERSUS THE GLOBE THE WAR : (http://)
Ball wide distribution, hahahahha...
-
Here is a picture of the Channel Tunnel. As you can see, the slope looks steep.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/Channel_Tunnel_geological_profile_1svg.png) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/Channel_Tunnel_geological_profile_1svg.png.html)
From this link, http://www.batisseurs-tunnel.com/amicale/doc%20UK/3%20Tunnels%20Tunnel%20sous%20La%20Manche_C%20.pdf (http://www.batisseurs-tunnel.com/amicale/doc%20UK/3%20Tunnels%20Tunnel%20sous%20La%20Manche_C%20.pdf),"Tunnel slope is between 0.2% and 1.1 %, often found at 0.6% on UK side and at 1.1% on French side."
If the earth was round, like it is, it would lesson the slope of the tunnel. So in conclusion, tunneling works better on a round earth.
[pongo]That diagram is ridiculous. Why, it shows "grey chalk" as an orange colour! Simply because of that, it can be dismissed.[/pongo]
-
...
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
...
For the 100th time, this is possible on a round earth.
[pongo]That diagram is ridiculous. Why, it shows "grey chalk" as an orange colour! Simply because of that, it can be dismissed.[/pongo]
Spot on.
-
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
Now, you can continue to wave with your little hands around your round heads, as long as you wish! ;)
FLAT EARTH VERSUS THE GLOBE THE WAR : (http://)
Ball wide distribution, hahahahha...
Doesn't very more than 100 meters relative to what? The Geoid, Elipsoid? When something is flat relative to the Geoid, that is something very different than being flat relative to the local normal plane.
-
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
No, the plains are also curved. Isn't that obvious?
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
See above answer.
Ball wide distribution, hahahahha...
Balls are beyond your comprehension, HAhahahaha ;D
-
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
No, the plains are also curved. Isn't that obvious?
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
See above answer.
Ball wide distribution, hahahahha...
Balls are beyond your comprehension, HAhahahaha ;D
I guess cikljamas does not realize that ocean floor and depth measurements are made by RET methods. If one looked at the ocean floor and ocean sea level from the perspective of a normal flat plane centered in the center of these flat areas he would be astonished to see the curvature! This can actually be done with GPS, once can get an absolute position in 3D space as they sail across the sea, and these results would clearly show the curvature in the ocean surface. Another way you could do it is with lasers on shore to a ship. But the GPS method is a lot cheaper. cikljamas should take a cruise and bring along a GPS so the earth centered earth fixed positions (ECEF) can be recorded. Besides seeing that the earths surface is not flat, it would offer a great source of relaxation and opportunity for rejuvenation.
-
This is how we started:
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/tm8tVau.jpg)
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)
Abyssal plain, flat seafloor area at an abyssal depth (3,000 to 6,000 m [10,000 to 20,000 feet]), generally adjacent to a continent. These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance. Irregular in outline but generally elongate along continental margins, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT KIND (and i can show you numerous examples of the same kind):
(http://i.imgur.com/MljviMP.jpg)
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
Now, you can continue to wave with your little hands around your round heads, as long as you wish! ;)
FLAT EARTH VERSUS THE GLOBE THE WAR : (http://)
Ball wide distribution, hahahahha...
There is a difference between strait and level, strait is like a laser and level follows the curvature of the Earth. Abysaal planes are level, not strait. The only reason that we know that Abysaal planes even exist is because of supposedly nonexistent sattelites, so are these sattelites real or not? If not, how would this data have been acquired?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Shill
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
You are almost as good liar as this croatian politician:
(http://i.imgur.com/lFBWUhP.jpg)
Thus shaped heads are typical round-ball-believers heads, i guess! ;D
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
You are almost as good liar as this croatian politician:
*snipped more than vaguely racist picture*
Thus shaped heads are typical round-ball-believers heads, i guess! ;D
So your counter to him is "Not uh" basically?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
You are almost as good liar as this croatian politician:
*Irrelevant Image*
Thus shaped heads are typical round-ball-believers heads, i guess! ;D
That is the second time I've seen you insult us, while adding nothing to the discussion.
I belive the first one was:
RETards fighting.
And that is a very offensive term to many.
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
Nothing like a stroll on the beach and seeing the tide. It is a marvel to witness the effect of the moon orbiting the round earth. It fills my mind with joy to recall installing tide gauges surveyed to GPS monitoring stations on oil platforms off the coast of California in order to calibrate and validate satellite missions such as TOPEX/Poseidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon)). What an amazing and fascination world, and it is so exciting to have the opportunity to examine physical effects of nature with more detail and accuracy with the hope discovering that our model of how things work is indeed flawed and requires refinement and rethinking.
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
It is fun to watch the tides isn't it, to see the effect that the Moon's gravity has on Earth while witnessing a sunset which remains unexplained in FET and looking at the ocean which seems endless because the closest land mass is obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
Nothing like a stroll on the beach and seeing the tide. It is a marvel to witness the effect of the moon orbiting the round earth. It fills my mind with joy to recall installing tide gauges surveyed to GPS monitoring stations on oil platforms off the coast of California in order to calibrate and validate satellite missions such as TOPEX/Poseidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon)). What an amazing and fascination world, and it is so exciting to have the opportunity to examine physical effects of nature with more detail and accuracy with the hope discovering that our model of how things work is indeed flawed and requires refinement and rethinking.
Good for you but you know jack skippety about reality.
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
It is fun to watch the tides isn't it, to see the effect that the Moon's gravity has on Earth while witnessing a sunset which remains unexplained in FET and looking at the ocean which seems endless because the closest land mass is obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
All these things have been explained. You people just don't accept any can be the right one because you are moon happy.
Now about this tide receding.
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
It is fun to watch the tides isn't it, to see the effect that the Moon's gravity has on Earth while witnessing a sunset which remains unexplained in FET and looking at the ocean which seems endless because the closest land mass is obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
All these things have been explained. You people just don't accept any can be the right one because you are moon happy.
Now about this tide receding.
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
The tides corespond perfectly with the posttion of the Moon, why would this happen if it were a conspiracy? Are physics in on the conspiracy too?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
It is fun to watch the tides isn't it, to see the effect that the Moon's gravity has on Earth while witnessing a sunset which remains unexplained in FET and looking at the ocean which seems endless because the closest land mass is obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
All these things have been explained. You people just don't accept any can be the right one because you are moon happy.
Now about this tide receding.
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
The tides corespond perfectly with the posttion of the Moon, why would this happen if it were a conspiracy? Are physics in on the conspiracy too?
What the hell do you mean they correspond perfectly with the position of the moon?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
It is fun to watch the tides isn't it, to see the effect that the Moon's gravity has on Earth while witnessing a sunset which remains unexplained in FET and looking at the ocean which seems endless because the closest land mass is obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
All these things have been explained. You people just don't accept any can be the right one because you are moon happy.
Now about this tide receding.
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
The tides corespond perfectly with the posttion of the Moon, why would this happen if it were a conspiracy? Are physics in on the conspiracy too?
What the hell do you mean they correspond perfectly with the position of the moon?
I think he means they correspond perfectly with the position of the moon. If you disagree, please post evidence that tidal models do not work. For high accuracy GPS, we have to include tidal forces on land. Wow, imagine that, the land mass itself responds to tidal forces -- or actually to the shift in the weight from the tides. It is called ocean loading, check it out. It is an amazing world!
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
They are not concave, most diagrams show them to be concave ignoring Earth's curvature but they are not.
Start walking down the beach as the tide goes down and you'll get in the real world.
It is fun to watch the tides isn't it, to see the effect that the Moon's gravity has on Earth while witnessing a sunset which remains unexplained in FET and looking at the ocean which seems endless because the closest land mass is obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.
All these things have been explained. You people just don't accept any can be the right one because you are moon happy.
Now about this tide receding.
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
The tides corespond perfectly with the posttion of the Moon, why would this happen if it were a conspiracy? Are physics in on the conspiracy too?
What the hell do you mean they correspond perfectly with the position of the moon?
High tide is when the Moon is directly above you or (arguably) on the opposite side of Earth. Low tide is when the Moon is at the horizon. The tides even follow the orbital inclination of the Moon and their height can be predicted given the size and distance of the Moon. There is even a measurable difference in the aprent strength of Earth's gravity when the Moon is over head. The Moon must be in on the conspiracy too :o
-
1. It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that :
"The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the water, which accordingly exhibits a high tide as well on the side of the earth away from the moon as on that toward the moon. The low tides occupy the intermediate positions."
No one who has the use of all his faculties and who dares to use them, need be told that this flimsy apology for what the learned cannot account for, contradicts itself. How could this attraction take place without disintegrating the globe? Besides, as the law of gravitation is said to operate according to the amount of matter of which each body consists, the statements of astronomers that the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter and the earth 8,000 miles in diameter flatly contradict their own other statements about the moon causing tides. How can the smaller body attract the larger We are informed in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," pages 160 to 163, that :
"The earth, it is true, attracts the moon. So also the moon attracts the earth ; THOUGH THE FAR GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EARTH MAKES HER ATTRACTION TO BE FAR GREATER."
How anyone can accept the current theory in face of the above is somewhat puzzling. Sir R. Ball says the moon attracts the solid body of the earth ; but the work from which I have just quoted states that :
"Her attraction (the moon's) draws up the yielding waters of the ocean in a vast wave."
Both these assertions cannot be true. Which is ? I say neither. And the astronomers' own theory of attraction also answers "neither," when it is taken into consideration that the moon cannot attract the earth, being a much smaller body. But if the moon lifted up the waters, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low, instead of high tide, caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about six feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides.
How then are tides caused? The learned being as far from the truth in this as in every matter which we have brought to the test of the hard logic of facts, what is the truth of the matter ?
The Leicester Daily Post, of 25th August, 1892, says :
" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure was seven-tenths ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the observatory at Tenerife asking for observations to be ma.de there in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times for them. From these observations and others simultanously made in the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE Earth RISES AND FALLS LIKE THE OCEAN OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent Weekly Dispatch."
This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.
2. If, for example, the world be the globe of popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have been a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, it would be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop the revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin to the whole of the "solar system."
http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html)
The most important geological discovery in the history of the world that has been covered up and still being covered up: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? (http://#ws)
CHAPTER XII. THE CAUSE OF TIDES : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
So much about the tides, but the question was this:
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
Instead of changing the subject, answer the question directly, if you can!
-
No, both can be true. The moon and earth attract each other. The orbit of the moon isn't centered on the middle of the earth but on a point balanced between the two's mass. While its very tiny even the orbit of the sun is wobbled by the earths mass.
I do not understand your thought that the earth would disintegrate because of this though. Io is subjected to much worse gravitational squeezing as is Europa.
However you are close to an actual thing, in that the moon is slowing down the earths rotational orbit. Because of its drag on the oceans, and them in turn dragging on the planet as it turns. Its rather fascinating.
-
1. It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that :
"The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the water, which accordingly exhibits a high tide as well on the side of the earth away from the moon as on that toward the moon. The low tides occupy the intermediate positions."
No one who has the use of all his faculties and who dares to use them, need be told that this flimsy apology for what the learned cannot account for, contradicts itself. How could this attraction take place without disintegrating the globe? Besides, as the law of gravitation is said to operate according to the amount of matter of which each body consists, the statements of astronomers that the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter and the earth 8,000 miles in diameter flatly contradict their own other statements about the moon causing tides. How can the smaller body attract the larger We are informed in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," pages 160 to 163, that :
"The earth, it is true, attracts the moon. So also the moon attracts the earth ; THOUGH THE FAR GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EARTH MAKES HER ATTRACTION TO BE FAR GREATER."
How anyone can accept the current theory in face of the above is somewhat puzzling. Sir R. Ball says the moon attracts the solid body of the earth ; but the work from which I have just quoted states that :
"Her attraction (the moon's) draws up the yielding waters of the ocean in a vast wave."
Both these assertions cannot be true. Which is ? I say neither. And the astronomers' own theory of attraction also answers "neither," when it is taken into consideration that the moon cannot attract the earth, being a much smaller body. But if the moon lifted up the waters, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low, instead of high tide, caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about six feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides.
How then are tides caused? The learned being as far from the truth in this as in every matter which we have brought to the test of the hard logic of facts, what is the truth of the matter ?
The Leicester Daily Post, of 25th August, 1892, says :
" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure was seven-tenths ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the observatory at Tenerife asking for observations to be ma.de there in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times for them. From these observations and others simultanously made in the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE Earth RISES AND FALLS LIKE THE OCEAN OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent Weekly Dispatch."
This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.
2. If, for example, the world be the globe of popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have been a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, it would be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop the revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin to the whole of the "solar system."
http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html)
The most important geological discovery in the history of the world that has been covered up and still being covered up: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? (http://#ws)
CHAPTER XII. THE CAUSE OF TIDES : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
So much about the tides, but the question was this:
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
Instead of changing the subject, answer the question directly, if you can!
There are no tides in lakes, proves nothing. If a lake's water level were to rise or fall water would have to be added or removed, even if the water is pulled up a little bit by the Moon there is still the same amount of water in the lake. The ocean is different though because of it's size, the water needed to raise sea level at high tide comes from places where it's low tide.
Even though the Moon is smaller then the Earth doesn't mean that the Moon doesn't attract the Earth. The Moon and the Earth actually both orbit the center of mass between them, which is a point about 2/3 of the way up between Earth's surface and Earth's center. The moon basically makes the Earth orbit in small epicycles as it goes around the Sun, tides are caused by the near side of Earth feeling more of the Moon's gravity then the far side, making Earth stretch a little bit in the direction of the Moon.
A universal flood is actually possible on a round Earth if the poles melted.
As for the original question, that can be answered by knowing that round Earth theory works like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/bJ5fKGx.png)
Note the shape of the bottom of the ocean in that image, that's how it looks on a round Earth.
-
1. It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that :
"The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the water, which accordingly exhibits a high tide as well on the side of the earth away from the moon as on that toward the moon. The low tides occupy the intermediate positions."
No one who has the use of all his faculties and who dares to use them, need be told that this flimsy apology for what the learned cannot account for, contradicts itself. How could this attraction take place without disintegrating the globe?
Simple. The forces aren't big enough to overcome the strength of the material the Earth is made of.
Besides, as the law of gravitation is said to operate according to the amount of matter of which each body consists, the statements of astronomers that the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter and the earth 8,000 miles in diameter flatly contradict their own other statements about the moon causing tides. How can the smaller body attract the larger We are informed in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," pages 160 to 163, that :
"The earth, it is true, attracts the moon. So also the moon attracts the earth ; THOUGH THE FAR GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EARTH MAKES HER ATTRACTION TO BE FAR GREATER."
How anyone can accept the current theory in face of the above is somewhat puzzling. Sir R. Ball says the moon attracts the solid body of the earth ; but the work from which I have just quoted states that :
"Her attraction (the moon's) draws up the yielding waters of the ocean in a vast wave."
Both these assertions cannot be true. Which is ? I say neither.
Nope. They are both true.
And the astronomers' own theory of attraction also answers "neither," when it is taken into consideration that the moon cannot attract the earth, being a much smaller body. But if the moon lifted up the waters, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low, instead of high tide, caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence.
Sure it can. The Earth has a much greater influence on the Moon because earth is much larger, but the Moon still exerts an effect on the Earth. The barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is a few thousand km from the center of the Earth; much closer to the center of the Earth than the center of the Moon due to the large discrepancy in mass.
Because water is a liquid, it has no shear strength, so it deforms easily, and responds by moving in response to the Moon's gravity; if there's enough of it - in an ocean, say - it responds in a measurable way - up to a few feet in the open sea. This isn't a lot compared with the size of the Earth, or even the size of the oceans, but it's enough to cause big differences when it interacts with a shoreline, for sure. Lakes aren't big enough to have a measurable tide.
But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about six feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides.
How high the tides get when they interact with land depends strongly on the shape of the coastline and contour of the bottom, in addition to the height of the open-sea tides.
How then are tides caused? The learned being as far from the truth in this as in every matter which we have brought to the test of the hard logic of facts, what is the truth of the matter ?
The Leicester Daily Post, of 25th August, 1892, says :
" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure was seven-tenths ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the observatory at Tenerife asking for observations to be ma.de there in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times for them. From these observations and others simultanously made in the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE Earth RISES AND FALLS LIKE THE OCEAN OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent Weekly Dispatch."
This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.
This is a good example why newspaper articles aren't used as reference materials for science.
Are you saying atmospheric pressure rises and falls on a 121/2 hour schedule in sync with the Moon? Do you have any barometric readings that can be verified that show this?
2. If, for example, the world be the globe of popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have been a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, it would be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop the revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin to the whole of the "solar system."
http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html)
I don't see why the shape of the Earth would matter here. You still have the problem of where all that water came from and where it went in either case.
The most important geological discovery in the history of the world that has been covered up and still being covered up: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? (http://#ws)
If true, that would be an archeological discovery, not geological.
CHAPTER XII. THE CAUSE OF TIDES : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
Rowbotham's book is shot through with errors. Use it for entertainment purposes only.
-
Someone finds an ark about every 5 years.
Quote
The most important geological discovery in the history of the world that has been covered up and still being covered up: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat?
-
Shills, just one little hint for you: All ocean basins are CONCAVE in shape, not convex! What is your answer to this?
Childish name-calling only further weakens your already weak flat earth case. And all major oceanic basins are CONVEX due to the radius of the earth's surface. If you truly believe that the nominal bed levels of the Pacific, Indian or Atlantic Oceans are "bowl-shaped" the you actually have even less scientific credibility than I'd previously given you. Sad really.
-
@ AusGeoff, how come that after all this time, you still haven't anything else to offer to us, beside hand waving?
(http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/09/waving-bear.gif)
@ Alpha2Omega, Mr Rowbotham was, still is, and ever will be a real hero! Zetetics make mistakes, and correct their mistakes, also, but generally they are absolutely right! Heliocentrists lie all the time, and what is even worse than that, they know that they lie. That is why when heliocentrists try to "correct" their innumerable errors, they just fall deeper and deeper into shame and disgrace by making their previous mistakes even greater and more preposterous.
@ Guv, this is for you:
(http://i.imgur.com/jaGd0Df.jpg)
Because this enormously important discovery proves that:
1. The Earth is flat
2. There was no f...ing moon-landings whatsoever....
3. The entire modern cosmology is a fairy tale at best
4. The Bible is a 100 % true - authentic Word of God
5. There is a huge conspiracy of world elites against the true Word of God and humanity
6. The theory of evolution of men is an utter LIE
7. The theory of evolution of cosmos is an utter LIE
8. The big bang theory is a fairy tale
9. The theory of relativity is a bull-s h i t (invented to cover up the fact that the Earth is at rest - Einstein even admitted it (between the lines))
10. The theory of gravitation is a bull-s h i t (invented with purpose to cover up the fact that the Earth is at rest (no orbital motion))
11. You currently live in a Truman reality show
12. Big Brother is your real enemy
13. Pope Francis is a mason and the worst antipope who has ever sited in St. Peters chair
IT IS TIME FOR WAKING UP, AND YES, I AM TALKING TO YOU PERSONALLY!!!
A reminder :
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054)
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046)
You can easily remember my latter FET argument under this very short name:
"Drilling the tunnel below the Atlantic ocean on the spherical Earth we should go slightly downhill for the first 150 miles, then we should drill uphill for the next 1000 miles, then we should drill downhill for the next 1000 miles, and then we should drill slightly uphill for the last 150 miles, instead of drilling DOWN - STRAIGHT - UP, as any sane engineer would do in our FLAT reality!"
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807)
HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
Instead of changing the subject, answer the question directly, if you can!
-
High tide is when the Moon is directly above you or (arguably) on the opposite side of Earth.
So high tide is when the moon is above you but is still high tide when the moon is on the opposite side of the globe? Explain this nonsense.
Low tide is when the Moon is at the horizon. The tides even follow the orbital inclination of the Moon and their height can be predicted given the size and distance of the Moon. There is even a measurable difference in the aprent strength of Earth's gravity when the Moon is over head. The Moon must be in on the conspiracy too :o
What happens to the tides when you don't see a moon?
-
Mr Rowbotham was, still is, and ever will be a real hero!
Uh... I have to ask you cikljamas; has April 1st come early where you live?
;D
-
High tide is when the Moon is directly above you or (arguably) on the opposite side of Earth.
So high tide is when the moon is above you but is still high tide when the moon is on the opposite side of the globe? Explain this nonsense.
Low tide is when the Moon is at the horizon. The tides even follow the orbital inclination of the Moon and their height can be predicted given the size and distance of the Moon. There is even a measurable difference in the aprent strength of Earth's gravity when the Moon is over head. The Moon must be in on the conspiracy too :o
What happens to the tides when you don't see a moon?
The general theory (as far as I understand) is that the earth's spin, along with the gravitational pull of the moon, creates a "bulge" in the oceans, not just directly underneath the moon (though it is at its highest there) but right around the circumference of the globe (due to centrifugal force). So there is high tide even when the moon is on the opposite side of the earth.
-
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
Instead of changing the subject, answer the question directly, if you can!
[/quote]
??? Hi there. I'm confused about why this is such an issue with you. According to generally accepted (RE) theory, earth has a gravitational force that draws matter to its center. Water, which is a fluid will always fall to the lowest point (ie. in RE theory, the center of the earth). The "containers" of the oceans are therefore only concave at their edges and the ocean beds are generally convex (ie. follow the shape of the earth). Like someone previously stated, the ocean beds are generally not flat, but they may seem so in certain areas. Either way, the fact that water falls and collects at the "lowest" possible point and fills containers/bowls, is a simple notion that makes sense in both RE and FE theory as far as I can tell.
-
High tide is when the Moon is directly above you or (arguably) on the opposite side of Earth.
So high tide is when the moon is above you but is still high tide when the moon is on the opposite side of the globe? Explain this nonsense.
Low tide is when the Moon is at the horizon. The tides even follow the orbital inclination of the Moon and their height can be predicted given the size and distance of the Moon. There is even a measurable difference in the aprent strength of Earth's gravity when the Moon is over head. The Moon must be in on the conspiracy too :o
What happens to the tides when you don't see a moon?
The Moon's gravity pulls the oceans on the near side and on the far side, the Earth is actually being pulled more then the moon making the ocean bulge up because it is effected by the Moon less then the ground beneath it. When you don't see the Moon, the tides behave just as if the Moon were on the opposite side of the sky.
-
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
Instead of changing the subject, answer the question directly, if you can!
??? Hi there. I'm confused about why this is such an issue with you. According to generally accepted (RE) theory, earth has a gravitational force that draws matter to its center. Water, which is a fluid will always fall to the lowest point (ie. in RE theory, the center of the earth). The "containers" of the oceans are therefore only concave at their edges and the ocean beds are generally convex (ie. follow the shape of the earth). Like someone previously stated, the ocean beds are generally not flat, but they may seem so in certain areas. Either way, the fact that water falls and collects at the "lowest" possible point and fills containers/bowls, is a simple notion that makes sense in both RE and FE theory as far as I can tell.
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/tm8tVau.jpg)
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of the ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)
Abyssal plain, flat seafloor area at an abyssal depth (3,000 to 6,000 m [10,000 to 20,000 feet]), generally adjacent to a continent. These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance. Irregular in outline but generally elongate along continental margins, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT KIND (and i can show you numerous examples of the same kind):
(http://i.imgur.com/MljviMP.jpg)
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
If we imagined a - 3000 miles long - straight line at the bottom of the ocean basin which line represents a supposed shape of the ocean basin, then the bottom of our (3000 miles long) ocean basin should be (measured right in the middle of our straight line) 1125 miles below the surface of the ocean.
Not only that the ocean basin/floor is not a convex shaped, it is not even a flat shaped, but concave!
This would be utterly impossible on a convex shaped world, that is to say, on a globe!!!
There are numerous examples of this kind: Along a few thousand miles at the bottom of the oceans and great seas, a depth of the ocean floor/basins doesn't vary more than 100 meters or so.
I would say that this is the strongest, utterly obvious and most compelling FET proof so far!
(http://i.imgur.com/1a5yij6.jpg)
Is there anyone who can draw a green line above, so to shape it concavely and in the same time adjust the direction of this line so to follow convex shaped surface of the ocean?
Nice youtube video : FLAT EARTH SILVER MOON : (http://)
-
<stuff repeated from here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046), here (http://), and elsewhere.>
Why do you keep bringing up these already-discredited ideas? Don't you read any of the replies you get? Not everyone's memory is as bad as yours seems to be.
By the way, have you figured out why your estimates for the slopes below are wrong? Have you thought of some excuse for this blunder yet? "It's a joke" didn't work on your last one.
If you want to see how really steep these slopes (under the oceans) are, then pay attention to the left and to the right side/corner of next illustration...
Abyssal plains illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/kLWYsWT.jpg)
It is 70 - 80 degrees steepness...
Did you miss the part that says "vertical scale greatly exaggerated" and the horizontal and vertical scales, or do you simply not know what this means and why it matters?
Are you going to claim this is another joke to try to get out of this blunder, too?
[Edit] Correct typo. Shrink cross-section.
-
@ Alpha2Omega, it seems that you are desperate jerk who has no idea how to help yourself and how to escape from absolute misery which name is heliocentricity. Prove me that i am wrong. If you are the one who can draw a green line above, so to shape it concavely and in the same time adjust the direction of that line so to follow convex shaped surface of the ocean, then why don't you just do it?
We have had enough of your heliocentric nonsense, don't you think so?
-
As you walk down the beach as it's going out, you know you are walking down hill into a concave bowl.
The more you walk the deeper you get. You can do this at high tide. Just walk into the water and each step you will sink deeper and deeper and deeper. Why do you think this is?
Instead of changing the subject, answer the question directly, if you can!
??? Hi there. I'm confused about why this is such an issue with you. According to generally accepted (RE) theory, earth has a gravitational force that draws matter to its center. Water, which is a fluid will always fall to the lowest point (ie. in RE theory, the center of the earth). The "containers" of the oceans are therefore only concave at their edges and the ocean beds are generally convex (ie. follow the shape of the earth). Like someone previously stated, the ocean beds are generally not flat, but they may seem so in certain areas. Either way, the fact that water falls and collects at the "lowest" possible point and fills containers/bowls, is a simple notion that makes sense in both RE and FE theory as far as I can tell.
OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:
Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/tm8tVau.jpg)
Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of the ocean!
Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!
Isn't that obvious?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)
Abyssal plain, flat seafloor area at an abyssal depth (3,000 to 6,000 m [10,000 to 20,000 feet]), generally adjacent to a continent. These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance. Irregular in outline but generally elongate along continental margins, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT KIND (and i can show you numerous examples of the same kind):
(http://i.imgur.com/MljviMP.jpg)
1500 MILES LONG ABYSSAL PLAIN LINE ALONG WHICH DEPTH OF THE OCEAN DOESN'T VARY MORE THAN 100 METERS!
If we imagined a - 3000 miles long - straight line at the bottom of the ocean basin which line represents a supposed shape of the ocean basin, then the bottom of our (3000 miles long) ocean basin should be (measured right in the middle of our straight line) 1125 miles below the surface of the ocean.
Not only that the ocean basin/floor is not a convex shaped, it is not even a flat shaped, but concave!
This would be utterly impossible on a convex shaped world, that is to say, on a globe!!!
There are numerous examples of this kind: Along a few thousand miles at the bottom of the oceans and great seas, a depth of the ocean floor/basins doesn't vary more than 100 meters or so.
I would say that this is the strongest, utterly obvious and most compelling FET proof so far!
(http://i.imgur.com/1a5yij6.jpg)
Is there anyone who can draw a green line above, so to shape it concavely and in the same time adjust the direction of this line so to follow convex shaped surface of the ocean?
Nice youtube video : FLAT EARTH SILVER MOON : (http://)
I could, but you would like the answer. It would be outside of the box. It would involve adding equal potential lines to the drawing to show the gravity vector. Or I would simple do it on a globe and mail it to you.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/MljviMP.jpg)
The data about Abyssal plains that you are using comes from Satellites orbiting Earth that were sent up by NASA and other alleged conspirators. By flat earther standards the information you are using is fake. By round earther standards it's more proof that Earth is round.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/MljviMP.jpg)
The data about Abyssal plains that you are using comes from Satellites orbiting Earth that were sent up by NASA and other alleged conspirators. By flat earther standards the information you are using is fake. By round earther standards it's more proof that Earth is round.
Exactly! And one of the main reasons the flat earth was abandoned was because we could not draw the whole earth in 2D. We could get parts of the earth in 2D with relatively good accuracy, but as soon as we go to the whole world we can't do it. So no, I can't draw some things in 2D about the earth on a large scale that don't involve some sort of projection or distortion. Level is relative to the gravity vector, which is radially point in to the center of the earth. You then hold that piece of paper up to the local gravity field where you are standing, and think, gosh dang, that don't look right! Everything written on paper is a cartoon and is not reality. Anything written on paper, even drawings, use a language. You have to interpret the drawing with the same language it was written in.
-
@ Alpha2Omega, it seems that you are desperate jerk who has no idea how to help yourself and how to escape from absolute misery which name is heliocentricity. Prove me that i am wrong. If you are the one who can draw a green line above, so to shape it concavely and in the same time adjust the direction of that line so to follow convex shaped surface of the ocean, then why don't you just do it?
We have had enough of your heliocentric nonsense, don't you think so?
No answer, just a rant.
Do you admit that "It is 70 - 80 degrees steepness" for the continental slopes in the Abyssal Plains illustration is wrong?
After you answer this with a "yes", or "no, and here's why" that can stand scrutiny, I'll draw the illustration you ask for. The reply to your rant here will follow shortly.
-
Yes, i admit, now, let's see your illustration... it must be something quite amazing...
-
I'm sure by now that everybody here is getting thoroughly pissed off with the repeated insults and personal attacks that cikljamas has posted here in a crude and juvenile attempt to denigrate any opponents of his pseudo-scientific notions, (and yes, I was extremely bored tonight LOL) as per:
• @ Alpha2Omega, it seems that you are desperate jerk who has no idea how to help yourself...
• @ Ausgeoff, you are full of shit again...
• @ Rottingroom, Have you ever used your brain in your whole life?
• @ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane...
• @ Global Conspiracy, Are you nuts, or what?
• @ Ausgeoff, So, enjoy your party for lunatics.
• @ Alpha2Omega, I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
• @ ausgeoff, should I laugh, or should I cry?
• @ Rottingroom, Fucking morons...
• @ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
• @ Cartesian, You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!
• @ Alpha2Omega, Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
• @ Global Conspiracy, Fuck you NASA employees!
• @ Global Conspiracy, Shills, how many more flat cakes I have to throw in your round face...
• @ Mikeman7918, As for the shills, we must keep laughing...
• @ Global Conspiracy, Stupid, isn't it? Very stupid indeed, so why don't you jut quit this stupidity?
• @ Ausgeoff, every time you try to be a smart boy, you just help our cause...
• @ Global Conspiracy, We have had enough of your heliocentric nonsense...
• @ Ausgeoff, how come that after all this time, you still haven't anything else to offer to us, beside hand waving?
• @ Alpha2Omega, it seems that you are desperate jerk...
It's now more than obvious (and this is all from a single thread) that one of the principle debating "techniques" used repeatedly by cikljamas is to mock his opponents' responses, denigrate their intellectual capabilities, and post nothing more than puerile ad hominems. If this sort of stuff is really the best kind of defence he can mount in order to substantiate his flat earth claims, then we're all really wasting our time trying to debate meaningfully with the guy.
A couple of other things I noted as I scrolled through this thread were that cikljamas apparently bases a lot of his flat earth "theory" on the Abrahamic bible, that his understanding of geophysics and geometry is very poor, that he posts—often 3 or 4 times—exactly identical pages of copypasta, and that if he has difficulty answering a particular RE question, he invariably just ignores it until it disappears off the current page.
It should also be noted that at no stage did any moderator censure any of these off-topic, low-content, offensive comments. I'm more than sure had I used the "F" word twice in a single thread, I would've received a slap on the wrist in minutes. But then I'm a round earther LOL.
-
I'm sure by now that everybody here is getting thoroughly pissed off with the repeated insults and personal attacks that cikljamas has posted here in a crude and juvenile attempt to denigrate any opponents of his pseudo-scientific notions, (and yes, I was extremely bored tonight LOL) as per:
• @ Alpha2Omega, it seems that you are desperate jerk who has no idea how to help yourself...
• @ Ausgeoff, you are full of shit again...
• @ Rottingroom, Have you ever used your brain in your whole life?
• @ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane...
• @ Global Conspiracy, Are you nuts, or what?
• @ Ausgeoff, So, enjoy your party for lunatics.
• @ Alpha2Omega, I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
• @ ausgeoff, should I laugh, or should I cry?
• @ Rottingroom, Fucking morons...
• @ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
• @ Cartesian, You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!
• @ Alpha2Omega, Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
• @ Global Conspiracy, Fuck you NASA employees!
• @ Global Conspiracy, Shills, how many more flat cakes I have to throw in your round face...
• @ Mikeman7918, As for the shills, we must keep laughing...
• @ Global Conspiracy, Stupid, isn't it? Very stupid indeed, so why don't you jut quit this stupidity?
• @ Ausgeoff, every time you try to be a smart boy, you just help our cause...
• @ Global Conspiracy, We have had enough of your heliocentric nonsense...
• @ Ausgeoff, how come that after all this time, you still haven't anything else to offer to us, beside hand waving?
• @ Alpha2Omega, it seems that you are desperate jerk...
It's now more than obvious (and this is all from a single thread) that one of the principle debating "techniques" used repeatedly by cikljamas is to mock his opponents' responses, denigrate their intellectual capabilities, and post nothing more than puerile ad hominems. If this sort of stuff is really the best kind of defence he can mount in order to substantiate his flat earth claims, then we're all really wasting our time trying to debate meaningfully with the guy.
A couple of other things I noted as I scrolled through this thread were that cikljamas apparently bases a lot of his flat earth "theory" on the Abrahamic bible, that his understanding of geophysics and geometry is very poor, that he posts—often 3 or 4 times—exactly identical pages of copypasta, and that if he has difficulty answering a particular RE question, he invariably just ignores it until it disappears off the current page.
It should also be noted that at no stage did any moderator censure any of these off-topic, low-content, offensive comments. I'm more than sure had I used the "F" word twice in a single thread, I would've received a slap on the wrist in minutes. But then I'm a round earther LOL.
I didn't make the list, too new I guess. I have noticed that FETers seem to think there is magic in words themselves, not so much in the meaning behind them. When language was first invented by the human race, it must have seemed like magic, that sounds and scribbles could be interpreted as thoughts and ideas. That is probably where the whole notion of magic spells came from. Since words could inspire thoughts in humans, maybe they can also inspire thoughts in unseen forces. A lot of the name calling is a vain attempt to cast a spell.
-
I'm sure by now that everybody here is getting thoroughly pissed off with the repeated insults and personal attacks that cikljamas has posted here in a crude and juvenile attempt to denigrate any opponents of his pseudo-scientific notions, (and yes, I was extremely bored tonight LOL) as per:
...
• @ Alpha2Omega, I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things
...
Well, in cikljamas' defense, I used that line on him because it seemed to be true. I think this was in the context of why the mean solar day was longer than the sidereal day, which is quite simple, really, but turned into a struggle for understanding. Or something like that... I've slept a few times and had at least a couple beers since then.
He just copied it back verbatim. Unoriginal, I suppose, but fair if he had any real reason for believing it.
-
These plots are generated by Excel, then copied to Photoshop Elements and exported as .gif files and hosted on Photobucket. Photobucket seems to be shrinking the images, which reduces their readability. I think these are still OK, but I already know what they're supposed to look like.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Profile_25X_zps04f73df3.gif)
The plot above is the profile of a hypothetical ocean basin starting with 50 km of low-elevation land, shoreline, then 50 km of gently-deepening continental shelf (to 10 m), then rapidly-deepening to 4500 m over the next 200 km. The abyssal plain is at 4500 m for the next 1350 km, where there is a mid-ocean ridge with peaks at -3000 m and -2000 km at the center of the basin. The right side is a mirror image of the left. Datum is sea level (blue line at 0 Depth) and the green line is land or seafloor. The black arrows every 500 km are local vertical, with the arrowheads pointing down. At scale, the arrows are all 15 km long and the arrowheads are 15 km wide in all the plots. Due to pixel rounding and their small size, they may sometimes appear to vary slightly. In the plot above, the arrows are considerably stretched vertically (by a factor of about 25:1), so they look much longer than they do wide.
Here's your "tea tray" (with a bump on the middle).
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Profile_1X_zpsdabde9c5.gif)
This plot has X and Y at the same scale. Even showing only half the basin, it's a problem because of the vastly differing real-world length and depth dimensions, making the surface and floor of the ocean hard to distinguish on the originals, and worse here. Note that the arrows are now about as wide as they are long. When including curvature of the earth, you really can't have vertical exaggeration without causing a lot of unpleasant effects.
Switching from a sea-level datum (Bathymetry) to an X-Y (Cartesian) plane intersecting the Earth along our cross section, and replotting the above, we can still barely see the separation between surface and seafloor. Here, Y=0 is set to the middle of our basin, directly above the crest of the mid-ocean ridge. Note that the arrows are no longer parallel.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/CurveHalfBasin_zps05e9c986.gif)
The apparent waviness of the two lines is due to pixel rounding of the sight curves and the very small separation between them on the plot.
"Zooming in" some helps, but it's still a bit "noisy". Here, the point for the Y=0 datum has been moved from the center of the basin to the point at sea level 250 km from the left end of the model. The fact that the "tilt" of the curved surface (on the page) has reversed from the plot above is an indication that this is just an artifact of how we choose to orient our drawing; it has nothing to do with the real Earth. The arrows still continue to point so that down (on earth) is "inward" (on the curve) and converge on the center of the circle representing our surface datum.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/CurveQuarterBasin_zps59bdbfc8.gif)
The solution is to break the plot into manageable sections.
Let's start at the on the left at the edge of the continental rise, showing both the Cartesian plane and the Bathymetric chart of the same section of the ocean, showing 500 km at a time.
Here we're 250 km from the left edge of the model (200 km offshore):
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Curved250_zps535e8865.gif)
Bathymetry:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Bathymetry250_zps6ac236e8.gif)
Note that in the pair of plots above, we are directly above the toe of the continental rise; the ocean gets distinctly shallower to our left, and deepens very slightly and then maintains the same depth to our right. This is easier to see on the plot with vertical exaggeration.
Moving further to the right in our model, at the 500-km position:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Curved500_zps7ec26ade.gif)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Bathymetry500_zpsb9210539.gif)
Note the the down arrows in the cartesian (curved-earth) plot distinctly converge to maintain normal to the curved ocean surface (and floor, which is a concentric, slightly smaller circle); they indicate the direction used to measure depth. On the bathymetric chart, of course, the arrows are parallel because we're simply plotting depth below datum (sea level). They are still normal to the surface and floor in this chart, however.
The depth doesn't change at all until we start to see the mid-ocean ridge, so let's just skip on over to what we'd see when we're located at 1500 km:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Curved1500_zpsee040994.gif)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Bathymetry1500_zps42bd68bb.gif)
The mid-ocean ridge is clearly at the right of both, with the seafloor shallowing noticeably in that direction, while maintaining the same depth it had been to the left.
This large expanse of constant depth is what constitutes the Abyssal Plain. It's described as level because it has a constant depth with respect to sea level.
[Edit] Replace stub post with actual content.
-
@ Alpha2Omega, just one little hint for you: It is impossible to draw a round triangle!
Celebrate with us, Croatia has got a new president, finally, after 15 years of suffering under the rule of two atheistic, communist traitors who disgraced us (Croatian people) so much, in the eyes of the whole world!
Isn't she beautiful:
(http://i.imgur.com/GJi4alW.jpg)
God and Croats : (http://)
Antemurale Christianitatis : (http://)
-
@ Alpha2Omega, just one little hint for you: It is impossible to draw a round triangle!
Celebrate with us, Croatia has got a new president, finally, after 15 years of suffering under the rule of two atheistic, communist traitors who disgraced us (Croatian people) so much, in the eyes of the whole world!
Isn't she beautiful:
(http://i.imgur.com/GJi4alW.jpg)
God and Croats : (http://)
Antemurale Christianitatis : (http://)
Triangles on a sphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry)
-
Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer, atheist, and round-earth enthusiast.
I strongly believe the global flood and the story of Noah is based partly on fact. Due to earth crust displacement, a melting of the arctics and dramatic floods could occur. Did only one family survive and save thousands of species on an arc? Unlikely. But such a devastating event would lead to word of mouth stories over hundreds of generations that eventually developed into modern religious fairy tales.
Most stories have some truth, regardless of how far fetched they seem. The point is to keep an open mind and respect the beliefs of others.
-
Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer, atheist, and round-earth enthusiast.
I strongly believe the global flood and the story of Noah is based partly on fact. Due to earth crust displacement, a melting of the arctics and dramatic floods could occur. Did only one family survive and save thousands of species on an arc? Unlikely. But such a devastating event would lead to word of mouth stories over hundreds of generations that eventually developed into modern religious fairy tales.
Most stories have some truth, regardless of how far fetched they seem. The point is to keep an open mind and respect the beliefs of others.
There was no global flood. Local floods, just as they happen today, yes. There is no evidence of it what-so-ever. Just because there are stories about floods that have been passed down from some societies around the world does not mean there was a global flood. Floods are common around the world. What is even more far fetched, is the story of Noah, and I am appalled that you consider it as fact. Considering that yes, there are many flood myths, why is it that the only one you accept is the story of Noah? There are so many issues with that story, like the fact that you cannot fit 20 million animals on a wooden boat (and even if you could, they would NOT be able to reproduce reliably and without genetic problems), and 11 humans and inscest would lead to massive genetic problems which would have made it impossible for us to have reproduced to 7 billion today. Not 11 humans, not 50, not 100, not 500. It's just stupid.
-
Yes, i admit, now, let's see your illustration... it must be something quite amazing...
Thanks.
Your requested plots are here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650862#msg1650862), a few posts ago. Sorry for the delay, it takes time to put this stuff together and I do have other things to do.
-
Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer, atheist, and round-earth enthusiast.
I strongly believe the global flood and the story of Noah is based partly on fact. Due to earth crust displacement, a melting of the arctics and dramatic floods could occur. Did only one family survive and save thousands of species on an arc? Unlikely. But such a devastating event would lead to word of mouth stories over hundreds of generations that eventually developed into modern religious fairy tales.
Most stories have some truth, regardless of how far fetched they seem. The point is to keep an open mind and respect the beliefs of others.
I'm sorry, how does "earth crust displacement" lead to a global flood. If you are talking about hydroplate theory, that is a theory made as a justification for creationism. It doesn't have any evidence to back it up, it was only made to explain the global flood.
There was not global flood. The evidence against a global flood is endless.
I do agree that there were local floods, probably disastrous ones, that were the origin of Noah's Arch.
-
@ Alpha2Omega, just one little hint for you: It is impossible to draw a round triangle!
??? I presume you're referring to the arrows in the above plots. The plots themselves are in a euclidian plane, no no worries.
Celebrate with us, Croatia has got a new president, finally, after 15 years of suffering under the rule of two atheistic, communist traitors who disgraced us (Croatian people) so much, in the eyes of the whole world!
Congratulations and best wishes to your new president! She has taken on a very difficult job.
-
Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer, atheist, and round-earth enthusiast.
I strongly believe the global flood and the story of Noah is based partly on fact. Due to earth crust displacement, a melting of the arctics and dramatic floods could occur. Did only one family survive and save thousands of species on an arc? Unlikely. But such a devastating event would lead to word of mouth stories over hundreds of generations that eventually developed into modern religious fairy tales.
Most stories have some truth, regardless of how far fetched they seem. The point is to keep an open mind and respect the beliefs of others.
There was no global flood. Local floods, just as they happen today, yes. There is no evidence of it what-so-ever. Just because there are stories about floods that have been passed down from some societies around the world does not mean there was a global flood. Floods are common around the world. What is even more far fetched, is the story of Noah, and I am appalled that you consider it as fact. Considering that yes, there are many flood myths, why is it that the only one you accept is the story of Noah? There are so many issues with that story, like the fact that you cannot fit 20 million animals on a wooden boat (and even if you could, they would NOT be able to reproduce reliably and without genetic problems), and 11 humans and inscest would lead to massive genetic problems which would have made it impossible for us to have reproduced to 7 billion today. Not 11 humans, not 50, not 100, not 500. It's just stupid.
No, but the flooding of the black sea flood would fit nicely as the world flooding and being the genesis of earth flood stories. If it happened.
-
Alpha2Omega, your line is still convex, although slightly going down (lower) and up (higher) in the middle of the abyssal plain, which is to say: slightly converging towards the "centre of the globe".
So, basically if we decided to build the trans-antlantic tunnel, it's general form would look like this, according to you and your friends (worshipers of the ball):
(http://i.imgur.com/6NMqOUx.jpg)
Not like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/8zh3zP6.jpg)
On the other hand, if we allowed that this line of an ocean floor (generally convex in shape, though) converge like your computerised line describes, then i would like to put this question (with which you were already acquainted - by participating in one another thread) to you:
Which line follows which line: Ocean floor line follows Surface of the ocean line, or vice versa?
Have you ever asked yourself how did we get uniform water LEVEL on something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/D4ZoqyH.jpg)
Has any experiment been done to confirm that the ocean surface is curved? For instance, a relatively easy experiment could be extending a straight metal rod across a bay. I have never heard of anything like that. All the evidence that it is curved is mathematical and observational(mainly astronomical). How about measuring the Earth itself?
-
Alpha2Omega, your line is still convex, although slightly going down (lower) and up (higher) in the middle of the abyssal plain, which is to say: slightly converging towards the "centre of the globe".
So, basically if we decided to build the trans-antlantic tunnel, it's general form would look like this, according to you and your friends (worshipers of the ball):
(http://i.imgur.com/6NMqOUx.jpg)
Not like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/8zh3zP6.jpg)
On the other hand, if we allowed that this line of an ocean floor (generally convex in shape, though) converge like your computerised line describes, then i would like to put this question (with which you were already acquainted - by participating in one another thread) to you:
Which line follows which line: Ocean floor line follows Surface of the ocean line, or vice versa?
Have you ever asked yourself how did we get uniform water LEVEL on something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/D4ZoqyH.jpg)
Has any experiment been done to confirm that the ocean surface is curved? For instance, a relatively easy experiment could be extending a straight metal rod across a bay. I have never heard of anything like that. All the evidence that it is curved is mathematical and observational(mainly astronomical). How about measuring the Earth itself?
Did you mean other than watching ships disappear over the horizon bottom first.....?
-
Light is the strangest thing there is, and it tells us that the Earth is round because of boats disappearing bottom first as they go away from you, but you can also do experiments with lasers.
-
Alpha2Omega, your line is still convex, although slightly going down (lower) and up (higher) in the middle of the abyssal plain, which is to say: slightly converging towards the "centre of the globe".
So, basically if we decided to build the trans-antlantic tunnel, it's general form would look like this, according to you and your friends (worshipers of the ball):
(http://i.imgur.com/6NMqOUx.jpg)
Not like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/8zh3zP6.jpg)
These are the same. Traditionally, drawings are made with down toward the bottom of the page, and that's just convention and what people are used to seeing, but it doesn't have to be this way. What would be the advantage to using the inverted, upper, drawing?
On the other hand, if we allowed that this line of an ocean floor (generally convex in shape, though) converge like your computerised line describes, then i would like to put this question (with which you were already acquainted - by participating in one another thread) to you:
Which line follows which line: Ocean floor line follows Surface of the ocean line, or vice versa?
Neither "follows" the other; they are both pulled into a spherical shape by the force of earth's own gravity, so you have a slightly smaller sphere (the Abyssal Plain) below (inside) and concentric with a slightly larger one (the ocean surface). They both take that spherical shape for the same reason, but independent of each other.
Have you ever asked yourself how did we get uniform water LEVEL on something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/D4ZoqyH.jpg)
Sure. The answer is because the surface of the water makes an equipotential surface; every point on it has the same potential energy. Absent forces other than gravity, such as wind, sea currents, tides, and rotation, sea level would be a perfect sphere (if you also assume the density of the interior of the Earth doesn't vary laterally). If any part of the ocean surface were higher (further from the center) than another, the water would flow from the high point into the low, until the potential was equalized.
Has any experiment been done to confirm that the ocean surface is curved? For instance, a relatively easy experiment could be extending a straight metal rod across a bay. I have never heard of anything like that. All the evidence that it is curved is mathematical and observational(mainly astronomical). How about measuring the Earth itself?
Celestial navigation is an obvious answer; the vertical angle to any star at a given moment depends on your location; since the vertical is normal to a plane tangent to the (ideal) sea surface, the observed effects are consistent with the surface being spherical. It sounds like this is not the answer you're looking for, though.
The presence of the sharp horizon line at a given distance from a given height is probably the most straightforward way to measure the curvature. This is complicated by refraction for precision work even in the best circumstances, though, so that has to be accounted for.
Large-scale surveys have to allow for curvature for the loops to close. If the datum used to survey the surface is spherical in shape, the water surface must be, too, or it would change in elevation relative to the datum at the coasts.
Your metal rod would not be satisfactory because a rod long enough to show measurable curvature probably couldn't be held straight. Maybe replace the rod with a laser; you'd still have to deal with refraction, though. A laser shining through a long tube, with a way to adjust the tube for straightness, might be the best bet.
I somehow doubt this is an urgent area for research, but perhaps some college geology or geography department may have students carry out an experiment to measure this.
-
@Alpha2Omega, nice theory, only there isn't a shred of truth in it!
These are the same. Traditionally, drawings are made with down toward the bottom of the page, and that's just convention and what people are used to seeing, but it doesn't have to be this way. What would be the advantage to using the inverted, upper, drawing?
This is not just about the convention, this is about the reality, about the literal hypothetical shape of the trans-atlantic tunnel and how it would be really shaped on a supposed globe, also!
Neither "follows" the other; they are both pulled into a spherical shape by the force of earth's own gravity, so you have a slightly smaller sphere (the Abyssal Plain) below (inside) and concentric with a slightly larger one (the ocean surface). They both take that spherical shape for the same reason, but independent of each other...Sure. The answer is because the surface of the water makes an equipotential surface; every point on it has the same potential energy. Absent forces other than gravity, such as wind, sea currents, tides, and rotation, sea level would be a perfect sphere (if you also assume the density of the interior of the Earth doesn't vary laterally). If any part of the ocean surface were higher (further from the center) than another, the water would flow from the high point into the low, until the potential was equalized.
GOCE GEOID : (http://)
Accompanying words for a video above:
After two years in orbit, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) is nearing the end of its planned life span in February, producing the most accurate map ever of the so-called geoid -- an Earth-encompassing spirit level and global reference surface. An unused supply of xeon fuel will allow the mission to be extended until at least the end of 2012.
Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior.
Comment no. 1:
Wow, what a lumpy piece of shit planet we live on. I'm moving to the moon.
Comment no. 2:
For some reason, I don't believe this crap. So many pictures show earth as an almost round orb. why don't the real pictures we have seen over the years make the earth look like this, if this is true. april fools one day late. I guess the next thing we'll be told, is "oops, the earth really is flat.'
Comment no. 3:
So they were right about the earth being flat....at least in places
Comment no 4:
The actual shape of planet earth as revealed by #ESA mission #GOCE GOCE Geoid
Comment no. 5:
To anyone that thinks this is a hoax, you've been misled.
A geoid accounts for gravity and density irregularities, and depicts what a mean sea level surface would be if water could freely flow across Earth's surface. Geodesy is the field of study in which measurements are made to determine the actual shape of the planet. Geophysics also uses the concept of the geoid extensively in performing experiments and observations. This updated version of the geoid is the most accurate to date, and the implications it holds in those fields of study that employ it are massive.
So, they say that the Earth looks like this, after all:
(http://i.imgur.com/o5YTa8e.jpg)
What is interesting here is that in 99 % cases you will find on the internet only upper number according to which abyssal plains vary in depth 100 cm per 1 km, although in Encyclopedia Britannica you can read these words:
These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
In reality abyssal plains are flatter than Kansas, and Kansas is much flatter than a pancake.
(http://i.imgur.com/Rrx9lhc.jpg)
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html)
So, to get the idea how really flat abyssal plains are, you have to imagine something flatter than these:
"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"
A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
In above picture what we are really facing with, is kind of a timid recognition of the fact that abyssal plains are flatter than anything else in the world.
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain)
The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.
So, without the gravity, the surface of an oceans would follow the shape of the bottom of the oceans which is flat.
(http://i.imgur.com/giY04yi.jpg)
Now, what about the gravity?
1. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
2. The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times) because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to gravity which holds them down. They had believed that the sacrifice is a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity.
Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down. The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure in the atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
3. Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.
Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.
Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock.
4. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339)
On top of that:
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046)
-
I love the way a flatliner uses the opinion of Newton as a guarantee of truth, while so many of them simultaneously decry his Laws of Motion as "wrong".
-
Same with Einstein, they need Special Relativity to work for their "theory" so its right, but General Relativity is so blatantly wrong to them, even though SR is built up from GR.
/shrug
-
@Alpha2Omega, nice theory, only there isn't a shred of truth in it!
These are the same. Traditionally, drawings are made with down toward the bottom of the page, and that's just convention and what people are used to seeing, but it doesn't have to be this way. What would be the advantage to using the inverted, upper, drawing?
This is not just about the convention, this is about the reality, about the literal hypothetical shape of the trans-atlantic tunnel and how it would be really shaped on a supposed globe, also!
I'm not sure I get your point. Does turning a drawing upside down make the drawing itself invalid?
Neither "follows" the other; they are both pulled into a spherical shape by the force of earth's own gravity, so you have a slightly smaller sphere (the Abyssal Plain) below (inside) and concentric with a slightly larger one (the ocean surface). They both take that spherical shape for the same reason, but independent of each other...Sure. The answer is because the surface of the water makes an equipotential surface; every point on it has the same potential energy. Absent forces other than gravity, such as wind, sea currents, tides, and rotation, sea level would be a perfect sphere (if you also assume the density of the interior of the Earth doesn't vary laterally). If any part of the ocean surface were higher (further from the center) than another, the water would flow from the high point into the low, until the potential was equalized.
GOCE GEOID : (http://)
Accompanying words for a video above:
After two years in orbit, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) is nearing the end of its planned life span in February, producing the most accurate map ever of the so-called geoid -- an Earth-encompassing spirit level and global reference surface. An unused supply of xeon fuel will allow the mission to be extended until at least the end of 2012.
Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior.
Isn't that what I said?
Comment no. 1:
Wow, what a lumpy piece of shit planet we live on. I'm moving to the moon.
Comment no. 2:
For some reason, I don't believe this crap.
Are you going to alert ESA about your concerns?
So many pictures show earth as an almost round orb. why don't the real pictures we have seen over the years make the earth look like this,
Because the illustrations here have the variations highly exaggerated so they are obvious. In your forays through the GOCE maps and descriptions, did any indicate what the difference between the geoid and reference ellipsoid is, in meters, or how much exaggeration was applied to the graphics?
if this is true. april fools one day late. I guess the next thing we'll be told, is "oops, the earth really is flat.'[/i]
It's quite true, but you have to be working at a very fine scale to measure any of this. It shows up on illustrations only with extremely high exaggeration.
Comment no. 3:
So they were right about the earth being flat....at least in places
Which places? How large are they?
Comment no 4:
The actual shape of planet earth as revealed by #ESA mission #GOCE GOCE Geoid
Comment no. 5:
To anyone that thinks this is a hoax, you've been misled.
A geoid accounts for gravity and density irregularities, and depicts what a mean sea level surface would be if water could freely flow across Earth's surface.
Which means they are accounting for the things that were explicitly excluded in my description above.
Geodesy is the field of study in which measurements are made to determine the actual shape of the planet. Geophysics also uses the concept of the geoid extensively in performing experiments and observations. This updated version of the geoid is the most accurate to date, and the implications it holds in those fields of study that employ it are massive.[/i]
So, they say that the Earth looks like this, after all:
(http://i.imgur.com/o5YTa8e.jpg)
If the differences from datum (they probably state which one; likely it's WGS 84) are magnified, then, sure. Do they say what the scale of the differences are? Can you give a reference for this image?
What is interesting here is that in 99 % cases you will find on the internet only upper number according to which abyssal plains vary in depth 100 cm per 1 km, although in Encyclopedia Britannica you can read these words:
These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
So? 1 meter of depth change in 1 km is still, to use the technical term from the article below, damn flat.
In reality abyssal plains are flatter than Kansas, and Kansas is much flatter than a pancake.
(http://i.imgur.com/Rrx9lhc.jpg)
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html)
I'd wondered what had happened to the good old JIR, so thanks for that link. The description of the old Journal of Irreproducible Research is "It contains a unique mix of jokes, satire of scientific practice, science cartoons, and discussion of funny but real research." Much of the talent that made the JIR what it was apparently fled to the new publication cited above in the '90s after an ownership change. It's fun to read, can make you think, but don't take it too seriously. "Flat as a pancake" is a colloquialism. Don't take it too seriously, either. Pancakes - if properly prepared - are certainly flatter than, say croissants or coffeecakes, but not sheets of paper (if they're flat).
Can you provide more details for "we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas's [sic] flatness is approximately 0.999"?
So, to get the idea how really flat abyssal plains are, you have to imagine something flatter than these:
"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
Did you ever find the topographic map with 6-inch (or less) contour interval that would verify this?
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile[Citation Needed],"
Does this mean you're finally giving up on the one foot in 1,000 miles claim?
A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
In above picture what we are really facing with, is kind of a timid recognition of the fact that abyssal plains are flatter than anything else in the world.
There's a well-recognized and well-understood reason for that, too. The abyssal plains are extensional, which, in relatively uniform material, tends to reduce irregularities, and they also become blanketed in sediment, which fills the lows at a faster rate than it covers the high points.
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain)
The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.
So, without the gravity, the surface of an oceans would follow the shape of the bottom of the oceans which is flat.
By "flat", oceanographers mean "at a constant depth below mean sea level", or (nearly) spherical, but with a smaller radius. "Following the shape" would make the surface of the oceans spherical. But - without gravity, the water in the oceans wouldn't "stick" to the Earth at all. Earth wouldn't be pulled into a spherical shape, either - it wouldn't even form. So this statement is, at the very least, fanciful.
<fanciful mage>
Now, what about the gravity?
1. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
You keep bringing this old chestnut up, and it's quoted out of context. The first part, more completely, reads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Newton):
"It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity..."
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human; things like this happen. That's not the only thing he was wrong about, either... his day job for much of his life was alchemist. This is little remembered since this work led to insights into physics, but no success in alchemy.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
Incorrectly categorized "great absurdity”, it turns out. So, nothing to see here, folks.
2. The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times)[Citation Needed] because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface[Citation Needed]. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to gravity which holds them down. They had believed that the sacrifice is a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity.
That 0.35% is about right; where's the problem?
Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.
Why? If gravity is pulling me down by 1 and centrifugal acceleration is pulling me up by 0.0035, I'm still being pulled down by 0.9965, which is still pretty darn close to 1.
The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure in the atmosphere[Citation Needed]. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth.
"Redundant force and should leave the Earth"? What does this mean?
The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
I thought I'd read all the above before.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645079#msg1645079 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645079#msg1645079)
3. Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory[Citation Needed] has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether[Citation Needed] to keep all of its elementary particles spinning[Citation Needed]. We are just in the way of this influx[Citation Needed]. This view explains what gravity is[Citation Needed], and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating[Citation Needed]. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity[Citation Needed].
Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light[Citation Needed], a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time[Citation Needed]. This influx is what gravity is[Citation Needed]. As ether is absorbed[Citation Needed] two[Citation Needed] things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin[Citation Needed], and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy[Citation Needed], is transformed into electromagnetic energy[Citation Needed]. That[Citation Needed] is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.
Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock[Citation Needed].
4. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339)
On top of that:
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
Well, that stuff in blue is certainly oversimplified. Wind and currents can push water to a higher level in some places and it will remain there as long as they don't change.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046)
This already has been debunked.
[Edit] Nested quote. Minor clarification.
-
@Alpha2Omega, nice theory, only there isn't a shred of truth in it!
These are the same. Traditionally, drawings are made with down toward the bottom of the page, and that's just convention and what people are used to seeing, but it doesn't have to be this way. What would be the advantage to using the inverted, upper, drawing?
This is not just about the convention, this is about the reality, about the literal hypothetical shape of the trans-atlantic tunnel and how it would be really shaped on a supposed globe, also!
I'm not sure I get your point. Does turning a drawing upside down make the drawing itself invalid?
Neither "follows" the other; they are both pulled into a spherical shape by the force of earth's own gravity, so you have a slightly smaller sphere (the Abyssal Plain) below (inside) and concentric with a slightly larger one (the ocean surface). They both take that spherical shape for the same reason, but independent of each other...Sure. The answer is because the surface of the water makes an equipotential surface; every point on it has the same potential energy. Absent forces other than gravity, such as wind, sea currents, tides, and rotation, sea level would be a perfect sphere (if you also assume the density of the interior of the Earth doesn't vary laterally). If any part of the ocean surface were higher (further from the center) than another, the water would flow from the high point into the low, until the potential was equalized.
GOCE GEOID : (http://)
Accompanying words for a video above:
After two years in orbit, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) is nearing the end of its planned life span in February, producing the most accurate map ever of the so-called geoid -- an Earth-encompassing spirit level and global reference surface. An unused supply of xeon fuel will allow the mission to be extended until at least the end of 2012.
Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior.
Isn't that what I said?
Comment no. 1:
Wow, what a lumpy piece of shit planet we live on. I'm moving to the moon.
Comment no. 2:
For some reason, I don't believe this crap.
Are you going to alert ESA about your concerns?
So many pictures show earth as an almost round orb. why don't the real pictures we have seen over the years make the earth look like this,
Because the illustrations here have the variations highly exaggerated so they are obvious. In your forays through the GOCE maps and descriptions, did any indicate what the difference between the geoid and reference ellipsoid is, in meters, or how much exaggeration was applied to the graphics?
if this is true. april fools one day late. I guess the next thing we'll be told, is "oops, the earth really is flat.'[/i]
It's quite true, but you have to be working at a very fine scale to measure any of this. It shows up on illustrations only with extremely high exaggeration.
Comment no. 3:
So they were right about the earth being flat....at least in places
Which places? How large are they?
Comment no 4:
The actual shape of planet earth as revealed by #ESA mission #GOCE GOCE Geoid
Comment no. 5:
To anyone that thinks this is a hoax, you've been misled.
A geoid accounts for gravity and density irregularities, and depicts what a mean sea level surface would be if water could freely flow across Earth's surface.
Which means they are accounting for the things that were explicitly excluded in my description above.
Geodesy is the field of study in which measurements are made to determine the actual shape of the planet. Geophysics also uses the concept of the geoid extensively in performing experiments and observations. This updated version of the geoid is the most accurate to date, and the implications it holds in those fields of study that employ it are massive.[/i]
So, they say that the Earth looks like this, after all:
(http://i.imgur.com/o5YTa8e.jpg)
If the differences from datum (they probably state which one; likely it's WGS 84) are magnified, then, sure. Do they say what the scale of the differences are? Can you give a reference for this image?
What is interesting here is that in 99 % cases you will find on the internet only upper number according to which abyssal plains vary in depth 100 cm per 1 km, although in Encyclopedia Britannica you can read these words:
These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
So? 1 meter of depth change in 1 km is still, to use the technical term from the article below, damn flat.
In reality abyssal plains are flatter than Kansas, and Kansas is much flatter than a pancake.
(http://i.imgur.com/Rrx9lhc.jpg)
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html)
I'd wondered what had happened to the good old JIR, so thanks for that link. The description of the old Journal of Irreproducible Research is "It contains a unique mix of jokes, satire of scientific practice, science cartoons, and discussion of funny but real research." Much of the talent that made the JIR what it was apparently fled to the new publication cited above in the '90s after an ownership change. It's fun to read, can make you think, but don't take it too seriously. "Flat as a pancake" is a colloquialism. Don't take it too seriously, either. Pancakes - if properly prepared - are certainly flatter than, say croissants or coffeecakes, but not sheets of paper (if they're flat).
Can you provide more details for "we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas's [sic] flatness is approximately 0.999"?
So, to get the idea how really flat abyssal plains are, you have to imagine something flatter than these:
"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."
Did you ever find the topographic map with 6-inch (or less) contour interval that would verify this?
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile[Citation Needed],"
Does this mean you're finally giving up on the one foot in 1,000 miles claim?
A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
In above picture what we are really facing with, is kind of a timid recognition of the fact that abyssal plains are flatter than anything else in the world.
There's a well-recognized and well-understood reason for that, too. The abyssal plains are extensional, which, in relatively uniform material, tends to reduce irregularities, and they also become blanketed in sediment, which fills the lows at a faster rate than it covers the high points.
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain)
The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.
So, without the gravity, the surface of an oceans would follow the shape of the bottom of the oceans which is flat.
By "flat", oceanographers mean "at a constant depth below mean sea level", or (nearly) spherical, but with a smaller radius. "Following the shape" would make the surface of the oceans spherical. But - without gravity, the water in the oceans wouldn't "stick" to the Earth at all. Earth wouldn't be pulled into a spherical shape, either - it wouldn't even form. So this statement is, at the very least, fanciful.
<fanciful mage>
Now, what about the gravity?
1. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
You keep bringing this old chestnut up, and it's quoted out of context. The first part, more completely, reads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Newton):
"It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity..."
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human; things like this happen. That's not the only thing he was wrong about, either... his day job for much of his life was alchemist. This is little remembered since this work led to insights into physics, but no success in alchemy.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
Incorrectly categorized "great absurdity”, it turns out. So, nothing to see here, folks.
2. The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times)[Citation Needed] because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface[Citation Needed]. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to gravity which holds them down. They had believed that the sacrifice is a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity.
That 0.35% is about right; where's the problem?
Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.
Why? If gravity is pulling me down by 1 and centrifugal acceleration is pulling me up by 0.0035, I'm still being pulled down by 0.9965, which is still pretty darn close to 1.
The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure in the atmosphere[Citation Needed]. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth.
"Redundant force and should leave the Earth"? What does this mean?
The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
I thought I'd read all the above before.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645079#msg1645079 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645079#msg1645079)
3. Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory[Citation Needed] has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether[Citation Needed] to keep all of its elementary particles spinning[Citation Needed]. We are just in the way of this influx[Citation Needed]. This view explains what gravity is[Citation Needed], and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating[Citation Needed]. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity[Citation Needed].
Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light[Citation Needed], a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time[Citation Needed]. This influx is what gravity is[Citation Needed]. As ether is absorbed[Citation Needed] two[Citation Needed] things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin[Citation Needed], and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy[Citation Needed], is transformed into electromagnetic energy[Citation Needed]. That[Citation Needed] is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.
Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock[Citation Needed].
4. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339)
On top of that:
We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
Well, that stuff in blue is certainly oversimplified. Wind and currents can push water to a higher level in some places and it will remain there as long as they don't change.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046)
This already has been debunked.
[Edit] Nested quote. Minor clarification.
As well as high and low pressure systems: http://gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov/aplo/ (http://gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov/aplo/)
-
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...
It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega... ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/o5YTa8e.jpg)
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.
Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?
Why not?
GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:
At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.
The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all ; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.
The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!
Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :
0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods, with always the same result, or thereabouts.
In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another. . . . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then, when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.”
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.”
It is so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.
All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam.
"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18
Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!
Sorry, but that is the fact!
Or are they just a shills?
-
Newtonian Gravity theory has been disproved, although it can still be used in some cases. I suggest instead of looking for really old papers about Gravity, look for newer ones. This will end your confusion.
If you think you are still right, simply explain why a six pound bowling ball and a sixteen pound bowling ball fall with the same rate.
-
Newtonian Gravity theory has been disproved, although it can still be used in some cases. I suggest instead of looking for really old papers about Gravity, look for newer ones. This will end your confusion.
If you think you are still right, simply explain why a six pound bowling ball and a sixteen pound bowling ball fall with the same rate.
But all of his copypasta is based on the old papers and it would be really hard to update it.
-
Newtonian Gravity theory has been disproved, although it can still be used in some cases. I suggest instead of looking for really old papers about Gravity, look for newer ones. This will end your confusion.
If you think you are still right, simply explain why a six pound bowling ball and a sixteen pound bowling ball fall with the same rate.
Actually, Newton's laws work in all cases except a select few like really close to a huge object like the Sun.
-
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris),
Polaris is not perfectly aligned to Earth's celestial pole. It just happens to be the brightest star around the celestial pole.
is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1)
It's not exactly 365 days per year at all, it's more like 365 and 1/4 days per year. And even that is not perfect. Leap years help, but still are not perfect. That is to be expected if you divide anything like rotations/orbit.
in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
So there's a problem with this.... how? Because there are a lot of zeros to your feeble human brain? Try using scientific notation, it really helps.
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Cool story.
And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.
Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?
Why not?
GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:
At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.
The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all ; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.
Blah, blah. So because gravity is not defined exactly in dictionaries and encyclopedias which don't need to delve into complex physics- it's wrong? Wow.
The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!
Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :
0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods, with always the same result, or thereabouts.
In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another. . . . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then, when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.”
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
You know, you should really check the source from which you copy and paste. Or even better, cite it.
I don't know about you, but the first measurements of the distances between celestial bodies didn't use the speed of light, first of all. Second, why the hell are you using the measurements taken by old time scientists with methods that are no longer accepted? It's the biggest strawman you've ever made. There are tons of ways to measure the distance to the sun. All of them arrive at the same conclusion. Just google it.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.”
It is so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.
See above.
All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun,
Citation needed.
and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam.[/color][/b]
Citation needed. And no, we have a pretty good idea of the distance to the sun now, thanks. Instead of blindly copy pasting, how about you do some research?
"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18
Cool story.
Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!
Sorry, but that is the fact!
Or are they just a shills?
Well! I haven't seen that much plagiarism since our 9th grade research paper. Have fun!
-
cikljamas, you are a christian? Me to, good to know.
In Genesis it says that (paraphrased) "God put all the land in one place and called it Earth" and that hasn't been confirmed scientifically until satellites (which are supposedly fake) made measurements and discovered tectonic plate activity that suggests that all of the continents were once all one super-continent called Pangaea. If you deny the truthfulness of that data then you are denying the truthfulness of the Bible, yet that data was collected by satellites and according to your standards it's a fabrication, but how can the data be true if it's fake?
Also, the distance to the sun is known, on average it's center point 92,955,807 miles away from the center point of the (round) Earth.
-
@ mikeman7918, this is for you:
A LIAR IS A THIEF, A THIEF IS A MURDERER
“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either." Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason".
Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”
The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...
Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!
Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.
20th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theocentric (God-centered). Before the "earth-movers" arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.
Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html)
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact! Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
Bible vs science:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695)
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics." Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315)
HC theory is much more dangerous than an atomic bomb:
"The clash of the scientist who wanted to make the bomb and then wanted to stop versus the politician who couldn't wait to use it is really quite a dramatic event in itself," Lanouette said.
In June 1945, Szilard helped to author the Franck Report, warning that even if the atomic bomb helped to save lives during the present war, it could ultimately lead to a nuclear arms race and perhaps even a nuclear war with far more devastating results.
After the war, Szilard continued his efforts to stem the rising tide of nuclear weapons. He often spoke in public, and authored a number of satires, including one in 1947 titled "My Trial As a War Criminal."
That short story describes how, after the Russians won World War III, they rounded up all of the people who worked on the atomic bomb, including Szilard, and put them on trial as war criminals.
"It was his way of pointing out that scientists do have responsibilities for their effects," Lanouette said.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:44 ESV
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. John 10:10 ESV
THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
And finally, you have this thread in which i have proved beyond any reasonable doubt (on scientific basis) that the Earth is flat!
God doesn't lie, He cannot not to be (He is Absolute), He cannot lie, because He is Absolute Truth and Perfect Love, and Bible is a true word of God!
-
Martin Luther 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546
John Calvin 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564
You can ignore me all you want. Still won't make your copy paste correct. Bible was written by man with the knowledge of the time. Nothing more.
-
it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other
So after all this time and talk, you still don't understand how 'orbit' works.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also!
I could tell you the same thing, but I don't need stoop to your level, because I'm smarter than you.
-
Jet Fission (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651371#msg1651371) and others did a pretty thorough job replying to this post, but you're lucky that it's a bit slow slow around here, so here are some of the gaps.
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...
It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega... ;D
Where have I ever claimed to never make mistakes?
<images of geoid emphasizing deviations from ellipsoid>
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
The "exactly one additional annual rotation per year" has nothing to do with synchronization, or coincidence, or anything else. The "exactly one" difference between sidereal and solar days in a year is the orbit itself. Regardless the period of rotation or length of the year, the number of sidereal days in a year will always differ from the number of solar days by exactly one.
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.
Yep. Sure is. Although, as your illustration shows, at the very fine scale, it's not exactly uniform. Close, but not exact.
Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing[Citation Needed] force?
Why not?
Well, the first reason would be that we've already covered this several times before.
The second would be because what you're about to say is just plain wrong.
Maybe the order of those is reversed. I am human after all.
GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:
At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.
The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all ; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.
The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!![Citation Needed]
Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning,
Actually, it's gravitation that gives weight its meaning. But why quibble over words?
something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart.
That's kind of the whole Newton falling-apple, moon-in-the-sky thing in action, isn't it? Pretty cool that it works that way, but work it does.
The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural[Citation Needed]; and the theory is scientifically unsound.[Citation Needed]
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says <quote taken out of context>
Sir Robert Ball[/b] says: <quote with lots of font size and color changes to show how correct and profound they are, but still wrong>
DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :
0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed]. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions[Citation Needed] — they will say that they know the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods, with always the same result, or thereabouts.
In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another. . . . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment- be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then, when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.” [Citation Needed]
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
Is that, perhaps, more quotes from Rowbotham? It reads like his stuff.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!
[sarcasm]Now, now... watch your language please! You don't want to invoke the wrath of the moderators[/sarcasm]
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth[Citation Needed], and so they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.”
It is so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4[Citation Needed] how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth[Citation Needed], so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.
All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun[Citation Needed], and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result than if they had never bee done[Citation Needed]; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam[Citation Needed].
"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18
Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself?
Hey, we're in the Flat Earth Society forums. The obvious answers to that question are thicker here than most anywhere on the Internet (with the possible exception of the "other" Flat Earth Society)!
Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity [as a flat earth] are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!
Sorry, but that is the fact!
Or are they just a shills?
Nah, the ones who assert the Earth is flat are mostly just ignorant, or out for a good time. A few are possibly genuinely stupid.
[Edit] Fixed screwed-up nested quotes.
-
it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other
So after all this time and talk, you still don't understand how 'orbit' works.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also!
I could tell you the same thing, but I don't need stoop to your level, because I'm smarter than you.
Wouldn't it be awesome if we got RE'ers to play Kerbal Space Program?
-
Wouldn't it be awesome if we got RE'ers to play Kerbal Space Program?
I need to get the full version sometime. I've messed with the demo a bit. Landed on Mun and walked around.
-
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also!
I could tell you the same thing, but I don't need stoop to your level, because I'm smarter than you.
Yeah, maybe you are smarter than me, but certainly you are not smarter than Alpha2Omega... ;D
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...
It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega... ;D
Where have I ever claimed to never make mistakes?
Now that you said that, let's see how much truth is in these words of yours (which comes right after your question):
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artificially) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
The "exactly one additional annual rotation per year" has nothing to do with synchronization, or coincidence, or anything else. The "exactly one" difference between sidereal and solar days in a year is the orbit itself. Regardless the period of rotation or length of the year, the number of sidereal days in a year will always differ from the number of solar days by exactly one.
Wrong! Come on Alpha2Omega, you should know better than that. If the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we slowed down rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would be true, also, only the synchronization would not be such perfect in that case.
But, if the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would not be true, because in that case we would have two annual rotations per year, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 2 degree (under the same conditions), then we will get three annual rotations per year, and so on...
So, it is quite damn good ARTIFICIALLY synchronized rotation, after all, wouldn't you agree with me?
Secondly, how come that you had nothing sanely to say about the essence of this argument:
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.” [Citation Needed]
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
That is why all heliocentrists can... (oops, i already have said that...) ;D ;D ;D
-
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...
It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega... ;D
Where have I ever claimed to never make mistakes?
Now that you said that, let's see how much truth is in these words of yours (which comes right after your question):
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artificially) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
The "exactly one additional annual rotation per year" has nothing to do with synchronization, or coincidence, or anything else. The "exactly one" difference between sidereal and solar days in a year is the orbit itself. Regardless the period of rotation or length of the year, the number of sidereal days in a year will always differ from the number of solar days by exactly one.
Wrong! Come on Alpha2Omega, you should know better than that. If the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we slowed down rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would be true, also, only the synchronization would not be such perfect in that case.
No, it's quite simple, really. Over exactly a year, the Sun traces a path exactly one time around the ecliptic, so the number of solar transits in a year will always be exactly one different from the number of transits of any particular star. It doesn't matter what rate the Earth spins[nb]Or even what direction.[/nb] or how long the year is; there will be exactly one less solar day than sidereal day in exactly one year[nb]If the direction of rotation is reversed, that "one less" becomes somewhat confusing. If you use the convention that a retrograde rotation is negative, then the number of days in a year is negative and the number of solar days is still one less (more negative), although the absolute value is one greater. This means there would be one more solar transit than sidereal transit, but in the opposite direction.[/nb].
But, if the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would not be true, because in that case we would have two annual rotations per year, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 2 degree (under the same conditions), then we will get three annual rotations per year, and so on...
So, it is quite damn good ARTIFICIALLY synchronized rotation, after all, wouldn't you agree with me?
Nope. See the above.
Secondly, how come that you had nothing sanely to say about the essence of this argument:
Because all those unattributed and unsubstantiated quotes are, frankly, not believable. Can you provide some substantiation for the ones marked? Without citations and data they're simply anonymous, baseless claims.
I am interested in that “Nodes of the Moon” calculation mentioned in passing in there. I've never heard of this. I don't see why it should work, so don't really question that was discredited, but don't know anything at all about it. A search on that exact term turns up a lot of hits, but none seem related to this; can you provide something describing it?
-
Alpha2Omega, i know that you are a really good astronomer, that is why i have to think twice before i say: "it is 100 % true" regarding some particular heliocentric catch...
This is my reasoning: If the rotational period of the Earth were roughly 23 h 52 min, instead of 23 h 56 min 4 sec, i suppose that we could still keep our 24 hours convention (for one solar day), and the difference would be consisted in the amount of time that we would have to wait for the alignment between the Sun and the specific meridian on the Earth. That time would be roughly 8 min, instead of 3 min 56 sec...
What would be the consequence of this "8 min." longlasting alignment?
Wouldn't it (the consequence) be "a two degree sidereal shift per day"?
If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720
If no, why?
As for the source of my quotation, it's here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I already had offered this link to you, a few months ago or so...
For those who like this quotation, let's quote it once more:
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.” [Citation Needed]
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
-
Alpha2Omega, i know that you are a really good astronomer, that is why i have to think twice before i say: "it is 100 % true" regarding some particular heliocentric catch...
This is my reasoning: If the rotational period of the Earth were roughly 23 h 52 min, instead of 23 h 56 min 4 sec, i suppose that we could still keep our 24 hours convention (for one solar day), and the difference would be consisted in the amount of time that we would have to wait for the alignment between the Sun and the specific meridian on the Earth. That time would be roughly 8 min, instead of 3 min 56 sec...
What would be the consequence of this "8 min." longlasting alignment?
Wouldn't it (the consequence) be "a two degree sidereal shift per day"?
If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720
If no, why?
As for the source of my quotation, it's here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I already had offered this link to you, a few months ago or so...
For those who like this quotation, let's quote it once more:
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.” [Citation Needed]
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
Got any sources from the last 50 years?
-
Got any sources from the last 50 years?
Yes, i have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes)
a. The Earth Floats on Water
In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).
Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.
Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ (http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/)
-
Got any sources from the last 50 years?
Yes, i have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/Eratosthenes)
a. The Earth Floats on Water
In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).
Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.
Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/thales/)
I said a source from the last 50 years and you bring up someone from Ancient Greece? Just because someone wrote about him in the last 50 years doesn't change the fact his ideas are over 2000 years old.
-
Got any sources from the last 50 years?
Yes, i have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/Eratosthenes)
a. The Earth Floats on Water
In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).
Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.
Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/thales/)
I said a source from the last 50 years and you bring up someone from Ancient Greece? Just because someone wrote about him in the last 50 years doesn't change the fact his ideas are over 2000 years old.
Ad hominem argument. The wheel is an idea thousands of years old, and just as valid as it ever has been.
-
Got any sources from the last 50 years?
Yes, i have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/Eratosthenes)
a. The Earth Floats on Water
In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).
Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.
Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/thales/)
I said a source from the last 50 years and you bring up someone from Ancient Greece? Just because someone wrote about him in the last 50 years doesn't change the fact his ideas are over 2000 years old.
Ad hominem argument. The wheel is an idea thousands of years old, and just as valid as it ever has been.
True, but my original question is if he could produce a source that was less than 50 years old. He then posted something written by a person in the last 50 years, discussing the ideas of a man over 2000 years ago. Might address the letter of the question but he is being obtuse.
-
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...
It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega... ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/o5YTa8e.jpg)
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.
Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?
Why not?
GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:
At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.
The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all ; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.
The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!
Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :
0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods, with always the same result, or thereabouts.
In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another. . . . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then, when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.”
The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.”
It is so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.
All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam.
"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18
Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!
Sorry, but that is the fact!
Or are they just a shills?
I didn't read much if that, but I did read the part about how you think it's crazy that Earth's axis maintains it's orientation. The dictionary definition of axis is "the line about which a rotating body, such as the earth, turns.". In other words: if Earth's axis didn't maintain it's orientation then by definition it wouldn't be an axis. Saying that it's absurd and stupid that Earth's axis always points the same way is as crazy as saying that it's absurd and stupid that the center of an object is always located in the exact center of that object.
-
To be honest, i can't remember when i was laughing so much in last 10 years of my life. Thanks guys, laughter is one of the best therapeutic method for treating various problems. Strong recomendation!
The wheel is an idea thousands of years old, and just as valid as it ever has been.
The wheel is an example of a good idea.
How about the round earth idea? Grrrrrrrr
(http://i.imgur.com/c6BAvjw.jpg)
(http://[url=http://i.imgur.com/c6BAvjw.jpg]http://i.imgur.com/c6BAvjw.jpg[/url]) (http://i.imgur.com/W4TLfrO.jpg)
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: (http://)]
@ Lemmiwinks, you should really have to read that book which is older than 50 years, wow, more than 50 years, can you imagine such age?
-
@ Lemmiwinks, you should really have to read that book which is older than 50 years, wow, more than 50 years, can you imagine such age?
I've read plenty of books that are over 50 years old. I just don't base all of my conception of the world and how it works on them. :P
-
@ Lemmiwinks, you should really have to read that book which is older than 50 years, wow, more than 50 years, can you imagine such age?
I've read plenty of books that are over 50 years old. I just don't base all of my conception of the world and how it works on them. :P
Apart from those published by Newton, Faraday, Rutherford, Einstein etc.
-
Newton was actually wrong. The neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932. But yeah, just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. But when you have to quote someone from 1500 or 200 BC to try and prove a scientific point you might have a problem.
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: (http://)]
That is the dumbest thing I have seen all year. It's going to be tough to top it even though there is still over 11 months left in the year.
-
Newton was actually wrong. The neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932. But yeah, just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. But when you have to quote someone from 1500 or 200 BC to try and prove a scientific point you might have a problem.
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: (http://)]
That is the dumbest thing I have seen all year. It's going to be tough to top it even though there is still over 11 months left in the year.
I couldn't watch the whole video. But right off the bat, he says, look, the light is hitting to bottom of the clouds... which oddly would only happen if we are on a round earth. We all know that at noon the sun is above the clouds. If the earth is flat and the sun stays way up yonder, how is it that the sun is shinning on the bottom of the clouds? Typical FE. It's like saying ice is not slippery, then saying, look, I'm sliding on the ice, there is no way the ice could be slippery. At what point are you allowed to call someone an idiot?
-
Newton was actually wrong. The neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932. But yeah, just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. But when you have to quote someone from 1500 or 200 BC to try and prove a scientific point you might have a problem.
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: (http://)]
That is the dumbest thing I have seen all year. It's going to be tough to top it even though there is still over 11 months left in the year.
I couldn't watch the whole video. But right of the bat, he says, look, the light is hitting to bottom of the clouds... which oddly would only happen if we are on a round earth. We all know that at noon the sun is above the clouds. If the earth is flat and the sun stays way up yonder, how is it that the sun is shinning on the bottom of the clouds? Typical FE. It's look saying ice is not slippery, then saying, look, I'm sliding on the ice, there is no way the ice could be slippery. At what point are you allowed to call someone an idiot?
Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.
-
Alpha2Omega, i know that you are a really good astronomer, that is why i have to think twice before i say: "it is 100 % true" regarding some particular heliocentric catch...
This is my reasoning: If the rotational period of the Earth were roughly 23 h 52 min, instead of 23 h 56 min 4 sec, i suppose that we could still keep our 24 hours convention (for one solar day), and the difference would be consisted in the amount of time that we would have to wait for the alignment between the Sun and the specific meridian on the Earth. That time would be roughly 8 min, instead of 3 min 56 sec...
What would be the consequence of this "8 min." longlasting alignment?
Wouldn't it (the consequence) be "a two degree sidereal shift per day"?
If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720
If no, why?
Why the second multiplication by two, above? You might not have noticed, but by doubling the delta between the sidereal day and mean solar day while keeping the solar day the same length, you must halve the year.
Your example of an 8-minute delta between sidereal and mean solar days is exactly 1/180 of a 24-hour day, a pretty convenient number to work with. We're keeping our current definition of the second, and the mean solar day is 86,400 seconds (24 hours exactly). That means that the earth's spin has sped up just a little, completing one rotation with respect to the stars in 1432 minutes (23h 52m) instead of the actual 1436.067 minutes (23h 56m 04s). If we start with the Sun at the meridian at some location, this means that the Earth has to rotate another 8 minutes after the completion of one rotation wrt the stars to bring the Sun back to the meridian. Is that the intended scenario?
The amount the Earth has to progress in its orbit to require 8 more minutes to "catch up with" the Sun after exactly 23h 52m is 1/180 of the way around it, or 2°. This says that the orbital period - thus the year - will be exactly 180 sidereal days long. The number of solar days will be
180 sidereal day * ((1432 min/sidereal day) / (1440 min/solar day))
= 180 * (1432 min) / (1440 min/solar day)
= 180 * (1432 / 1440) solar day
= 180 * (0.99444) solar day
= 179.000 solar day
Exactly one less. The year being an exact number of days is a consequence of the ratio of sidereal to solar days being reducible to two exact integers 179/180.
As a reality check, lets run this using actual numbers for the year and sidereal day:
366.2422 sidereal day * ((1436.0681755 min/sidereal day) / (1440 min/solar day))
= 366.2422 * (1436.0681755 min) / (1440 min/solar day))
= 366.2422 * (1436.0681755 / 1440) solar day
= 366.2422 * 0.9972695663 solar day
= 365.24219996 solar day
Exactly one day less, to the precision used.
The number of solar days per year will always be exactly one different than sidereal days per year, no matter how long the year, or how fast the rotation (neglecting precession and similar confounding factors). Always.
I'll get to the rest of it later.
[Edit] Remove unneeded qualification to 2°.
-
Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
Why the second multiplication by two, above? You might not have noticed, but by doubling the delta between the sidereal day and mean solar day while keeping the solar day the same length, you must halve the year.
The amount the Earth has to progress in its orbit to require 8 more minutes to "catch up with" the Sun after exactly 23h 52m is 1/180 of the way around it, or 2°. This says that the orbital period - thus the year - will be exactly 180 sidereal days long. The number of solar days will be...
If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720
Translation: 2 degrees * 180 days = 360 degrees ; 360 degrees * 2 halves of the year = 720 degrees (per year).
Interesting conversation:
- How come that untill this very day, there isn't ONE SINGLE reliable, compelling (other than cartoon like) picture of the Earth from the edge of Space?
- It is clear why. I think only a very naive person might continue to insist they have been to space and took a photo of Earth looking like a ball. Even if they flew somewhere high above the surface, the fact remains that the pictures are fake and to this day there is no real photo of the Earth from space. Not to mention that the photo doesn't even match their own description of Earth, namely, it should look like an oblate spheroid not like a perfect sphere, but never mind let the shills believe it is a real photo....and NASA has been to the Moon, the ISS is real, the Earth is a ball etc etc...
I am not sure how unreasonable a person has to be to believe that NASA travels routinely in space but has no pictures of Earth from space and the only one was taken in 1972?!!? There is no need to argue with such people as they are either incapable of critical thinking or complete shills.
- You could also make the argument that using real props serves to appease and fool the many low level military/NASA dupes by actually giving them something physical and tangible to work on, which they do everyday for their entire careers. Perhaps they think they're "working on a space project" and may have actually had hand in testing/designing/producing something (for argument's sake) from Engineers, Project Managers, Designers, Construction, Mathameticians, etc. There are a lot of people that work at NASA. My guess is that the majority of them have real jobs and are doing real things at those jobs everyday. They may just think they're working on a spacecraft but have no idea that it's just a prop. If they can see and interact with what they think is a technological marvel that will fly into outer space, they will never question it because it's right there in front of them and they are fully invested! Theoretically, it all makes sense based on what they think they know, so it should work on paper. They're essentially trapped in a prison of their own minds.
There's no need for CGI, all the pieces are in place. They set it up as a drill and training exercise. This is called "military spending". They tell everyone that they don't film the real re-entries (those are top secret) and use the footage from the "drill" so as to not give away any military secrets, wink wink, nudge, nudge, sign on the line and keep your mouth shut. Do it for your country. Those involved in the operation believe that the "real" landing will actually happen at a later date and they don't question it for a second ... why should they? They are invested in the lie with their lives and their false reality depends on it, entirely.
If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?
Of course not, the mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives and turn their reality on its head. Most people can't handle that sort of thing."
- Apparently all nasa has done is developed zero-emission, lithium batteries used in electric powered cars 50 f5's and still only one invention!?
- Tom Jones - Fly Me To The Moon - 1969 : (http://)
- Stop the video at 1.25 : (http://)
- Nixon calls the moon : (http://)
- Watch out, heliocentrists behind the wheel : (http://)
-
You complain that NASA has taken no pictures of the Earth from space but then routinely dismiss every picture that you are shown of Earth from space taken by NASA, ESA and all the other different agencies. The is also live video feed from the ISS.
And just a small point but the Earth is an oblate spheroid with the radius varying from 6,353km to 6,384km. That is a difference of 31km in over 6000. That's a very small difference and very difficult to pick up by eye in any images, and thus Earth looks more like a sphere.
-
- How come that untill this very day, there isn't ONE SINGLE reliable, compelling (other than cartoon like) picture of the Earth from the edge of Space?
- It is clear why. [I dont know how to use google!]
Fixed your statement there.
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/)
-
cikljamas doesn't accept that man-made satellites exist, and ergo no images of the earth taken from space are credible. This is an image captured by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's weather satellite...
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/12/09/1227150/337890-9d515aa4-7f75-11e4-9caa-85bf895cb19f.jpg)
Weather satellite image showing cyclone "George" off the coast of Western Australia in March 2007
And this is an image captured on the ground shortly thereafter...
(https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/141201/a_130307gencyclonebb1_1a7nsvn-1a7nt0g.jpg?x=656&sig=jbAAnC8qqDhKLdyrmHb3YA--)
Fortescue Metals rail camp 1 site after cyclone "George". [Barry Baker/The West Australian]
I'd ask cikljamas how he'd reconcile these two images; one from an orbiting satellite, and one on the earth's surface which were taken within minutes of each other. Put simply, how can it be that images from space match those on the ground?
-
I'd ask cikljamas how he'd reconcile these two images; one from an orbiting satellite, and one on the earth's surface which were taken within minutes of each other. Put simply, how can it be that images from space match those on the ground?
Because Africa is in on the conspiracy, obviously.
-
Why the second multiplication by two, above? You might not have noticed, but by doubling the delta between the sidereal day and mean solar day while keeping the solar day the same length, you must halve the year.
The amount the Earth has to progress in its orbit to require 8 more minutes to "catch up with" the Sun after exactly 23h 52m is 1/180 of the way around it, or 2°. This says that the orbital period - thus the year - will be exactly 180 sidereal days long. The number of solar days will be...
If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720
Translation: 2 degrees * 180 days = 360 degrees ; 360 degrees * 2 halves of the year = 720 degrees (per year).
180 (actually 179) days is a full year under your scenario. The Sun appears to move 2° along the ecliptic in a day, completing a full circuit (which is the definition of a year) in 180 sidereal days. The second multiplication is unnecessary and, thus, incorrect.
Interesting conversation:
- How come that untill this very day, there isn't ONE SINGLE reliable, compelling (other than cartoon like) picture of the Earth from the edge of Space?
Oh, good grief! Ignore much?
- It is clear why. I think only a very naive person might continue to insist they have been to space and took a photo of Earth looking like a ball. Even if they flew somewhere high above the surface, the fact remains that the pictures are fake and to this day there is no real photo of the Earth from space. Not to mention that the photo doesn't even match their own description of Earth, namely, it should look like an oblate spheroid not like a perfect sphere, but never mind let the shills believe it is a real photo....and NASA has been to the Moon, the ISS is real, the Earth is a ball etc etc...
Before making statements like this, you might want to familiarize yourself with just how eccentric the ellipsoid is. Doing so would make you appear far less ignorant. As already noted, it's quite small. As an exercise, why don't you calculate the number of pixels needed to make the difference between major and minor axes of an ellipse with the same eccentricity as the WGS84 or similar ellipsoid at least two pixels? Two pixels would be about the minimum to reliably tell they're different with careful measurement.
I am not sure how unreasonable a person has to be to believe that NASA travels routinely in space but has no pictures of Earth from space and the only one was taken in 1972?!!? There is no need to argue with such people as they are either incapable of critical thinking or complete shills.
??? Do they have any or do they not? Hello, critical thinking?
- You could also make the argument that using real props serves to appease and fool the many low level military/NASA dupes by actually giving them something physical and tangible to work on, which they do everyday for their entire careers. Perhaps they think they're "working on a space project" and may have actually had hand in testing/designing/producing something (for argument's sake) from Engineers, Project Managers, Designers, Construction, Mathameticians, etc. There are a lot of people that work at NASA. My guess is that the majority of them have real jobs and are doing real things at those jobs everyday. They may just think they're working on a spacecraft but have no idea that it's just a prop. If they can see and interact with what they think is a technological marvel that will fly into outer space, they will never question it because it's right there in front of them and they are fully invested! Theoretically, it all makes sense based on what they think they know, so it should work on paper. They're essentially trapped in a prison of their own minds.
You could try to make the argument if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Among other things, "unofficial" observations and monitoring of Apollo (and SkyLab, Mir, ISS, etc.) has been discussed at great length here and elsewhere.
Unless you have some actual evidence that this is the case, all you're doing is engaging in idle speculation. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't base any important decisions on any conclusions from it. Just who is trapped in his own mind, and who has abundant evidence to support their beliefs?
There's no need for CGI, all the pieces are in place. They set it up as a drill and training exercise. This is called "military spending". They tell everyone that they don't film the real re-entries (those are top secret) and use the footage from the "drill" so as to not give away any military secrets, wink wink, nudge, nudge, sign on the line and keep your mouth shut. Do it for your country. Those involved in the operation believe that the "real" landing will actually happen at a later date and they don't question it for a second ... why should they? They are invested in the lie with their lives and their false reality depends on it, entirely.
If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?
Of course not, the mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives and turn their reality on its head. Most people can't handle that sort of thing."
"The mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives"?
*Blink*
Are you out of your freaking mind?
- Apparently all nasa has done is developed zero-emission, lithium batteries used in electric powered cars 50 f5's and still only one invention!?
Amazing. Thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter. It will be given all the consideration it deserves.
<apparently irrelevant links>
-
Alpha2Omega, in 23 hours and 52 min (roughly) the potato makes one sidereal turn on it's axis, then we wait 8 minutes for alignment between the potato and the sun, then we say "24 hours has passed" which means that the potato has just finished one day journey in it's orbit around the sun, crossing the same length/distance which it supposedly crosses over every single day in our copernican reality (no more, no less, since the orbital speed stays the same, and 24 hours is still 24 hours, no more, no less). But is there any difference between our hypothetical 23h,52min. - long-lasting sidereal turn and one 23h,56min.4sec. - long-lasting sidereal turn which is of course also hypothetical? There is the difference, the potato has shifted 1 degree more with respect to the stars in our hypothetical scenario, in the same amount of time , that is the difference. That difference we have to add every day of the year, and voila, instead of just one annual rotation, we will get two annual sidereal rotations of the potato.
If there is any flaw in this, i hope that you will be able to point to it!
As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:
"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")
Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.
More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!
-
As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:
"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")
Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.
More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!
This is why AusGeoff says that FE'ers don't understand basic camera functions. How can you deny something you're obviously extremely ignorant about?
First of all, the notion that camera's don't work in micro gravity is plain stupid. Throw a camera into the air whith a two second timer. The camera falling is the exact same effect in micro gravity, since all orbiting bodies are falling. It will take the picture just fine- there is in fact an entire genre of photography based on this.
Second of all, even if the Earth was blindingly bright from space, it wouldn't be as bright as the sun.and if you didn't know, that's why you lower the exposure, which by the way, allows you to take pictures of the sun. All cameras can do this. All you need is a narrow aperture, and high shutter speed. How can you be so willfully ignorant?
And as for the atmosphere around earth... What are you even? The atmosphere is incredibly thin. You do see in pictures, but thinly just as expected. Why would you expect it to be so thick?
-
Alpha2Omega, in 23 hours and 52 min (roughly) the potato makes one sidereal turn on it's axis, then we wait 8 minutes for alignment between the potato and the sun, then we say "24 hours has passed" which means that the potato has just finished one day journey in it's orbit around the sun, crossing the same length/distance which it supposedly crosses over every single day in our copernican reality (no more, no less, since the orbital speed stays the same, and 24 hours is still 24 hours, no more, no less). But is there any difference between our hypothetical 23h,52min. - long-lasting sidereal turn and one 23h,56min.4sec. - long-lasting sidereal turn which is of course also hypothetical? There is the difference, the potato has shifted 1 degree more with respect to the stars in our hypothetical scenario, in the same amount of time , that is the difference. That difference we have to add every day of the year, and voila, instead of just one annual rotation, we will get two annual sidereal rotations of the potato.
If there is any flaw in this, i hope that you will be able to point to it!
Dude, take a potato and put a dot on it. Take the lamp shade off of a lamp. Now, point the dot of the potato at something in the room, the further away the better. Now move the potato around the lamp keeping the dot facing the same direction. In this case, the potato is not rotating. How many 'days' were experience by the dot on the potato? By day, I mean a cycle of light-dark-light or dark-light-dark, depending on if there was light from the lamp on the dot on the potato to begin with. You get one day for free by virtue of being in orbit. Depending on the direction of the orbit, you have to add or subtract one day.
As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:
"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")
Utter BS. If you toss a camera in the air, at the top of the arc it is weightless. You can set the timer and with practice you can get the camera to take the picture at the top of the arc.
Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.
Utter BS. It is the same light on the moon as we have here on earth. On a bright sunny day take a picture with a camera with ISO set to 100, F16, 1/100 sec shutter speed. It will be well exposed, I promise. With the same settings take a picture of the full moon. Hmm, the moon is actually pretty gray but is well exposed -- oh, most people over expose the moon because the want to see stars! The attenuation of visible light due to the atmosphere is not a factor.
More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!
Haha?, but you can see the atmosphere in images take from space. Much easier to see than the bulging of the earth at the equator.
-
"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")
Oh dear. Even more ignorance of photography. Will it ever end LOL? Most, (but not all) of today's prosumer cameras don't have mechanical "shutters". They utilise interline transfer sensors. Google it.
Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.
And again LOL. Think filters. RGB, IR, UV, polarising, ND, GND etc.
If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato?
You've actually unwittingly answered your own question. "Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater...".
-
Can a mod lock this? This has super-derailed. To the point of idiocy on both ends, nobody noticing this.
-
Alpha2Omega, in 23 hours and 52 min (roughly) the potato makes one sidereal turn on it's axis, then we wait 8 minutes for alignment between the potato and the sun, then we say "24 hours has passed" which means that the potato has just finished one day journey in it's orbit around the sun, crossing the same length/distance which it supposedly crosses over every single day in our copernican reality (no more, no less, since the orbital speed stays the same, and 24 hours is still 24 hours, no more, no less).
Hold it! Your initial scenario postulates a 24-hour solar day and 23h 52m sidereal day. This means the orbit has changed. Period.
But is there any difference between our hypothetical 23h,52min. - long-lasting sidereal turn and one 23h,56min.4sec. - long-lasting sidereal turn which is of course also hypothetical?
The 23h 56m 04.1s (approximately) sidereal day is not hypothetical. It has been carefully measured for centuries now, and you can do so yourself if you have an accurate clock and a telescope, with a reticule, that can be held accurately fixed for a full day (something like a surveyor's transit could do nicely).
To answer your question, yes, there is a difference: 4 minutes, 4 seconds. To have this situation, two things must happen: the Earth's rotation must speed up by about 1/4% (4 minutes per day out of 1436), and the angular velocity of earth in its orbit about the sun must approximately double in order to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day.
There is the difference, the potato has shifted 1 degree more with respect to the stars in our hypothetical scenario, in the same amount of time , that is the difference. That difference we have to add every day of the year, and voila, instead of just one annual rotation, we will get two annual sidereal rotations of the potato.
If there is any flaw in this, i hope that you will be able to point to it!
Your error is that earth has shifted 1 additional degree with respect to the Sun, not the stars, in the same amount of time. Since it has to move around the sun at twice the angular rate (approximately), the year is about half as long. It hasn't shifted wrt the stars in that day in any meaningful way at all.
As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:
"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")
Can you give the context for that quote? I googled it, and see that exact quote in a couple instances, both from the same person in defense of flat-earth ideas, without any additional context. If you have the original source, can you link to it or, if it's in printed form, legibly photograph or scan the paragraph that quote occurs in? I have difficulty believing it because:
1) Mechanical camera shutters aren't gravity driven - they are spring or electrically operated.
2) Old-school mechanical cameras would work in any orientation; they didn't care if they were rightside-up, upside-down, sideways, or pointing straight up or straight down, or anywhere in between. If they were sensitive to gravity, this would be a problem.
Just because you read something about cameras that's attributed to a professional photographer - even if the photographer actually did say it - doesn't automatically mean it's true.
Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.
Not if you correctly expose the photo. Excluding the Sun from the field will go a long way toward eliminating lens flares. Even if you get some, they need not be fatal to the photo - sometimes they can be artistic.
More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!
Have you actually looked at any photos from space? I suggest you do so before claiming to know what they show and don't show.
-
Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
The video uploader's professionalism is laughable isn't it.
-
Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
The video uploader's professionalism is laughable isn't it.
Seeing him just makes me think of my favorite animated gif of him of all time.
(http://i.imgur.com/guEGuEo.gif)
-
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
The video uploader's professionalism is laughable isn't it.
I can't deny it. ;D
the angular velocity of earth in its orbit about the sun must approximately double in order to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day.
The differences/oscillations within "the equation of time" would be greater, because there would be a larger gap between the mean solar day and sidereal day, but i really don't see why the angular velocity of earth should have to be doubled to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day?
Wasn't my proposition that orbital speed stays the same? Wasn't it clear from the beginning that orbital speed stays the same? We just have to speed up rotational speed, and 4 additional minutes of waiting for an alignment (between the potato and the sun) settles the whole matter, and adds one additional annual rotation of the potato. Why do you now suddenly bring in to discussion a new parameter?
P.S. Thanks for the correction:
Your error is that earth has shifted 1 additional degree with respect to the Sun, not the stars
This is not an error, it was just a lapsus linguae... ;)
@ Misero, does my thread give you a hard time? Does your name mean Miserable Misery?
-
the angular velocity of earth in its orbit about the sun must approximately double in order to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day.
The differences/oscillations within "the equation of time" would be greater, because there would be a larger gap between the mean solar day and sidereal day, but i really don't see why the angular velocity of earth should have to be doubled to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day?
It's because you have to increase the change in position of the Sun over a day if you shorten the sidereal day but maintain the solar day. If you leave the orbit the same but sped up the Earth's rotation, then the solar day would also shorten. The length of the mean solar day is a consequence of two things: 1) the rate of rotation of the Earth wrt the stars and 2) the length of the year. These combined give us the length of the solar day (exactly one fewer per year than sidereal days). If we know any two, we can calculate the third. We can't just assign arbitrary values to all three and expect it to work - that would be like saying X + Y = Z and being disappointed when picking X = 8, Y = 6 and just declaring that Z = 42 doesn't work.
Wasn't my proposition that orbital speed stays the same? Wasn't it clear from the beginning that orbital speed stays the same? We just have to speed up rotational speed, and 4 additional minutes of waiting for an alignment (between the potato and the sun) settles the whole matter, and adds one additional annual rotation of the potato. Why do you now suddenly bring in to discussion a new parameter?
Why would you expect the sun to take an additional 4 minutes to transit after speeding up earth's rotation? It would do that only if the earth traveled further around its orbit. You can't just declare it. You can pick any two (length of sidereal day, length of solar day, or length of year), and the third is a consequence of the values you picked for the others. X + Y = Z; pick any two and you can determine the third, but you can't demand the third be something (unless you make a lucky guess) if your formula holds.
I don't think you originally specified a constant year and don't have the time to check. If you did say that, I just missed it; at any rate, you can't just pick random values for all three.
P.S. Thanks for the correction:
Your error is that earth has shifted 1 additional degree with respect to the Sun, not the stars
This is not an error, it was just a lapsus linguae... ;)
No problem, it happens... it did seem like part of what was confusing you, though.
-
As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:
"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
Ha! Another joke from Cikljamas.
-
Alpha2Omega, you are fishing in murky waters, and the mud which causes these waters to be murky is "The Equation of time" problem. At the end of the day, we shall have to come back to that issue (again) which will reveal once more the ultimate flaw in heliocentric theory, which i already have proved here:
Shall we observe this illustration once more:
(http://i.imgur.com/qKrGL0N.jpg)
When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.
When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!
A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!
This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!
Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?
Concerning your request for a citation the best i can do right now is this: http://www.energeticforum.com/263172-post251.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/263172-post251.html)
When you open above link just scroll down a little bit, and you will see a screenshot of the page that you are looking for...
P.S. I didn't call you a liar, not even in nice terms, i just appeal to you to find enough courage to admit the obvious truth. However, this is not an easy task, whatever someone could think of it, so there is no irony in my words...
Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637115#msg1637115 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637115#msg1637115)
Now, in order to render this "annual rotation" problem clearer, we should assume that Potato's orbital speed is a constant, and that Potato's orbit is a perfect circle.
Would you claim that even under such circumstances/conditions, the changes in Potato's rotational speed wouldn't cause any differences regarding the number of annual Potatos rotations per year?
-
Alpha2Omega, you are fishing in murky waters, and the mud which causes these waters to be murky is "The Equation of time" problem. At the end of the day, we shall have to come back to that issue (again) which will reveal once more the ultimate flaw in heliocentric theory, which i already have proved here:
Proved? When?
Please link to the post where you think you proved this so we don't have to go back through months of posts to find it. Just quoting it with no link back doesn't allow everyone to easily to look at the follow-up postings - or is that your intent? There are several ways you can do this; if you don't know how, please ask.
Now, in order to render this "annual rotation" problem clearer, we should assume that Potato's orbital speed is a constant, and that Potato's orbit is a perfect circle.
The equation of time really doesn't matter if you work with the mean solar day over the period of exactly one year.
Assuming a perfectly circular orbit flattens the dashed green line in your spray-painted illustration and eliminates your perceived need for a mirror image of it, since they'd be the same (constant zero minutes), leaving only the red dash-dot tilted-axis component. Keeping the actual axial tilt, but with the half-length orbit that's required by your hypothetical 8-minute difference in the previous example, I think the red dash-dot component would be same as before, except the period, of course, would be halved. I'd need to do some calculations to see whether the amplitude would change, however, and I don't have the time or inclination (no pun intended) for that, at least not right now. At any rate, if we consider the period of exactly one year or integer multiple of same, the varying length of the solar day averages out exactly to the mean solar day, and the equation of time doesn't matter, whether it's due to tilt, eccentricity, or both. Why would it?
Would you claim that even under such circumstances/conditions, the changes in Potato's rotational speed wouldn't cause any differences regarding the number of annual Potatos rotations per year?
Of course it would. Why wouldn't changing the planet's rotational speed change the number of days in a year, whether the orbit was a perfect circle or an ellipse? Regardless of the number of days in the year, the number of sidereal days will always be exactly one different from the number of solar days because the Sun appears to make exactly one trip around the ecliptic in that time. One period of rotation spread over the number of days in the year will tell you the difference between the length of the sidereal and mean solar days.
Oh, yes... you're still wrong about the Equation of Time disproving the heliocentric model. It's part of the supporting evidence. See the follow-on to the post you quoted.
-
Please, HELP US!!!!!!
Hi! My name is Alexander Laguta from Ukraine. I’m married and my wife is 7 months pregnant. Pregnancy flows as heavy as lead, she’s constantly in hospitals. In connection with heavy position in Ukraine the wage is paid not constant and small. The incomes earned by me is not enough almost anything. The health of my unborn baby and my wife is dependent on expensive drugs. In this connection, I have to ask you for help. Help who what can. Even 1$ the sent by you will help to correct our position. Thank you for earlier, I and my wife for understanding, for your support and for your help!
My email: laguta1313@mail.ru. You can send money to the card.
Here is the card number: 5168 7572 8245 0511
Obvious scammer is obvious. Hope mods don't handle this like they handle most other issues.
-
If we take the stars (a clock) as a frame of reference, then one year ends up after 6 month in our hypothetical "2 degrees per day" HC version.
But that's not the point of my claim, according which Potato's rotational period is very good ARTIFICALLY synchronized within current HC version!
The point is that if we shortened Potato's rotational period for about 4 additional minutes, that is to say, for 1 additional degree per day, then although "Star-clock" year would end up after 6 months, in the same period of time, Potato would finish just one half of it's hypothetical HC orbital journey around the sun.
See the diagram below:
(http://i.imgur.com/XZhc1G2.jpg)
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
WIKI QUOTE :The apparent sun is the true sun as seen by an observer on Earth. Apparent solar time or true solar time is based on the apparent motion of the actual Sun. It is based on the apparent solar day, the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian.
The question is this:
If the Earth's orbital speed is greater at a Perihelion (Northern Winter) how come that the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian becomes shorter and shorter (20 sec per day) instead of being longer and longer when compared with an Aphelion (Northern Summer)???
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA Are you sure that's right? I think you have it backward and apparent solar days will be longest near the southern solstice, where the perihelion of the orbit (earth moves faster, which lengthens the apparent solar days) nearly coincides with a solstice (which also lengthen the apparent solar days).
YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun at a speed of just 10 km per hour, how long would be the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian in this case?
In this case this interval would depend almost solely on the Earth's rotational period which would completely overpower an effects of the Earth's orbital motion.
Now imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun 100 000 km per hour (alleged Earth's orbital speed is even greater than that). Have you imagined this picture and accompanying geometrical implications?
Now, in which of the two above cases we should have to wait longer for the arrival of the Sun to the local meridian?
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA The latter. See the previous answer. Getting the previous assertion wrong has made you think there's a discrepancy where none actually exists.
YES, THE LATTER!!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.
When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!
A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!
This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!
Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA No, you still have it backwards. When the Earth speeds up in its orbit, the apparent solar day lengthens, i.e. the Sun appears to slow down relative to the mean sun. This happens because the Earth has moved a greater distance in a similar time (it's moving faster, remember?), so it needs more rotation (which takes longer since the rate of rotation is a constant, remember?) to bring the Sun back to the same meridian a day later. This is simple geometry - sketch it out if you need to.
NO, THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY SHOULD LENGTHENING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN REALITY, QUITE CONTRARY HAPPENS IN REALITY!!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies. If you can live with them i can live with them too. You disappointed me a lot! Following vigorous testimony of the great german writer fit so well with your integrity:
"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (HC is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!
Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."
I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.
Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, i win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!!!
Important lesson about a great importance of telling the truth all the time (no matter what):
http://www.energeticforum.com/265263-post549.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265263-post549.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/265264-post550.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265264-post550.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/265267-post553.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265267-post553.html)
KNOWLEDGE IS THE BEGINNING: http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/ (http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/) (How come that you cannot find this video on youtube???)
-
YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?
1998 solar day length from wikipdia
Length of apparent solar day (1998)
[7] Date Duration in mean solar time
February 11 24 hours
March 26 24 hours − 18.1 seconds
May 14 24 hours
June 19 24 hours + 13.1 seconds
July 26 24 hours
September 16 24 hours − 21.3 seconds
November 3 24 hours
December 22 24 hours + 29.9 seconds
Looks like it lengthens to me. Perhaps spend less time typing in caps and more time researching.
-
Sokarul, i suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?
(http://i.imgur.com/7NrZgDN.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/VUNjqh6.jpg)
-
If we take the stars (a clock) as a frame of reference, then one year ends up after 6 month in our hypothetical "2 degrees per day" HC version.
Using the stars as a clock yields the sidereal day [from Latin sidereus (from sidus, sider- ‘star’) + -al]. Using the position of the Sun wrt the stars yields the calendar. If the Earth were to move in its orbit at 2° per day it would complete one revolution (one full orbit) in 180 days. How could it do otherwise?
Forcing the sidereal day to be 23h 52m (1432 minutes) while keeping the solar day at 24h 00m (1440 minutes) means the Earth has completed 1432/1440 of a rotation wrt the mean Sun after exactly one sidereal day. This reduces to 179/180 of a rotation, which means it needs to rotate another 1/180 of a full rotation (2°) before the mean Sun returns to the same meridian, which means earth advanced that far (2°) along in its orbit in one shortened sidereal day. This shortened year is a consequence of increasing the ratio of mean solar day : sidereal day. There's no way around it.
But that's not the point of my claim, according which Potato's rotational period is very good ARTIFICALLY synchronized within current HC version!
Earth's rotational period is not synchronized in any way with the length of the year. It happens to be what it is, and it's actually slowing down. Because it's slowing down, both the mean solar and sidereal days are getting longer but the length of the year is not changing.
The point is that if we shortened Potato's rotational period for about 4 additional minutes, that is to say, for 1 additional degree per day, then although "Star-clock" year would end up after 6 months, in the same period of time, Potato would finish just one half of it's hypothetical HC orbital journey around the sun.
You're confusing yourself. What do you mean "'Star-clock' would end up after 6 months"? This hypothetical earth would complete a full hypothetical HC
orbital journey around the Sun in those 180 days. It's traveling 2° per day, remember? it would take 360°/(2°/day) = 180 days to make a full orbit. This isn't complicated.
See the diagram below:
(http://i.imgur.com/XZhc1G2.jpg)
In the top part of the diagram, why is the dot representing London at the bottom of the circle at three of the stations (July, October, and January) but at the top for the fourth (April)? The red dot appears to show the position of the Prime Meridian at 6h sidereal time in each instance except April; at the April position, it shows the PM at 18h sidereal time. Your illustration above is not consistent. If you make the correction, the drawing will show the orientation of earth at 1200 (noon), 0600 (6 AM), 0000 (midnight), and 1800 (6 PM) GMT in early July, October, January, and April, respectively.
The bottom part of the diagram is even more confused.
First, fix the upper diagram by moving the red dot from the top to the bottom of the circle at the April position to make it consistent with the rest, and add "90 days" (close enough approximation) [these are sidereal days] next to each "90°" annotation. Next, change the lower diagram diagram so that the red dot is at the bottom at all four positions, replacing the four "180°" annotations with "90°" (because each is 1/4 of the way around the orbit) and add "45 days" by each of these because it takes 45 days to go 90° at 2° per day. The names of the months are a problem because there are no longer twelve 30-day (approx) months in the year. To make this easier, let's say there are still 12 months, each 15 days long (make poor ol' February 14 days to get 179 solar days in the year).
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
WIKI QUOTE :The apparent sun is the true sun as seen by an observer on Earth. Apparent solar time or true solar time is based on the apparent motion of the actual Sun. It is based on the apparent solar day, the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian.
Instead of re-hashing the whole Equation of Time again, first understand the above before adding more complexity. If we're dealing with the numbers of days in full years, the mean solar day (average length of the apparent solar day over the period of one year) gives exactly the same result and is much simpler than factoring in the EoT. It only changes the length of the apparent solar day by a few seconds, so is insignificant - and only a nuisance - at this level of comprehension.
Sokarul just gave you the answer to the direction of the EoT, but it really doesn't matter here anyway.
-
Sokarul, i suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?
YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?
1998 solar day length from wikipdia
Length of apparent solar day (1998)
[7] Date Duration in mean solar time
February 11 24 hours
March 26 24 hours − 18.1 seconds
May 14 24 hours
June 19 24 hours + 13.1 seconds
July 26 24 hours
September 16 24 hours − 21.3 seconds
November 3 24 hours
December 22 24 hours + 29.9 seconds
Looks like it lengthens to me. Perhaps spend less time typing in caps and more time researching.
It looks like his info matches the original chart. Your markings are in error.
-
Sokarul, i suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?
If you don't like reality, feel free to continue living in your own little world.
Added: See the red diamonds in your picture? See how they start to get closer to each after oct. 1 and then further apart after nov.1st? That is the speed of the sun. See how it doesn't match what you added to the picture?
So, cikljamas I suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?
-
Alpha2Omega, you have no courage to say the truth, that is why guys like Sokarul stays in delusion, and this is your responsibility!
Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
I corrected errors that i made in first diagram here:
(http://i.imgur.com/fOKLTZH.jpg)
But argument is still valid...
Let's see some facts about the alleged synchronization of the alleged "rotation" of the Moon:
1. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the plane of the ecliptic, and not to the Earth's equatorial plane. The lunar orbit plane is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5.1°, whereas the Moon's spin axis is inclined by only 1.5°.
2. Synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon's orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it moves around the Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon's rotational velocity:
When the Moon is at it's perigee, it's rotation is slower than it's orbital motion.
Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion. How does the Moon know when she has to slow down or to speed up rotation on its axis? It must be due to some very smart software?
3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon! So, how come the moon is locked by the Earth's gravitational force, instead to be locked upon the influence of the Sun's gravitational force?
The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all. How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very ridiculous!
-
The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying.
It is indeed quite mystifying, because it never happens. This is just an untrue statement.
I chopped out the rest of your rambling from the quote because all the rest of us who know a little bit about gravity would find it exasperating how you are trying to argue with a concept you don't understand even slightly.
-
Alpha2Omega, you have no courage to say the truth, that is why guys like Sokarul stays in delusion, and this is your responsibility!
What?
Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!
Look at our picture, the sun starts to slow down somewhere around September 16th. It is not speeding up all the way to November. I want you to acknowledged that you understand this.
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!
The apparent time is behind at that interval according to what I posted. The apparent solar time isn't just based on the speed of the sun. You know that right? I want you to say you understand.
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
You need to know what you are trying to talk about. Have a think about it.
...
The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all.
The moon is never seen to be transparent. If the moon was not a sphere, how would people see the same thing when there are people who are seeing the moon rise, while people are watching it set.
How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very ridiculous!
We can see the sun rotate, where are you getting your information? Stop making stuff up.
-
Alpha2Omega, you have no courage to say the truth, that is why guys like Sokarul stays in delusion, and this is your responsibility!
Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
I corrected errors that i made in first diagram here:
(http://i.imgur.com/fOKLTZH.jpg)
But argument is still valid...
Let's see some facts about the alleged synchronization of the alleged "rotation" of the Moon:
1. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the plane of the ecliptic, and not to the Earth's equatorial plane. The lunar orbit plane is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5.1°, whereas the Moon's spin axis is inclined by only 1.5°.
2. Synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon's orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it moves around the Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon's rotational velocity:
When the Moon is at it's perigee, it's rotation is slower than it's orbital motion.
Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion. How does the Moon know when she has to slow down or to speed up rotation on its axis? It must be due to some very smart software?
3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon! So, how come the moon is locked by the Earth's gravitational force, instead to be locked upon the influence of the Sun's gravitational force?
The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all. How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very ridiculous!
1: The moon is unique in our star system, this proves nothing.
2: The angular velocity of the Moon remains constant and the amount that the Moon speeds up and slows down is small and thus effect actually causes the Moon to change orientation enough that it can be seen with a telescope.
3: The Moon is attracted to the Sun, the (round) Earth is in free fall around the Sun and so is the Moon and that means that the Earth and the Moon are weightless relative to each other, but they also attract each other and that causes the Moon to orbit the Earth.
Where did you get the absurd notion that the Moon is transparent some times? That does not happen, and I should know considering how much I have looked at the Moon with my telescope.
-
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
According to another recent thread , we can add the History Channel to the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY. Quote-"It's all lies !"-Unquote
-
Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm)
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/)
-
Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm)
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/)
Your first link is to ENaG by lay preacher Samuel Rowbotham. It's already been proven numerous times on these forums that Mr Rowbotham was totally unqualified in the sciences in order to write this stuff with any serious intent—other than to make easy money of course! And his 150-year-old "research" is now universally laughed out of court. Sorry.
And as for your second link; what can one say? I can only think that 'The Wild Heretic' site was set up as one of these spoof sites that claim to be legitimate, credible sources of information and dialogue, but are in actuality nothing more than a sort of extended, cyberspace version of a 21st-century Monty Python script. Nobody with even a partially functioning brain (excluding sceptimatic, Saros, and cikljamas of course) could truly believe the outlandish drivel that's posted—apparently straight-faced—on that site as factual.
-
Alpha2Omega, you have no courage to say the truth, that is why guys like Sokarul stays in delusion, and this is your responsibility!
I take full responsibility for everything I post here. By all means, point out when you think something is wrong, but please be specific and explain in as much detail as you can why you think it's wrong.
Whether you think something is truthful or not isn't my problem; you seem to have some pretty odd ideas about that.
Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!
The Sun's apparent motion wrt the stars is west to east but its diurnal motion is east to west. This introduces ambiguity into what you mean by "speeds up" because these relative motions are opposites. When the Sun "speeds up" wrt the stars (moves more rapidly eastward), the apparent solar day lengthens and the Sun appears to move more slowly across the daytime sky and culminates a bit later each day than it would otherwise. When it "speeds up" in its diurnal motion across the sky, the apparent solar day is closer to the length of the sidereal day because it's moving eastward more slowly and it culminates a bit earlier in the day than it would otherwise.
You say "between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up)". Using sokarul's table (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652244#msg1652244), from late July until early November the apparent solar day is shorter than the mean solar day (by as much as 21.3 seconds, in late September). From this, you apparently mean that the Sun "speeds up" when it's moving across the sky fastest (and moving eastward slowest).
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down),
Again, according to sokarul's table (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652244#msg1652244), in late December the apparent solar day is longest (by 29.9 seconds longer than the mean on the 22nd), and gets shorter until late March (18.1 seconds shorter than mean on the 26th).
This is consistent with your convention above - "slowing down" must mean the solar day is longer (sun moves more slowly across the sky because it's moving eastward more rapidly, over most of that period).
Now that this is established it may be possible to unravel what you're trying to say.
and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD,
Apparent solar time and mean solar time are about the same at the beginning of January. The apparent solar day is longer than the mean solar day until Feb 11. Because of this, apparent time will not be ahead of mean time by Feb 6; the real sun is "running slow" compared to the mean sun, so its noon is a few minutes after the mean sun's noon. Your interpretation is wrong.
BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!
And this is what we see, as expected.
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
Indeed. The charts are right, so there's no problem. That is all you need to pay attention to.
I corrected errors that i made in first diagram here:
(http://i.imgur.com/fOKLTZH.jpg)
You changed the charts, but they're still wrong.
But argument is still valid...
Unfortunately, no, it's not...
Let's see some facts about the alleged synchronization of the alleged "rotation" of the Moon:
Wait! We're changing topics to the Moon? Why?? You have even more massive problems with your diagram above than there were before. In the July position, the red dot is facing the Sun and labeled "Noon"; so far so good. At October, the red dot is facing directly away from the Sun and labeled "6 PM"; what? At January, it's again facing the Sun, but labeled "Midnight"; ???. At April, it's again directly away from the Sun but labeled "6 AM". What the hell is any of this supposed to mean? The lower diagram is even more bollixed up and makes no sense whatsoever, with completely nonsensical marks all over it. What's the green triangle supposed to represent?
1. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the plane of the ecliptic, and not to the Earth's equatorial plane. The lunar orbit plane is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5.1°, whereas the Moon's spin axis is inclined by only 1.5°.
OK. So?
2.[/b] Synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon's orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it moves around the Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon's rotational velocity:
When the Moon is at it's perigee, it's rotation is slower than it's orbital motion.
Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion. How does the Moon know when she has to slow down or to speed up rotation on its axis? It must be due to some very smart software?
It doesn't slow down or speed up on its axis. The difference in rotational velocity and orbital velocity at different points cause libration. This is well known - look it up.
Nothing to see here, folks.
3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon!
Citation needed.
So, how come the moon is locked by the Earth's gravitational force, instead to be locked upon the influence of the Sun's gravitational force?
Because, maybe, just maybe, your assertion above is wrong?
The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying.
Citation needed. [I think you may have given one in response to a similar request; you put up so much pap I'm falling behind.]
It would be mystifying if it were actually true.
What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things.
Do you have any evidence that "they" aren't "actually trying to figure out the real state of things"? Failure to arrive at the same conclusion as you is not evidence. Have you even considered "actually trying to figure out the real state of things" yourself? There is certainly no evidence of that since you keep postulating things that simply do not match (actually deviate wildly from) reality.
It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all. How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism.
Maybe it's not even considered because there is no evidence supporting the idea that the Sun is a disc, but plenty supporting that it's (approximately) spherical.
I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.
It's moving away from us very slowly. The torque applied to the Moon's tidal bulge by the Earth's gravity is enough to keep it locked. Whether or not you "buy" this is irrelevant.
The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that?
Well, there's also libration, which you pointed out should happen in an argument above. There is also the shapes of craters that look more elliptical near the limbs of the moon in accordance with it being spherical (and become more or less eccentric, as expected, in the presence of libration).
Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very ridiculous!
That's one. How many is "too many"? What are the others?
-
Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm)
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/)
Your first link is to ENaG by lay preacher Samuel Rowbotham. It's already been proven numerous times on these forums that Mr Rowbotham was totally unqualified in the sciences in order to write this stuff with any serious intent—other than to make easy money of course! And his 150-year-old "research" is now universally laughed out of court. Sorry.
And as for your second link; what can one say? I can only think that 'The Wild Heretic' site was set up as one of these spoof sites that claim to be legitimate, credible sources of information and dialogue, but are in actuality nothing more than a sort of extended, cyberspace version of a 21st-century Monty Python script. Nobody with even a partially functioning brain (excluding sceptimatic, Saros, and cikljamas of course) could truly believe the outlandish drivel that's posted—apparently straight-faced—on that site as factual.
But ausGeoff, Dr Rowbotham cites the observations of the renowned astronomers Mr Criswich and Mr Dunkin! A search of the historical records of the Royal Astronomical Society will quickly show that... oh. They're not mentioned. Surely some mistake? What - no mention of T.W. Burr Esq.? For shame! Conspiracy, I tell you!
And as for that second link... I've been ordered not to post it, so you'll have to just have the Imagined Facepalm for that one. An optical illusion that controls the tides and which radar signals can be bounced off, that's very likely isn't it.
Tell me CKllama, if Mr Criswich had observed a pink elephant tapdancing on the moon, and Rowbotham had written that down, would you believe it automatically?
The moon is not transparent. It has never been transparent. There are no observations revealing it to be transparent beyond this handful of anecdotal lies and mis-observations.
-
Just for the sake of correctness...there is a final version of my diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/1mJBiNI.jpg)
24 * 360 = 8640
8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
While i was studying this issue, i have noticed that in the background of "the exactly 1 annual rotation per year" phenomena there are two HC wrong presumptions (without any foundation in reality):
1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Potato's axis!
2. Constant period of the Potato's rotation!
There is no scientific explanation whatsoever, for any of the two (above) utterly science-fictional assumptions!
However, this ("exactly 1 annual rotation per year") is an issue of a minor significance!
What is utterly important is "The Equation of Time" utter HC flaw!
As for this very important and decisive question, all i can say is this:
Alpha2Omega is shamelessly lying, and same goes for anyone who would ever try to disprove such OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE fact according which "The Equation of Time issue" presents the utter HC flaw. There is no honest and fair person who would ever dare to deny this 100% straight and plain truth!
ONCE MORE AND THE LAST TIME:
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
WIKI QUOTE :The apparent sun is the true sun as seen by an observer on Earth. Apparent solar time or true solar time is based on the apparent motion of the actual Sun. It is based on the apparent solar day, the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian.
The question is this:
If the Earth's orbital speed is greater at a Perihelion (Northern Winter) how come that the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian becomes shorter and shorter (20 sec per day) instead of being longer and longer when compared with an Aphelion (Northern Summer)???
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA Are you sure that's right? I think you have it backward and apparent solar days will be longest near the southern solstice, where the perihelion of the orbit (earth moves faster, which lengthens the apparent solar days) nearly coincides with a solstice (which also lengthen the apparent solar days).
YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun at a speed of just 10 km per hour, how long would be the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian in this case?
In this case this interval would depend almost solely on the Earth's rotational period which would completely overpower an effects of the Earth's orbital motion.
Now imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun 100 000 km per hour (alleged Earth's orbital speed is even greater than that). Have you imagined this picture and accompanying geometrical implications?
Now, in which of the two above cases we should have to wait longer for the arrival of the Sun to the local meridian?
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA The latter. See the previous answer. Getting the previous assertion wrong has made you think there's a discrepancy where none actually exists.
YES, THE LATTER!!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
Shall we observe this illustration once more:
(http://i.imgur.com/qKrGL0N.jpg)
When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.
When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!
A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!
This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!
Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA No, you still have it backwards. When the Earth speeds up in its orbit, the apparent solar day lengthens, i.e. the Sun appears to slow down relative to the mean sun. This happens because the Earth has moved a greater distance in a similar time (it's moving faster, remember?), so it needs more rotation (which takes longer since the rate of rotation is a constant, remember?) to bring the Sun back to the same meridian a day later. This is simple geometry - sketch it out if you need to.
NO, THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY SHOULD LENGTHENING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN REALITY, QUITE CONTRARY HAPPENS IN REALITY!!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies. If you can live with them i can live with them too. You disappointed me a lot! Following vigorous testimony of the great german writer fit so well with your integrity:
"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (HC is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!
Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."
I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.
Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, i win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/7NrZgDN.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/VUNjqh6.jpg)
Pay attention to what happens between August and October (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
Amen!
-
Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm)
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/)
The part of the first page you linked that describes the alleged transparency of the Moon has a distinct lack of citations, just because an unqualified scientist claims something doesn't mean that that's true. The guy is lying according to flat earther standards, so quit citing his works.
-
...
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
Shall we observe this illustration once more:
(http://i.imgur.com/qKrGL0N.jpg)
When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.
When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!
A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!
This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!
Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA No, you still have it backwards. When the Earth speeds up in its orbit, the apparent solar day lengthens, i.e. the Sun appears to slow down relative to the mean sun. This happens because the Earth has moved a greater distance in a similar time (it's moving faster, remember?), so it needs more rotation (which takes longer since the rate of rotation is a constant, remember?) to bring the Sun back to the same meridian a day later. This is simple geometry - sketch it out if you need to.
NO, THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY SHOULD LENGTHENING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN REALITY, QUITE CONTRARY HAPPENS IN REALITY!!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies. If you can live with them i can live with them too. You disappointed me a lot! Following vigorous testimony of the great german writer fit so well with your integrity:
"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (HC is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!
Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."
I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.
Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, i win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/7NrZgDN.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/VUNjqh6.jpg)
Pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
Amen!
Already disproved.
Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!
Look at our picture, the sun starts to slow down somewhere around September 16th. It is not speeding up all the way to November. I want you to acknowledged that you understand this.
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!
The apparent time is behind at that interval according to what I posted. The apparent solar time isn't just based on the speed of the sun. You know that right? I want you to say you understand.
That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!
You need to know what you are trying to talk about. Have a think about it.
...
-
And here is roughly what your picture should look like to my knowledge.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/orbit.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/orbit.jpg.html)
-
Just for the sake of correctness...there is a final version of my diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/1mJBiNI.jpg)
Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.
In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean? With the assumption that each month is half as long as they really are (since the hypothetical year is half as long), if you move each dot to the bottom, as they are in the top drawing, and carry the annotations down (after correcting "AM" and "PM"), it will be right, too. Both diagrams would show the Earth's orientation after an integer number of sidereal days - you can tell it's sidereal, not solar, days because the earth's orientation (Prime Meridian toward the bottom of the page in all cases) is the same. The difference, which I asked for but you neglected to add, would be the number of days between each position (91 for the top, 45 for the bottom). Making those changes and adding this information should make it more clear.
24 * 360 = 8640
Hours per year (approximately)?
8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it? If so, those numbers are wrong and the answers are meaningless. They should be 23,9333 (using comma as the decimal separator), and 23,8667, respectively, since the first is 23 + 56/60 hours and the second is 23 + 52/60 hours.
In that case the two results would be 361.002 and 362.01 rotations, respectively. Note that these are almost exactly one and two rotations greater than the 360 postulated. The first is the extra sidereal day in one year and the second is the two extra sidereal days in two years. As it has to be. They aren't exactly one apart because you should use 359 and 358 24-hour days for the two examples, respectively, representing one 359-day year (exactly 4 minutes between sidereal and 24-hour mean solar) and two 179-day years (exactly 8 minutes ...).
While i was studying this issue, i have noticed that in the background of "the exactly 1 annual rotation per year" phenomena there are two HC wrong presumptions (without any foundation in reality):
Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?
1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Potato's axis!
2. Constant period of the Potato's rotation!
There is no scientific explanation whatsoever, for any of the two (above) utterly science-fictional assumptions!
If you get down into the weeds of very high-precision measurements, like microsecond-level variations in the daily rotation period and similar lengthening due to tidal braking, the slow precession of the axis over a 26,000-year period and the faster (but considerably smaller) nutation of the Earth's axis, you'd be right. These effects can simply be dismissed as less than insignificant in this conversation, though.
Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?
However, this ("exactly 1 annual rotation per year") is an issue of a minor significance!
I dunno. It seems to be a major stumbling block for you. Look at your second diagram above - it's a completely confused mess after the simple hypothetical change from one degree per day to two degrees per day around the orbit. Concentrate on that, first. It's much more important than the minor, and not exactly obvious, EoT phenomenon that you also struggle with. EoT variations average out to exactly zero out over a period of one year, so they really aren't a consideration at all here.
What is utterly important is "The Equation of Time" utter HC flaw!
As for this very important and decisive question, all i can say is this:
Alpha2Omega is shamelessly lying, and same goes for anyone who would ever try to disprove such OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE fact according which "The Equation of Time issue" presents the utter HC flaw. There is no honest and fair person who would ever dare to deny this 100% straight and plain truth!
You keep saying this. Are you trying to convince yourself?
ONCE MORE AND THE LAST TIME:
I sure hope so! The answers have already been given - you even quote them! They haven't changed. Please read the reply this time. Please!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
WIKI QUOTE :The apparent sun is the true sun as seen by an observer on Earth. Apparent solar time or true solar time is based on the apparent motion of the actual Sun. It is based on the apparent solar day, the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian.
The question is this:
If the Earth's orbital speed is greater at a Perihelion (Northern Winter) how come that the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian becomes shorter and shorter (20 sec per day) instead of being longer and longer when compared with an Aphelion (Northern Summer)???
That one's easy.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652244#msg1652244 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652244#msg1652244)
1998 solar day length from wikipedia
December 22 24 hours + 29.9 seconds
June 19 24 hours + 13.1 seconds
According to this (and many, many other sources), solar days are longer by almost 17s around perihelion compared to around aphelion. Why did you think otherwise? Do you have any data to back up your assertion that days are shortest near the December solstice?
NB: [footnotes don't work correctly if there are following nested quotes] Solar days are longest near the solstices and shorter near the equinoxes. The variation due to the eccentricity of the orbit is smaller. That's why the solar day is longest near the December solstice (also close to perihelion), and also long near the June solstice, but not as long since it's near aphelion.
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA Are you sure that's right? I think you have it backward and apparent solar days will be longest near the southern solstice, where the perihelion of the orbit (earth moves faster, which lengthens the apparent solar days) nearly coincides with a solstice (which also lengthen the apparent solar days).
YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?
Yep, same answer as before. Got any citations for that, like lengths of solar days at various times of year? Typing in all caps doesn't make your statement more correct. Data that supports it does.
<more confused reality>
A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!
This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!
Adding graffiti to an already-correct graph "proves" something?
Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link <link> , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?
You said a "very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link". If it's "similar", that means it's also completely wrong. Those things you link to have too many errors and misconceptions to deal with on an internet forum without making a career out of it.
<Another temper tantrum in all caps, including calling me a liar.>
-
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?
-
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?
Explain how we see the sunrise and set from different places at different times. Plus measured distances. Politely please.
-
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?
There is not much, barley there. Really hard to see with the motion. But you can see it in stills, for example:
http://www.theblueroom.me.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32075 (http://www.theblueroom.me.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32075)
you have to hold up a piece of paper or straight edge to really see it. Not much I admit. I also see a great big sun.
-
Cikljamas presents:
<youtube promo and link>
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
<more off-color remarks>
Are you abandoning the topic below with unanswered questions in favor of some (presumably) goofy youtube video and gratuitous insults? Do you care to address the questions (conveniently highlighted for you) below, or are you tired of this subject, realize your argument has no merit, and want to change the subject?
Just for the sake of correctness...there is a final version of my diagram:
<image>
Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.
In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean? With the assumption that each month is half as long as they really are (since the hypothetical year is half as long), if you move each dot to the bottom, as they are in the top drawing, and carry the annotations down (after correcting "AM" and "PM"), it will be right, too. Both diagrams would show the Earth's orientation after an integer number of sidereal days - you can tell it's sidereal, not solar, days because the earth's orientation (Prime Meridian toward the bottom of the page in all cases) is the same. The difference, which I asked for but you neglected to add, would be the number of days between each position (91 for the top, 45 for the bottom). Making those changes and adding this information should make it more clear.
24 * 360 = 8640
Hours per year (approximately)?
8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it? If so, those numbers are wrong and the answers are meaningless. They should be 23,9333 (using comma as the decimal separator), and 23,8667, respectively, since the first is 23 + 56/60 hours and the second is 23 + 52/60 hours.
In that case the two results would be 361.002 and 362.01 rotations, respectively. Note that these are almost exactly one and two rotations greater than the 360 postulated. The first is the extra sidereal day in one year and the second is the two extra sidereal days in two years. As it has to be. They aren't exactly one apart because you should use 359 and 358 24-hour days for the two examples, respectively, representing one 359-day year (exactly 4 minutes between sidereal and 24-hour mean solar) and two 179-day years (exactly 8 minutes ...).
While i was studying this issue, i have noticed that in the background of "the exactly 1 annual rotation per year" phenomena there are two HC wrong presumptions (without any foundation in reality):
Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?
1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Potato's axis!
2. Constant period of the Potato's rotation!
There is no scientific explanation whatsoever, for any of the two (above) utterly science-fictional assumptions!
If you get down into the weeds of very high-precision measurements, like microsecond-level variations in the daily rotation period and similar lengthening due to tidal braking, the slow precession of the axis over a 26,000-year period and the faster (but considerably smaller) nutation of the Earth's axis, you'd be right. These effects can simply be dismissed as less than insignificant in this conversation, though.
Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?
-
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?
Is these sorts of of low resolution YouTube videos really the best "evidence" you can produce to support your claim of a flat earth? Seriously? Can you be 100% certain that this one's not been digitally manipulated? And why have they been captured with a potato instead of a digital camera?
And you're apparently happy to ignore the thousands of the European Space Agency videos, and the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research videos in favour of this dross? Not good enough.
-
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?
Is your head so flat that a round Earth can't fit in it? There is a name for a flat earther who is open minded and unbiased, they are called round earthers. In this thread you have demonstrated an almost complete lack of knowledge about the theory that you are calling a lie and now that I think about it I have never encountered a flat earther who has even a high school level understanding of physics and math.
-
I doubt the motive is financial. The cost of orchestrating and maintaining this grand lie would far exceed any tax revenue diverted to space organizations. The government has a history of grossly exceeding budget for even the simplest of projects (it can be argued of course that these cost overruns for mundane stuff is intentional and diverted to subsidize such a conspiracy).
I prefer to think that the grand round earth conspiracy is benevolent. Perhaps we are being protected. What is really out there may be too frightening or difficult to understand, and the dissemination of such knowledge would cause widespread panic and a deterioration of civilized society.
Will somebody please address my conspiracy theory theory? I think "for our own good" is more logical and believable than the typical assertions of money or power.
-
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?
Is your head so flat that a round Earth can't fit in it? There is a name for a flat earther who is open minded and unbiased, they are called round earthers. In this thread you have demonstrated an almost complete lack of knowledge about the theory that you are calling a lie and now that I think about it I have never encountered a flat earther who has even a high school level understanding of physics and math.
Gee Mike you learn quick. I wonder if his ass smells like a donkey.
-
He is right about one thing though...
I do have a nice round ass.
-
Please everyone, stop making personal attacks and posting low content in the upper fora. Take it to CN or AR if you feel the need to play these games. Thanks.
-
1.
24 * 360 = 8640
Hours per year (approximately)?
Yes! Just one little hint for you here: 30 days * 12 months = 360 degrees
2. 8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?
Yes!
3. Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?
The Sun makes 365 trips per year above the Earth! How come that you still don't get it?
4. Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?
Potato's spin, Potato's orientation or rate, these are nothing else, but ludicrous assumptions for which no one has ever presented any evidence!
However, there is a whole bunch of absolutely compelling evidences to the contrary, one of which is this video of mine:
(http://)
I have made it as an answer to this particular question of yours, did you even watch it?
5. Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.
In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean?
To this latter question of yours, i will answer after you answer to two next questions:
1. How you can deny that "The equation of time" case is absolute proof against the validity of HC theory (although it is just one among many such proofs)?
Here, once more:
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun at a speed of just 10 km per hour, how long would be the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian in this case?
In this case this interval would depend almost solely on the Earth's rotational period which would completely overpower an effects of the Earth's orbital motion.
Now imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun 100 000 km per hour (alleged Earth's orbital speed is even greater than that). Have you imagined this picture and accompanying geometrical implications?
Now, in which of the two above cases we should have to wait longer for the arrival of the Sun to the local meridian?
QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA The latter. See the previous answer. Getting the previous assertion wrong has made you think there's a discrepancy where none actually exists.
YES, THE LATTER!!!
QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS
Shall we observe this illustration once more:
(http://i.imgur.com/qKrGL0N.jpg)
When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.
When the Earth allegedly speeds up (August - November) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!
A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!
This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!
(http://i.imgur.com/7NrZgDN.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/VUNjqh6.jpg)
Pay attention to what happens between August and October (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!
Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!
See new diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/MBhHXke.jpg)
2. After watching this video... (http://) do you have to say?
-
1. 24 * 360 = 8640
Hours per year (approximately)?
Yes! Just one little hint for you here: 30 days * 12 months = 360 degrees
No, it doesn't. The units don't work.
Days * months gives day-months, which has dimension time2.
Did you perhaps mean 30 days/month * 12 months = 360 days?
or
1°/day * 30 days/month * 12 months = 360°?
You never answered the question, though. Does 24 * 360 = 8640 represent the approximate number of hours in a year?
2. 8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?
Yes!
In that case, they're simply wrong, making your answers wrong. 23h 56m is not 23.56 hours. The number of rotations calculated above have no meaning.
3. Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?
The Sun makes 365 trips per year above the Earth! How come that you still don't get it?
That's not what I asked. I asked if you knew how many trips around the ecliptic the Sun makes in one year, not how many transits. If you don't understand the difference, that may be the reason you are having trouble with this concept.
4. Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?
Potato's spin, Potato's orientation or rate, these are nothing else, but ludicrous assumptions for which no one has ever presented any evidence!
However, there is whole bunch of absolutely compelling evidences to the contrary, one of which is this video of mine:
(http://)
I have made it as an answer to this particular question of yours, did you even watch it?
No. You should know my attitude about links to videos with no supporting description - it's been repeated often enough. Can you summarize what the video purports to show or at least explain what you're trying to say in it? [I watched it while composing this - this could easily have been presented as text with a few illustrations. It doesn't address the question at hand "do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?" at all. See below.]
5. Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.
In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean?
To this latter question of yours, i will answer after you answer to two next questions:
1. How you can deny that "The equation of time" case is absolute proof against the validity of HC theory (although it is just one among many such proofs)?
How can I deny that? Because it's nothing of the sort, that's how.
Because the Equation of Time accurately describes the variation in the length of the apparent solar day and explains why this happens because of the slightly elliptical orbit (verified by slight changes in the apparent size of the Sun at different times of year), obliquity of the ecliptic (verified by the Sun's apparent path against the background stars), and constant rate of spin (only in the last few decades did better time standards than the rotation of the Earth, i.e. atomic clocks, become available).
Before wasting more time arguing about EoT, which you don't understand, and doesn't even factor in here, anyway, you might want to grasp the much more basic idea that the Sun makes one circuit of the ecliptic in a year. Since that's what defines a year, it doesn't get more basic than that.
Here, once more:
<repeat of incorrect assertions about EoT>
2. After watching this video... (http://) do you have to say?
Against my better judgement, I watched (or skimmed through) that piece of junk.
1) I hope you didn't spend too long putting that thing together.
2) There's nothing there that's improved by being a video. You could have presented a few frames and, we've seen the geodetic images before, anyway.
3) The quality of the high-altitude footage is terrible, but still shows the curvature of the Earth.
4) It's really boring. I just let it get ahead, then sped through it. That way it didn't take ten minutes to see.
Very poor effort; zero stars (on a scale of zero to four stars). Lame soundtrack (I turned the sound off), unnecessarily long (by about 9:30), unclear what some of the points were.
This is a great example why I don't like to watch these videos. They're invariably a complete waste of time.
-
8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?
Yes!
In that case, they're simply wrong, making your answers wrong. 23h 56m is not 23.56 hours. The number of rotations calculated above have no meaning.
Well, 23h 56m is not 23,56 hours, but my calculation gives true result, don't you see?
Look how we can get practically the same result:
365 * 24 = 8760
8760 / 23,92 (which represents 23h,56min) = 366,2 rotations
8760 / 23,85 (which represents 23h,52min) = 367,2 rotations
Regarding everything else, all i can say is this:
I really pity you.
You have no courage to go deeper in details in EoT matter, because you know that if we put this question under scrutiny and examined it closely, there would be no place for hiding from this inevitable truth, that is: HC is one big piece of shit!
This diagram explains everything:
(http://i.imgur.com/MBhHXke.jpg)
There is no way to deny it! NO WAY!
And you know it, that is why you are so miserable and desperate, isn't it?
-
You say that in round Earth theory the sun would be going on some absurd path that makes no sense, how did you come to the conclusion that the sun would move like a drunk mouse in the sky in round Earth theory?
-
8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations
What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?
Yes!
In that case, they're simply wrong, making your answers wrong. 23h 56m is not 23.56 hours. The number of rotations calculated above have no meaning.
Well, 23h 56m is not 23,56 hours, but my calculation gives true result, don't you see?
No. By dividing one (slightly too small) wrong number by another (slightly too small) wrong number you came up with an answer that was kinda sorta close to the actual answer, but is still meaningless.
Look how we can get practically the same result:
365 * 24 = 8760
8760 / 23,92 (which represents 23h,56min) = 366,2 rotations
8760 / 23,85 (which represents 23h,52min) = 367,2 rotations
So now, using 365 days instead of 360 and numbers for the period of rotation that are more accurate, you come up with similar numbers. OK. So?
23:56 is 23.9333 hours; 23:52 is 23.867 hours. Using these give 366.02 and 367.04 for the sidereal days in one and two years, respectively. Very close to exactly one extra sidereal day per year, as expected. They're not exactly one rotation per year because the scenarios are approximate.
Regarding everything else, all i can say is this:
I really pity you.
No need. I'm doing fine. Thanks, though!
You have no courage to go deeper in details in EoT matter, because you know that if we put this question under scrutiny and examined it closely, there would be no place for hiding from this inevitable truth, that is: HC is one big piece of shit!
"Courage?" "no place for hiding..." Dude... get a grip.
This diagram explains everything:
(http://i.imgur.com/MBhHXke.jpg)
It explains pretty well that you are thoroughly confused about what the graph means.
Let's look at that graph and all the stuff you've added to it, along with some additional information from the USNO (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/eqtime.php).
First of all, there is no standard for the sign of the values; the minutes represented by the graph can be mean solar time minus apparent solar time, or apparent solar time minus mean solar time. The time scale (Minutes of Time) on the left of your marked-up image is apparent solar time minus mean solar time. That is, negative numbers are when the apparent sun is behind the mean sun.
Here's a similar graph with the same sign convention:
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/EqT_graph_2014.jpg)
Here is another, on the same horizontal scale, showing the rate of change of the EoT, or difference in the length of the apparent solar day and mean solar day (this is the slope of the graph above).
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/EqTdot_graph_2014.jpg)
(Both images courtesy USNO Astronomical Applications department)
The second graph is the one you really want to use for your analysis; it's much more straightforward for what you're trying to show. In it, the Y-axis numbers (minutes/day) are negative when the true sun is moving across the sky slower than the mean sun. It's slowest (the most negative number) in late December and fastest (barely) near the September equinox. It crosses zero (apparent day = mean day) in mid-February, mid-May, late July, and early November; these are your "turning points", where the EoT is flat, on the marked-up plot. When the red curve is sloping downward, the apparent days are getting longer; when the red curve is sloping upward, the apparent days are getting shorter.
So let's look at what's going on:
The apparent sun is at its slowest in late December and speeds up through the end of March (red curve slopes upward). This corresponds with movement away from perihelion of the orbit and the equinox - both of which will make the apparent sun move eastward against the stars at maximum clip, causing the apparent sun to move most slowly on its daily westward path. After late December, the sun's pace across the daytime sky is picking up, but since it's already much slower than the mean sun, it falls further behind (but by a little less each day); this is the down-sloping blue line on the USNO EoT plot. By mid-February, the apparent sun's rate across the sky matches the mean sun, so it's no longer falling further behind (your "turning point"). After this, the apparent sun is now catching up with the mean sun. The apparent sun's rate across the sky continues to accelerate until a bit after the March equinox, when it starts to slow down a bit. Since the apparent sun has been moving faster than the mean sun since mid February, it overtakes it in mid-April (EoT = 0) and starts getting a little ahead since the apparent sun is still faster than the mean sun (EoT is positive). Around mid-May, the apparent sun's rate has dropped to match the mean sun's rate again, and the EoT flattens out and starts to drop. Etc.
All of this has been measured countless times and matches earth's known elliptical orbit and obliquity.
There is no problem between this and conventional heliocentric theory. Your not understanding it is not a problem with the heliocentric theory.
There is no way to deny it! NO WAY!
I've never denied that you seemed bewildered by the EoT. The question is: do you still deny it?
And you know it, that is why you are so miserable and desperate, isn't it?
Thanks for the laugh.
-
This diagram explains everything:
(http://i.imgur.com/MBhHXke.jpg)
It explains pretty well that you are thoroughly confused about what the graph means.
Let's look at that graph and all the stuff you've added to it, along with some additional information from the USNO (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/eqtime.php).
First of all, there is no standard for the sign of the values; the minutes represented by the graph can be mean solar time minus apparent solar time, or apparent solar time minus mean solar time. The time scale (Minutes of Time) on the left of your marked-up image is apparent solar time minus mean solar time. That is, negative numbers are when the apparent sun is behind the mean sun.
In that case, their graphs are correct (which has much more sense, of course), but the concept is still wrong, since what their graphs depict is in accordance with FET, not with RET.
Do i have to explain it once more?
Just watch my diagram.
If their main line (which represents the apparent sun) is in accordance with my blue sprayed line (in the meaning of how i have interpreted it), then their line only shows HOW IT IS, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE, ACCORDING TO FET, NOT ACCORDING TO RET!!!
THE VERY CONCEPT IS WRONG, AND THE CONCEPT IS WRONG BECAUSE IT MUST BE WRONG, AND IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE THE SUN IS IN MOTION ABOVE THE EARTH, NOT VICE VERSA!!!
Don't pretend you are stupid, since we all know that you are not. You are just a shill, ain't you?
-
...
Here's a similar graph with the same sign convention:
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/EqT_graph_2014.jpg)
Here is another, on the same horizontal scale, showing the rate of change of the EoT, or difference in the length of the apparent solar day and mean solar day (this is the slope of the graph above).
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/EqTdot_graph_2014.jpg)
(Both images courtesy USNO Astronomical Applications department)
...
Here let me quote it for you again. This is how it is in the RET. What is so hard for you to understand? No matter what you say, these pictures are what is in reality. Just have a think about it.
Here is my picture again where I edited yours. See how my markings match the red diamonds. You have no idea what you are talking about.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/orbit.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/orbit.jpg.html)
-
This diagram explains everything:
(http://i.imgur.com/MBhHXke.jpg)
It explains pretty well that you are thoroughly confused about what the graph means.
Let's look at that graph and all the stuff you've added to it, along with some additional information from the USNO (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/eqtime.php).
First of all, there is no standard for the sign of the values; the minutes represented by the graph can be mean solar time minus apparent solar time, or apparent solar time minus mean solar time. The time scale (Minutes of Time) on the left of your marked-up image is apparent solar time minus mean solar time. That is, negative numbers are when the apparent sun is behind the mean sun.
In that case, their graphs are correct (which has much more sense, of course), but the concept is still wrong, since what their graphs depict is in accordance with FET, not with RET.
Which FET is that? I've never seen a comprehensive one, probably because none exist. What would cause the Sun to speed up and slow down in such a way?
Do i have to explain it once more?
Coherently explaining it even once would be a start.
Just watch my diagram.
If their main line (which represents the apparent sun) is in accordance with my blue sprayed line (in the meaning of how i have interpreted it), then their line only shows HOW IT IS, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE, ACCORDING TO FET, NOT ACCORDING TO RET!!!
The blue sprayed line is wrong. According to your description (sun moving slower) it should be inverted and overlay the blue dotted line on the original graph.
Can we see a model, or at least a diagram, or something, illustrating the FET this accords with? It should explicitly show why the Sun would behave this way. The equivalent heliocentric illustration shows the elliptical orbit and axial tilt in their respective orientations.
THE VERY CONCEPT IS WRONG, AND THE CONCEPT IS WRONG BECAUSE IT MUST BE WRONG, AND IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE THE SUN IS IN MOTION ABOVE THE EARTH, NOT VICE VERSA!!!
Do you feel better now?
You think it's wrong because you simply do not understand it. This affects everything exactly nada.
Don't pretend you are stupid, since we all know that you are not. You are just a shill, ain't you?
::)
Shill for what? What could I possibly gain by believing the Earth circles the Sun in a slightly-elliptical orbit while rotating on its axis which is tilted with respect to the orbital plane? Other than being able to understand and predict what can be seen in the sky, and put that knowledge to use, that is? Am I being paid just to take that position? I wish!!
-
QUESTION : At approximately what altitude we can see that earth is spherical?
A FEW DIFFERENT ANSWERS :
1. Ground level if you look in the right places. The classic example is the way distant ships appear to sink as they cross the horizon. No need for any maths.
2. If you actually want to see the curvature of the Earth it depends what threshold to want to apply as 'noticeable'. Decide on how much curvature is noticeable and determine the how much horizon needs to be in view to see that much curvature. One equation for the horizon distance is S = 1.42sqrt(H) where S is the distance in miles and H is the height in feet. From there you can get your answer with a bit of simple geometry.
3. Presuming that you mean with the naked eye, you only need to be a few kilometres in the air for it to be obvious. If you have ever been in an aeroplane on a clear day, the curvature of the Earth is easily visible. It can even be detected at sea in calm weather.
4. You would never see that at any altitude. The earth is flat.
5. You could see the curvature of the earth every day while travelling on Concorde....
6. Perhaps it is a fantasy. I swear that on the two times I flew the Condorde I could see the curvature. In any event, the experiences are sealed in my brain. What great memories!!
7. The curvature of the Earth was visible on my Concorde flight, along with the darnkess of the sky. It wasn't black but very dark blue. I have not been able to see either features on a normal flight up to 40k
8. My father used to travel on Concorde. When asked about seeing the curvature of the Earth, he thought it was pretty imperceptable, albeit beginning to become noticable, and probably due more to the power of suggestion or camera distortion than anything else. He thought, apparently, you have to go up in the likes of U2 aircraft (70,000 feet) before one really has a spectacular view of the Earth's curvature, although of course the view from Concorde certainly was unique and spectacular. I only flew it once when a child.
9. From a friend who was a military pilot, and from sources such as the many books I have read on the SR-71 and U-2 it can be said that this doesn't appear until you get up to 55K-60K feet........The highest I have been is 41K on a 777 and I couldn't see anything but a flat horizon.
10. I am an airline pilot, and the highest I have been is 41000'. Can't say that I have noticed any curvature. Not that I have been specifically looking for it either though. I would also guess that one would have to be at least 20 miles up to notice a curve without any instruments.
The first direct visual detection of the curvature of the horizon has been widely attributed to Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer on 27 May 1931. They reported seeing it from a hydrogen-filled balloon at an elevation of 15 787m (51 783 ft) over Germany and Austria. On 11 November 1935, Albert W.Stevens and Orville A. Anderson became the first people to photograph the curvature. They were flying in the helium-filled Explorer II balloon during a record-breaking flight to an altitude of 22 066m (72; 395 ft) over South Dakota. Other claims have been made as to being the first to see the curvature of the Earth, but they seem to have come long after visual curvature had been established.
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers revealed that few if any could detect curvature below about 50; 000 ft. High-altitude physicist and experienced sky observer David Gutierrez reported that as his B-57 ascends, the curvature of the horizon does not become readily sensible until about 50 000 ft and that at 60 000 ft the curvature is obvious. Having talked to many other high fliers (SR-71, U2, etc.), Gutierrez confirms that his sense of the curvature is the same as theirs. Passengers on the Concorde (60; 000 ft) routinely marveled at the curvature of the Earth. Gutierrez believes that if the field of view (FOV) is wide enough, it might be possible to detect curvature from lower altitudes. The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35; 000 ft, they cannot see the curvature.
(http://i.imgur.com/q9n2lsH.jpg)
http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/ (http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/)
(http://i.imgur.com/wWoy09R.jpg)
Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.
Just one snapshot from my video:
(http://i.imgur.com/Lymjx07.jpg)
So, 110 000 ft is almost twice as high as 60 000 ft, and we still can't see any curvature of the Earth?
How come?
Well, this question we need to ask a true scientist, and AusGeoff is a true scientist without a slightest doubt:
Cikljamas presents:
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://) (don't forget to switch full screen)
There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...
Is these sorts of of low resolution YouTube videos really the best "evidence" you can produce to support your claim of a flat earth? Seriously? Can you be 100% certain that this one's not been digitally manipulated? And why have they been captured with a potato instead of a digital camera?
And you're apparently happy to ignore the thousands of the European Space Agency videos, and the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research videos in favour of this dross? Not good enough.
Aren't you satisfied with an answer (above) of a true scientist?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
-
Get destroyed in an argument so just change the argument. Nice tactic.
-
QUESTION : At approximately what altitude we can see that earth is spherical?
Does moving on to a different topic mean you're satisfied with the resolution of the previous one?
<copy-paste of anecdotal reports and musings that don't always agree>
<picture from sea level showing sharp horizon and pictures from altitude too indistinct to be conclusive>
From near sea level: a sharp horizon a few km away with ships disappearing from the bottom up as they recede over the horizon and appearing top down when arriving from over the horizon are indicative. Watch a sunrise, sunset, moonrise, or moonset from about any altitude. That's about all you really need.
-
Repetition of arguments doesn't make them more convincing, however we can repeat here two arguments:
1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860)
I think there is no way to deny that the surface is flat based on the photos. In fact, imagining curvature where there is none is a sign of some psychological disorder, I am guessing. Mostly provoked by the desire to maintain the fantasy world which immediately starts to collapse when confronted with real-world observations. It hurts, so people prefer to ignore it.
2. (http://)
-
Repetition of arguments doesn't make them more convincing, however we can repeat here two arguments:
1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860)
I think there is no way to deny that the surface is flat based on the photos. In fact, imagining curvature where there is none is a sign of some psychological disorder, I am guessing. Mostly provoked by the desire to maintain the fantasy world which immediately starts to collapse when confronted with real-world observations. It hurts, so people prefer to ignore it.
2. (http://)
We are not seeing curvature where there is none, you are just not seeing curvature where it exists. Go into any image editor and draw a strait line along the horizon of a high altitude image, you will notice that the horizon is curved.
-
Repetition of arguments doesn't make them more convincing, however we can repeat here two arguments:
1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860)
I think there is no way to deny that the surface is flat based on the photos. In fact, imagining curvature where there is none is a sign of some psychological disorder, I am guessing. Mostly provoked by the desire to maintain the fantasy world which immediately starts to collapse when confronted with real-world observations. It hurts, so people prefer to ignore it.
2. (http://)
Please refer to and comment on discussions regarding sun rise and satellites.
-
Repetition of arguments doesn't make them more convincing, however we can repeat here two arguments:
1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860)
I think there is no way to deny that the surface is flat based on the photos. In fact, imagining curvature where there is none is a sign of some psychological disorder, I am guessing. Mostly provoked by the desire to maintain the fantasy world which immediately starts to collapse when confronted with real-world observations. It hurts, so people prefer to ignore it.
2. (http://)
The "bottles" experiment showed pretty much what would be expected with the curved earth.
"Repetition of arguments doesn't make them more convincing". You're absolutely right! The video will be no more convincing now than it was before.
Please remember that you said this.
-
1. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
2. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
3. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?
4. “What about the lark which, at early morn, soars aloft, trilling its lays of luscious melody? Why was it not swept away in the tumultuous atmosphere? But it still continues singing, in happy ignorance of any commotion in the heavens. Who has not noticed, on a calm Summer day, the thistle-down floating listlessly in the air, and the smoke ascending, straight as an arrow, from the peasant's cottage? Would not such light things as thistle-down and smoke have to obey the impulse and go with the Earth also? But they do not.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
6. In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."
7. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
8. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
9. "In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
Read more: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html)
That's about it!
-
Did you just link to a site that believes Atlantis existed as your proof for something scientific?
-
1. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
2. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
3. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?
4. “What about the lark which, at early morn, soars aloft, trilling its lays of luscious melody? Why was it not swept away in the tumultuous atmosphere? But it still continues singing, in happy ignorance of any commotion in the heavens. Who has not noticed, on a calm Summer day, the thistle-down floating listlessly in the air, and the smoke ascending, straight as an arrow, from the peasant's cottage? Would not such light things as thistle-down and smoke have to obey the impulse and go with the Earth also? But they do not.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
6. In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."
7. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
8. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
9. "In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
Read more: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html)
That's about it!
My goodness that must have felt good to get of your chest! So your main theme is that we can't feel the spinning and movement and all that stuff? Kind of blows ones mind, doesn't it! Just think how big the earth must be for that to be the case. It is really hard to imagine something so big! Too bad we can't look to other planets to see if they are spinning and are able to hold an atmosphere. To bad we can't send a rover to mars and see what is going on there.
You say the Sun and Moon are doing exactly what everyone thought, but the funny thing is you can't really tell me what that is exactly, funny. In 200BC the distance to the Sun was estimated to be pretty close to the accepted value today (no, not the silly 3,000 mile number. And why 3,000, what luck! I would think a number like 3,214 would be more believable). As crazy and confused as you are, I'd convert quicker than you could spit if you could only give me a 2D scale map that could show the distance between every major city (northern and southern hemisphere, or hemiplane as you may call it). I mean, that is your whole point right, that the earth is flat and can be represented as a flat surface, or do you have some mystical definition of flat that I am not aware of? I find it a little more plausible that if I kick the earth it won't move than the earth is flat, you just can't actually see it drawn out as flat.
-
Let's see how simply I can disprove you.
1. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
Apparently Allen Daves is a pastor, enough said. Only if you ignore evidence, then you get a stationary earth.
2. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
Even kids can figure out that velocity cannot be felt but acceleration can.Why can't you?
3. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?
Actually most weather comes from west to east. The jet stream goes west to east in the Northern hemisphere.
4. “What about the lark which, at early morn, soars aloft, trilling its lays of luscious melody? Why was it not swept away in the tumultuous atmosphere? But it still continues singing, in happy ignorance of any commotion in the heavens. Who has not noticed, on a calm Summer day, the thistle-down floating listlessly in the air, and the smoke ascending, straight as an arrow, from the peasant's cottage? Would not such light things as thistle-down and smoke have to obey the impulse and go with the Earth also? But they do not.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”
Blenders work just fine.
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
Like I said, most weather moves west to east. But winds will flow from high pressure to low pressure.
6. In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."
Simple long exposer will show the earth is rotating. The Foucault Pendulum will also show the earth moving. An dof course midnight sun in Antarctica is impossible on a flat earth.
7. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
They follow pressure gradients. Nothing new.
8. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
Blenders still work.
9. "In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
Once again, velocity cannot be felt, acceleration can. Also special relativity.
Read more: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html)
That's about it!
That's it, yet a simple sunrise cannot be explained by a flat earth.
-
And, moving right along, it looks like the "earth shows no curvature at all altitudes" nonsense has been settled, too. Cool!
1. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that.
Why would they say that? Would they have any evidence to support that? What evidence?
And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.'
I'd be delighted to hear you say that. There are better comparisons (rifle bullets, for instance, have a great range of muzzle velocities, so that's not a particularly useful metric), but I'd accept that.
We would be laughed at!
You're laughed at now. Why not give it a try!
We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!'
How do you know this?
We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory.
You're ridiculed now for having no scientific backing for a fixed, flat earth. How about if you did have scientific backing for a rotating earth moving around the Sun? It's really quite simple and elegantly explains what we see every day. Trying to shoehorn what we do see with a stationary earth - now there's convoluted!
And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?'
Have you looked at any of the anti-FE arguments here? That would be a good place to start.
Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth.
It would probably be best to avoid terms like "magically velcroed", since that's not a very good description. "Coupled by friction" or something like that might be better.
The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.'
No, it's not. Starting with that hypothesis quickly gets into untenable situations, leading to much handwaving, backtracking, and added complexity.
So what we are actually doing is what makes sense.
If you were saying the things above, I'd agree. But you're saying the opposite.
We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense.
See?
The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed.
You're being ridiculed because you claim the stationary-earth theory makes sense despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Don't you see that? It's not because NASA or "the government" says otherwise - it's because the world, solar system, and universe itself is telling us otherwise.
You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.
No, picturing it the other way just points out how ridiculous your idea is.
This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear.
This was well-understood long before the US Government even existed, and much longer before NASA or its predecessors existed. Or is "the Government" something else?
Scientists use it because it actually works (unlike true nonsense ideas like fixed-earth geocentrism, flat earth, and their ilk). Most of the world's population doesn't care as long as predictions are reasonably good (there would be turmoil if, say, the Sun didn't rise around the time expected, or an unpredicted eclipse happened, or a predicted one didn't). The technically-inclined part of the population recognizes that the scientists explain well, using the very models you tilt against, what they actually see.
They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it:
The best you can actually say is that some evidence is ambiguous.
we feel no movement,
What movement should we feel? You don't feel velocity - you feel acceleration. Describe the accelerations involved, their direction and magnitude, and why you think we would feel them.
the atmosphere hasn't been blown away,
Why would it be blown away? It's attracted to earth by its gravity, and coupled by friction to the rotation.
we see the Sun move from East-to-West,
Because the Earth is rotating west to east. And the sun rises and sets, at different times depending on where you are.
everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
"Everything" is clearly an overstatement. There's a lot more that can't be explained by a motionless earth. For starts, why do sunsets occur at different times at different places? Why does the acceleration of gravity depend in a predictable way on latitude?
2. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing!
Yeah, yeah... after you've determined the accelerations above, just carry them down here.
"670,000,000 miles per hour"!!!! We don't feel velocity, we feel acceleration.
We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds!
That "slightest breeze" is air displacement. WTF do you think it is? If we're tootling along at some omygodweregoingtodie velocity and the air is tootling along right along with us at the same velocity different by only two knots, we feel a two-knot wind - a mild zephyr (no matter how fast we're both going).
Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance!
This statement is kind of a hodge-podge of technical terms that doesn't seem to mean much. Lots o' important and scientificy-sounding words, though, so it's all impressive and stuff. Is the author trying to say that the atmosphere is moving along with the nearby surface of the Earth? OK... Yes... that's what happens. See the earlier about not feeling velocity.
Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
For reverse-engineered explanations, see "Flat Earth Theory".
3. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, [at the equator] how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously?
Because the atmosphere isn't traveling at exactly the same velocity. The direction, or speed, or, most likely, both, will vary slightly - usually caused by uneven heating.
Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!?
Velocity of atmosphere approximately equals velocity of surface. You keep asking this. The answer is the same.
And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?
If you've ever pedaled a bicycle fast enough or even run into a strong headwind, you'd rethink that whole "unabated" thing. (Except for the clouds... the clouds are simply carried along wherever the air mass they're part of is going, but that's not "unabated", either, that's "carried by".)
4. “What about the lark which, at early morn, soars aloft, trilling its lays of luscious melody? Why was it not swept away in the tumultuous atmosphere? But it still continues singing, in happy ignorance of any commotion in the heavens. Who has not noticed, on a calm Summer day, the thistle-down floating listlessly in the air, and the smoke ascending, straight as an arrow, from the peasant's cottage? Would not such light things as thistle-down and smoke have to obey the impulse and go with the Earth also? But they do not.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”
???
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
Gosh! Maybe this means that wind velocity (velocity is speed and direction, in case you didn't know) isn't constant at all altitudes! Has any meteorologist ever claimed they were?
6. In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."
Gosh! Maybe this means that wind velocity (velocity is speed and direction, in case you didn't know) isn't constant at all altitudes! Has any meteorologist ever claimed they were?
7. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other.
Gosh! Maybe this means that wind velocity (velocity is speed and direction, in case you didn't know) isn't constant at all altitudes! Has any meteorologist ever claimed they were?
[/b][/color] Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, [Wrong!] since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
Either that, or the atmosphere is moving along with us with slight variations.
8. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
Well, no, the speed of the atmosphere doesn't perfectly coincide with the speed of the Earth. Otherwise there would be no winds at all. We certainly know this isn't the case. Don't you? Or you deny that winds exist?
The rotational speed of the Earth isn't mind-numbing for anyone who doesn't limit his thinking to how fast he has to travel to buy bread at the market or visit his in-laws. Think outside your own limited personal experience! There's a great big world out there, and an even bigger universe!!
9. "In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving.[Citation needed] Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed)[Citation needed] would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
If you read any WWII history, you'd know that dropping bombs on the right city was often a challenge, and even under the best of conditions in combat, within about 1/4 mile was typical using Norden bombsights. Given the number of bombs dropped, I have no doubt that some bombs dropped from 25,000 ft went down a chimney. Some of them may even have been the right chimney.
Read more: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/12/earth-center-universe.html)
That's about it!
Nothing here, folks.
-
cikljamas, the Earth has been proven to rotate because of the Coriolis effect, which I have never heard a flat earth explanation for.
-
You have the fortitude of a saint alpha
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
Uh... it's not the REs who are "stubborn" Saros. It's the infinitesimally small percentage of the population that stubbornly refuse to accept the current scientific status quo of the earth being an oblate spheroid. And the fact that the FEs are scientifically misinformed is one of the major reasons that we round earthers are here on this forum. We hope to enlighten and reeducate the FEs to bring them up to date with contemporary earth sciences, rather than blindly accepting the pseudo-scientific writings of ill-educated lay persons from 150 years ago.
And we're certainly not "defending" our RE earth science—it's not being attacked by any worthy critics with any credible scientific ammunition, so it has no need of any defence.
Science has nothing to do with "ego". It's all about impartial, objective opinion and empirical evidence. Do you truly think that it's Stephen Hawking's ego that drives his research? The only thing at "stake" here is the scientific truth.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
I'm just here because I enjoy debating. If someone were to prove to me that the earth is flat, I would believe him. But that hasn't happened yet.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
Uh... it's not the REs who are "stubborn" Saros. It's the infinitesimally small percentage of the population that stubbornly refuse to accept the current scientific status quo of the earth being an oblate spheroid. And the fact that the FEs are scientifically misinformed is one of the major reasons that we round earthers are here on this forum. We hope to enlighten and reeducate the FEs to bring them up to date with contemporary earth sciences, rather than blindly accepting the pseudo-scientific writings of ill-educated lay persons from 150 years ago.
And we're certainly not "defending" our RE earth science—it's not being attacked by any worthy critics with any credible scientific ammunition, so it has no need of any defence.
Science has nothing to do with "ego". It's all about impartial, objective opinion and empirical evidence. Do you truly think that it's Stephen Hawking's ego that drives his research? The only thing at "stake" here is the scientific truth.
Haha, that's why you're on this forum, right?
Of course, FE'ers might not know all the details of your "science", because they could care less about it.
By understanding science you mean being indoctrinated in the nonsense. If someone makes sense of nonsense he is just a fool.
By being here you're not defending YOUR science, you're here with an agenda.
You are either doing it for your own ego's satisfaction or because someone told you to.
Most likely you're here to prevent the others from having an enjoyable conversation.
You're not interested in anybody's opinion as you already "know" the facts.
Most likely you haven't learned anything since you joined, because you don't want to learn, and you don't want to think, you're here to parrot ideas you simply accepted/memorized as true.
And by the way, do you really think Stephen Hawking talks through his computer? If you never doubted Stephen does what is widely claimed then you're an extremely naive person with absolutely no critical thinking and a tendency to kowtow to authority. I can't wait for the day when they will show on TV a cat which talks and writes books, and I am sure many of your type will buy it.
-
LOL... I obviously struck a raw nerve with poor old Saros! His "argument" has now been reduced to a list if ad hominems—which he seems to rely on consistently whenever he's backed into a corner.
He now seems to think he's smarter than Stephen Hawking! Thanks for the laughs mate. ;D
-
LOL... I obviously struck a raw nerve with poor old Saros! His "argument" has now been reduced to a list if ad hominems—which he seems to rely on consistently whenever he's backed into a corner.
He now seems to think he's smarter than Stephen Hawking! Thanks for the laughs mate. ;D
ausGeoff, that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Please refrain from low content posting. Consider this a warning.
-
LOL... I obviously struck a raw nerve with poor old Saros! His "argument" has now been reduced to a list if ad hominems—which he seems to rely on consistently whenever he's backed into a corner.
He now seems to think he's smarter than Stephen Hawking! Thanks for the laughs mate. ;D
Hahaha, you're a clown. Are you a scientist? Just a hollow worshipper of something that you consider an authority. Laugh as much as you want, but since you can't see what you're doing then you're totally lost. You mention a name - Stephen Hawking - which you have accepted as an equivalent of smart and intelligent person. If you were at least a bit open to critical thinking you would know that Stephen is a hoax. But that is faaaaaaar beyond your abilities, of course. I am not backed into the corner, you're the one who has nothing to say but cling to his retarded science which you don't even know, but assume is correct on all counts.
-
just because you don't understand since, doesn't mean it's "retarded". It's just simple above your head.
-
just because you don't understand since, doesn't mean it's "retarded". It's just simple above your head.
As I already said, you guys don't understand it either, because you're not scientists but science cheerleaders! It is not retarded, but it is deceptive. Anyway, please stick to the topic and address the points Cikljamas made. From what I have read you disregard all points just because science says otherwise even though you're not scientists.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
And if he was silent, Cikljamas would be right because there is no opposition to his views. ::)
-
Er, you called out AusGeoff for low content posting a minute before Saros posted some serious low content posting... but said nothing to him about it. Why is that Jroa?
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
Yes, it's about their ego, but much more is at stake, much more than just someone's ego. They are in panic.
Of course they are in panic, because now you can see with your own eyes, how our Earth really looks from the height of 110 000 ft (33 km):
(http://i.imgur.com/Lymjx07.jpg)
(http://)
Can you believe that there is a forum (a major forum in Croatia ("forum.hr")), where people are not allowed to discuss this particular issue (FET vs RET), these fascists continuously obliterate any attempt of opening such threads?
When i had tried to discuss this topic at sub-forum "Prirodne znanosti" ("Natural-Exact sciences"), one of the most famous fascists there (who moderates under nick-name "El Ninho") gave me a permanent ban instantly.
After that i tried to discuss this subject at sub-fourm "Alternativa" ("Alternative"). There you have several sub-sub forums : "Astrology", "Magija i Mistika" ("Magic and Misticism"), "Alternativno liječenje" ("Alternative medicine") and "Na rubu znanosti" ("On the edge of science").
So, after a few days of discussion one stupid fascist bitch has erased the whole thread, she didn't just lock the thread, she wiped it entirely, so that no one can trace it any more anywhere on internet (but i can trace it in my own arhive).
See how has ended new attempt of the same kind, YESTERDAY:
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671 (http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671)
Enjoy my brand new video: (http://)
-
Im not even going to read this thread. I just want to point out something:
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
-For every piece of evidence there is a situation which will make it personally unverifiable.
-Fabricated evidence is false, since if it were true, it wouldnt be fabricated.
-It is obvious that the Galician rias were made when God took a rest and pressed his fingers on the earth.
-We have evidence that contradicts that
-Therefore, evidence has been fabricated
-Therefore, evidence is false
-Therefore, p<->¬p
Congrats. You broke logic
-
Im not even going to read this thread. I just want to point out something:
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
-For every piece of evidence there is a situation which will make it personally unverifiable.
-Fabricated evidence is false, since if it were true, it wouldnt be fabricated.
-It is obvious that the Galician rias were made when God took a rest and pressed his fingers on the earth.
-We have evidence that contradicts that
-Therefore, evidence has been fabricated
-Therefore, evidence is false
-Therefore, p<->¬p
Congrats. You broke logic
Well, not really, the logic still works. You don't have to stop at p == not p, after that you are free to write anything you want. It is the kind of freedom FEer talk about when they say they are free thinkers.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
Yes, it's about their ego, but much more is at stake, much more than just someone's ego. They are in panic.
Of course they are in panic, because now you can see with your own eyes, how our Earth really looks from the height of 110 000 ft (33 km):
(http://i.imgur.com/Lymjx07.jpg)
(http://)
Can you believe that there is a forum (a major forum in Croatia ("forum.hr")), where people are not allowed to discuss this particular issue (FET vs RET), these fascists continuously obliterate any attempt of opening such threads?
When i had tried to discuss this topic at sub-forum "Prirodne znanosti" ("Natural-Exact sciences"), one of the most famous fascists there (who moderates under nick-name "El Ninho") gave me a permanent ban instantly.
After that i tried to discuss this subject at sub-fourm "Alternativa" ("Alternative"). There you have several sub-sub forums : "Astrology", "Magija i Mistika" ("Magic and Misticism"), "Alternativno liječenje" ("Alternative medicine") and "Na rubu znanosti" ("On the edge of science").
So, after a few days of discussion one stupid fascist bitch has erased the whole thread, she didn't just lock the thread, she wiped it entirely, so that no one can trace it any more anywhere on internet (but i can trace it in my own arhive).
See how has ended new attempt of the same kind, YESTERDAY:
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671 (http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671)
Enjoy my brand new video: (http://)
cikljamas, I watched the video, and I liked it. However you can see curvature of the horizon from 220' . I stay at the ocean for vacation. When I was there is all you can see is a circle, that I believe to flat. The circle is very definite. I lined it up on the balcony rail of the condo and can see the hrizon curve. Then when you go out on the balcony and look right or left the horizon is straight ahead to the right or the left. It is a circle, not straight anywhere.
-
just because you don't understand since, doesn't mean it's "retarded". It's just simple above your head.
As I already said, you guys don't understand it either, because you're not scientists but science cheerleaders! It is not retarded, but it is deceptive. Anyway, please stick to the topic and address the points Cikljamas made. From what I have read you disregard all points just because science says otherwise even though you're not scientists.
You don't know anything. We fully understand science. We did respond to his arguments. Pay attention. He's just ignoring them because he doesn't have a counter argument.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
Yes, it's about their ego, but much more is at stake, much more than just someone's ego. They are in panic.
Of course they are in panic, because now you can see with your own eyes, how our Earth really looks from the height of 110 000 ft (33 km):
(http://i.imgur.com/Lymjx07.jpg)
(http://)
Can you believe that there is a forum (a major forum in Croatia ("forum.hr")), where people are not allowed to discuss this particular issue (FET vs RET), these fascists continuously obliterate any attempt of opening such threads?
When i had tried to discuss this topic at sub-forum "Prirodne znanosti" ("Natural-Exact sciences"), one of the most famous fascists there (who moderates under nick-name "El Ninho") gave me a permanent ban instantly.
After that i tried to discuss this subject at sub-fourm "Alternativa" ("Alternative"). There you have several sub-sub forums : "Astrology", "Magija i Mistika" ("Magic and Misticism"), "Alternativno liječenje" ("Alternative medicine") and "Na rubu znanosti" ("On the edge of science").
So, after a few days of discussion one stupid fascist bitch has erased the whole thread, she didn't just lock the thread, she wiped it entirely, so that no one can trace it any more anywhere on internet (but i can trace it in my own arhive).
See how has ended new attempt of the same kind, YESTERDAY:
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671 (http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671)
Enjoy my brand new video: (http://)
cikljamas, I watched the video, and I liked it. However you can see curvature of the horizon from 220' . I stay at the ocean for vacation. When I was there is all you can see is a circle, that I believe to flat. The circle is very definite. I lined it up on the balcony rail of the condo and can see the hrizon curve. Then when you go out on the balcony and look right or left the horizon is straight ahead to the right or the left. It is a circle, not straight anywhere.
If you look closely at the image you posted, you will see lighter colors under the purple line on the left side than you do the right side. Yes, the curvature is pretty much not there, but I can show you balloon images that do show curvature -- also very slight. Once you get up to the ISS, there is no debate other than saying the ISS is a hoax.
-
Cikljamas is right that is why you're so stubborn and continue arguing with him. If he was wrong why would you be here in the first place? After all your round Earth is proven by science. You shouldn't fiercely try to defend it at any price unless you're afraid you might be wrong. Your ego is at stake here.
Yes, it's about their ego, but much more is at stake, much more than just someone's ego. They are in panic.
Of course they are in panic, because now you can see with your own eyes, how our Earth really looks from the height of 110 000 ft (33 km):
(http://i.imgur.com/Lymjx07.jpg)
(http://)
Can you believe that there is a forum (a major forum in Croatia ("forum.hr")), where people are not allowed to discuss this particular issue (FET vs RET), these fascists continuously obliterate any attempt of opening such threads?
When i had tried to discuss this topic at sub-forum "Prirodne znanosti" ("Natural-Exact sciences"), one of the most famous fascists there (who moderates under nick-name "El Ninho") gave me a permanent ban instantly.
After that i tried to discuss this subject at sub-fourm "Alternativa" ("Alternative"). There you have several sub-sub forums : "Astrology", "Magija i Mistika" ("Magic and Misticism"), "Alternativno liječenje" ("Alternative medicine") and "Na rubu znanosti" ("On the edge of science").
So, after a few days of discussion one stupid fascist bitch has erased the whole thread, she didn't just lock the thread, she wiped it entirely, so that no one can trace it any more anywhere on internet (but i can trace it in my own arhive).
See how has ended new attempt of the same kind, YESTERDAY:
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671 (http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=860671)
Enjoy my brand new video: (http://)
cikljamas, I watched the video, and I liked it. However you can see curvature of the horizon from 220' . I stay at the ocean for vacation. When I was there is all you can see is a circle, that I believe to flat. The circle is very definite. I lined it up on the balcony rail of the condo and can see the hrizon curve. Then when you go out on the balcony and look right or left the horizon is straight ahead to the right or the left. It is a circle, not straight anywhere.
@ hoppy, are you trying to say that we can see the curve of the ocean from the balcony, but we can't see the curve of the Earth from the height of 110 000 ft?
Would you be so kind to comment this, also : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm)
-
You can try it yourself next time you go near the ocean. You can probably get in a hotel or something and to or near the top. The earth is flat, but you can only see a circle of it. The curved horizon goes for the land side of the view also.
-
You can try it yourself next time you go near the ocean. You can probably get in a hotel or something and to or near the top. The earth is flat, but you can only see a circle of it. The curved horizon goes for the land side of the view also.
If that's the case then why is the horizon always so close? If I go hundreds of thousands of feet above America then if the Earth is flat I would be able to see China, and also in places like Austrailia in the Southern Hemisphere (hemiplane) would see more land north of them then they see south of them because they are highly off center in the flat Earth map.
-
You can try it yourself next time you go near the ocean. You can probably get in a hotel or something and to or near the top. The earth is flat, but you can only see a circle of it. The curved horizon goes for the land side of the view also.
If that's the case then why is the horizon always so close? If I go hundreds of thousands of feet above America then if the Earth is flat I would be able to see China, and also in places like Austrailia in the Southern Hemisphere (hemiplane) would see more land north of them then they see south of them because they are highly off center in the flat Earth map.
This is just so stupid it's hardly believable. The human eye cannot see China from America. It's just not possible. Firstly, the atmoplane distorts vision and the human eye just cannot see that far. If the atmoplane didn't distort vision, you'd probably be able to see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) away on a dark night. That's about it. You're severely overestimating the power of the human eye.
-
Another way to determine the curvature of the earth—which anybody living in a major metropolis can do themselves—is to stand on a pavement with an unobstructed view of the western horizon just prior to sunset. Wait until the instant you can no longer see the sun, then immediately take an elevator to the top of a multistory building—at least 80 to 90 stories.
In less than a minute, you'll be at the top, and from where you'll see the sun "set" again. Trust me—I've done it in Melbourne.
-
You can try it yourself next time you go near the ocean. You can probably get in a hotel or something and to or near the top. The earth is flat, but you can only see a circle of it. The curved horizon goes for the land side of the view also.
If that's the case then why is the horizon always so close? If I go hundreds of thousands of feet above America then if the Earth is flat I would be able to see China, and also in places like Austrailia in the Southern Hemisphere (hemiplane) would see more land north of them then they see south of them because they are highly off center in the flat Earth map.
This is just so stupid it's hardly believable. The human eye cannot see China from America. It's just not possible. Firstly, the atmoplane distorts vision and the human eye just cannot see that far. If the atmoplane didn't distort vision, you'd probably be able to see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) away on a dark night. That's about it. You're severely overestimating the power of the human eye.
You obviously know nothing about optics. The reason why you can't see a small object from really far away is because of the inverse square law which states that if you get twice as far from an object it takes up 1/4 of the area in your field of view, but the size of the object effect the apparent size too because any idiot knows that bigger objects look bigger then smaller objects when viewed at the same distance. There is no distance limit to how far a camera or an eye (cameras and eyes work in pretty much the same way) can see things, the only limit is the apparent size and brightness of things. Light can't travel infinitely through air, but it can travel REALLY far and it's obvious that there is not a lot of air at really high altitudes because of how you have to breathe more at high altitudes and also balloons can't just go up infinitely, and if there is only a tiny bit of air then light will travel further. It's obvious that light can travel far enough through air to make it from the Sun, Moon, and stars to us here on Earth, so why wouldn't light from the ground be able to travel up the other way?
Back to my example, if I were high above America looking down at a flat Earth (Not to be mistaken with the round Earth that we live on) then China, although far away, would be visible because it's really big and the exact apparent size of China in my example can by calculated quite easily. In short, the apparent size of an object getting smaller as it moves further away can be countered by making the object bigger, and China is really big.
-
Let's see how really serious is this society, after all...
Next several questions i address to Flat Earthers exclusively:
1. Do you realize how strong and irrefutable is this FET argument:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644414#msg1644414 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644414#msg1644414)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645217#msg1645217 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645217#msg1645217)
Next quote has been taken out from latter link :
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
2. If you do realize how strong and irrefutable is this FET argument, how come that not one Flat Earther have said a word on that subject, so far?
Why is this argument so important?
Because when, for example, we bring forward before REs "Midnight Sun" argument, they instantly pull out their "holly refraction" shield. In this case they can not defend themselves with their "holly refraction" or by using any other funny HC shield.
3. Do you understand that?
On the other hand (if you understand that), why don't we celebrate ultimate-finnal destruction of HC theory by this so simple, so obvious, and so irrefutable ZIG-ZAG argument?
4. Are you afraid of something?
5. Are you afraid to admit the fact that this game was over, 30 pages ago?
I repeat, these few questions above are addressed exclusively to Flat Earthers!
Thanks in advance!
P.S. I expect as many direct answers as i can get from you!
-
Let's see how really serious is this society, after all...
Next several questions i address to Flat Earthers exclusively:
1. Do you realize how strong and irrefutable is this FET argument:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644414#msg1644414 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644414#msg1644414)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645217#msg1645217 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645217#msg1645217)
Next quote has been taken out from latter link :
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
2. If you do realize how strong and irrefutable is this FET argument, how come that not one Flat Earther have said a word on that subject, so far?
Why is this argument so important?
Because when, for example, we bring forward before REs "Midnight Sun" argument, they instantly pull out their "holly refraction" shield. In this case they can not defend themselves with their "holly refraction" or by using any other funny HC shield.
3. Do you understand that?
On the other hand (if you understand that), why don't we celebrate ultimate-finnal destruction of HC theory by this so simple, so obvious, and so irrefutable ZIG-ZAG argument?
4. Are you afraid of something?
5. Are you afraid to admit the fact that this game was over, 30 pages ago?
I repeat, these few questions above are addressed exclusively to Flat Earthers!
Thanks in advance!
P.S. I expect as many direct answers as i can get from you!
No offence meant but you are looked upon as a nutcase the same as I am and a few other free thinkers.
The flat Earth crew play games with you just as much as the globalists.
Your answers are not what they promote. You follow their thoughts to the letter and you are accepted into their realm, otherwise you're just a troll or bothersome to their model.
In one way it's fair enough if they want to stick to their model because it is their forum and their wiki states everything in their own ways. It doesn't appear like they will change anything unless it comes from one of their close knit member group.
All we are to them is nuisance value but also an easy deflect, because it saves them dealing with an onslaught of shills and persistent trolls, which allows them to get on with what most of them do best. Play in the complete nonesense area or the lounge spouting as much nonsense they can come up with.
You should make up your own forum and put all your stuff into it. Call it the free thinking forum or whatever. It will give people a chance to put out all kinds of theories as well as seeing all your good stuff and commenting on it.
Your efforts are wasted on here and it's a shame. Your efforts deserve praise not attempted ridicule like you get from those on here. It's people like you that keep the ridicule brigade interested because they like what they see but are too up their own arses to ever dare side with you, because it makes them appear fools in their minds.
Those that are asleep will never wake up. Those that are deliberate in the quest to keep people asleep will always be there to ridicule.
If you know any good sites or want to make one, let me know and I'll take part. I'm done with this one.
-
Hi scepti. I missed you.
-
Welcome back scepti, yesterday I performed an experiment that disproves FET that is linked in my forum signature, come join the flat earthers who are desperately attempting and failing to disprove it. Cilljames should check it out too.
-
Next quote has been taken out from latter link :
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
If that was your final and last attempt, why are you bringing it up again? It's been explained why you're wrong, or are you just posting the same joke over and over.
Repetition of arguments doesn't make them more convincing
If the shoe fits, wear it.
5. Are you afraid to admit the fact that this game was over, 30 pages ago?
I repeat, these few questions above are addressed exclusively to Flat Earthers!
Probably because the other fe'rs also realize you're confused. (except for scepti of course)
-
@ Scepti, it is really, really strange, i don't know what to think about these guys (Flat Earthers), are they so lazy to even try to grasp such a simple idea (ZIGZAG argument)?
What else could be their reason for refraining of any kind of a comment?
If they see some flaw in my argument why wouldn't they say it openly?
I offered to them - exclusively - to give their opinion on this subject, but there was no answer from them so far, and it seems that there will be no answer from them in any near future...
If they are unable to give some reasonable comment on such a simple argument, what should we expect of them if we wanted to ask them what are their opinions on a little bit more complicated arguments like it is, for instance, "EoT" argument???
REs at least don't hesitate to speak up, no matter how stupid and naive their arguments ARE, but these guys (FEs) just keep their mouths shut, and enjoy their party for deaf and dumb.
I mean, i mean, i mean...#t=2m33s (http://#t=2m33s)
Let's rename this forum into "John Madden society"... what do you think?
-
@ Scepti, it is really, really strange, i don't know what to think about these guys (Flat Earthers), are they so lazy to even try to grasp such a simple idea (ZIGZAG argument)?
What else could be their reason for refraining of any kind of a comment?
If they see some flaw in my argument why wouldn't they say it openly?
I offered to them - exclusively - to give their opinion on this subject, but there was no answer from them so far, and it seems that there will be no answer from them in any near future...
If they are unable to give some reasonable comment on such a simple argument, what should we expect of them if we wanted to ask them what are their opinions on a little bit more complicated arguments like it is, for instance, "EoT" argument???
REs at least don't hesitate to speak up, no matter how stupid and naive their arguments ARE, but these guys (FEs) just keep their mouths shut, and enjoy their party for deaf and dumb.
I mean, i mean, i mean...#t=2m33s (http://#t=2m33s)
Let's rename this forum into "John Madden society"... what do you think?
Scepti is not the only person who doesn't understand your zig zag argument, I don't understand how that would happen on a round Earth and I have never encountered anyone who does.
-
@ Scepti, it is really, really strange, i don't know what to think about these guys (Flat Earthers), are they so lazy to even try to grasp such a simple idea (ZIGZAG argument)?
What else could be their reason for refraining of any kind of a comment?
If they see some flaw in my argument why wouldn't they say it openly?
I offered to them - exclusively - to give their opinion on this subject, but there was no answer from them so far, and it seems that there will be no answer from them in any near future...
If they are unable to give some reasonable comment on such a simple argument, what should we expect of them if we wanted to ask them what are their opinions on a little bit more complicated arguments like it is, for instance, "EoT" argument???
REs at least don't hesitate to speak up, no matter how stupid and naive their arguments ARE, but these guys (FEs) just keep their mouths shut, and enjoy their party for deaf and dumb.
I mean, i mean, i mean...#t=2m33s (http://#t=2m33s)
Let's rename this forum into "John Madden society"... what do you think?
Scepti is not the only person who doesn't understand your zig zag argument, I don't understand how that would happen on a round Earth and I have never encountered anyone who does.
I'm just throwing this out there, but cikljamas might be talking about the Cadillac experiment. To produce a entry level luxury car for the masses.
(http://hooniverse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/3166738968_4b1799e5dd_o.jpg)
It was sadly a massive failure.
-
@ Scepti, is this place any better than "John Madden" society, according to you?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=7.0
@ Mikeman, if the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
My gosh, it is so simple, could it be more simple than this?
The beauty of this argument is in its simplicity, this is really that simple, so easy to imagine and grasp!
That is why i consider this argument one of the best pro-FET, contra-HC arguments, ever!
-
@ Scepti, is this place any better than "John Madden" society, according to you?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=7.0
@ Mikeman, if the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
My gosh, it is so simple, could it be more simple than this?
The beauty of this argument is in its simplicity, this is really that simple, so easy to imagine and grasp!
That is why i consider this argument one of the best pro-FET, contra-HC arguments, ever!
The sun is so far away that the change in location caused by being in the surface of a round rotating Earth would be so small that it would be dificult to measure, let alone have major effects. If that's not what you mean then please draw a diagram or something because I still don't get it. I could create a computer simulation of the Sun and Earth as round Earth theory describes and that would prove or disprove your theory, should I do that?
-
What makes this argument so hardly understandable? I really don't see what could that be...
Here is the diagram:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
How come that you haven't seen it already?
Do not create a computer simulation of the Sun and Earth as round Earth theory describes, you should create a computer simulation of what my ZIGZAG argument describes.
"change in location caused by being in the surface of a round rotating Earth would be so small that it would be dificult to measure"
What does that suppose to mean?
Are you all nuts, or what?
"So small change that it would be difficult to measure????????", OMG, this is really amazing assertion, really amazing!!! Is that your personal opinion or you are just repeating like a parrot Rotingroom's and Alpha2Omega's words???
Is this forum a mental institution or what?
-
What makes this argument so hardly understandable? I really don't see what could that be...
Here is the diagram:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)
How come that you haven't seen it already?
Do not create a computer simulation of the Sun and Earth as round Earth theory describes, you should create a computer simulation of what my ZIGZAG argument describes.
"change in location caused by being in the surface of a round rotating Earth would be so small that it would be dificult to measure"
What does that suppose to mean?
Are you all nuts, or what?
"So small change that it would be difficult to measure????????", OMG, this is really amazing assertion, really amazing!!! Is that your personal opinion or you are just repeating like a parrot Rotingroom's and Alpha2Omega's words???
Is this forum a mental institution or what?
I think I get it now, are you referring to the parallax caused by your change in position? If so, that effect would be to small to notice and almost too small to measure because the Sun is 93,000,000 miles away and over 1,000,000 times the size of the Earth. If you are referring to how the sun goes west to east when it's hidden by the Earth then that proves nothing because how else would the sun get east of you to rise in the east after it set in the west.
By the way, have you ever considered that the reason why everybody is saying that that effect is hard to measure might have something to do with that actually being the case? Imagine you are standing a few dozen miles away from a huge skyscraper and then you step left and right a few feet, would you notice the skyscraper zig zagging because of your change in position? Now imagine that it takes you 12 hours to go that few feet to the left, how noticeable would the zig zag of the skyscraper be?
-
You can't be serious, tell me that you are joking.
What "few feet to the left" are you talking about?
See my diagram again if you need to.
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
So, now i ask you again:
What is the meaning of your sentence: "Now imagine that it takes you 12 hours to go that few feet to the left, how noticeable would the zig zag of the skyscraper be?"
What a few feet are you talking about?
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point, where do you see in this scenario any place for drawing such funny parallels (your hypothetical "few feet")?
-
What makes this argument so hardly understandable? I really don't see what could that be...
Your zig-zag argument is very easy to understand.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
-
You can't be serious, tell me that you are joking.
What "few feet to the left" are you talking about?
See my diagram again if you need to.
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
So, now i ask you again:
What is the meaning of your sentence: "Now imagine that it takes you 12 hours to go that few feet to the left, how noticeable would the zig zag of the skyscraper be?"
What a few feet are you talking about?
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point, where do you see in this scenario any place for drawing such funny parallels (your hypothetical "few feet")?
I am currently working on a computer simulation of what you are talking about, I have even increased the size of Earth and decreased the distance to the Sun just to show you how small this effect is.
Here is a render I made that compares the relative sizes of the Earth and the Sun in my simulation:
(http://i.imgur.com/Hs85ffz.jpg)
-
What makes this argument so hardly understandable? I really don't see what could that be...
Your zig-zag argument is very easy to understand.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
Finally someone who doesn't came from twilight zone! Thanks for understanding such a simple concept! Isn't it amazing how such simple argument is able to destroy the whole HC tower (built of an utter bullshit), with just one easy swing?
Mikeman, you don't know what you are talking about...
-
Put candle on table. Look straight ahead. Spin around in circles. See a zig zag candle? no. Simple as that to disprove all you say.
-
I have just finished my simulation animation thingy, here it is:
(http://i.imgur.com/Cvb0hvc.gif)
Ignore the nonsense going on with the stars, the Blender star feature makes the stars appear closer then I would like. Pay attention to how little the Sun wobbles, and this is when Earth is expended, the distance to the Sun is less, and time is WAY faster. Now can you see why this effect is too small to notice?
-
What makes this argument so hardly understandable? I really don't see what could that be...
Your zig-zag argument is very easy to understand.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
Finally someone who doesn't came from twilight zone! Thanks for understanding such a simple concept! Isn't it amazing how such simple argument is able to destroy the whole HC tower (built of an utter bullshit), with just one easy swing?
Mikeman, you don't know what you are talking about...
I understand what you are trying to say, but you are simply wrong. If you stood inside the arctic circle and watched the sun for 24 hours, it would appear to move right in relation to the horizon the entire time. If you tracked the sun the whole time, the horizon would appear to move left the entire time. It would not zig-zag back and forth. Your diagram is drawn wrong.
-
What makes this argument so hardly understandable? I really don't see what could that be...
Your zig-zag argument is very easy to understand.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
-
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
Are you asking me to add some Aussie slang into what cikljamas has written so it will be in my own words?
For I am Aussie.
Other than that, I have only read what he has written and understood it. So I would only be repeating what he has written, and that would be silly.
Maybe if you ask him politely he could try to help you again.
-
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
Are you asking me to add some Aussie slang into what cikljamas has written so it will be in my own words?
For I am Aussie.
Other than that, I have only read what he has written and understood it. So I would only be repeating what he has written, and that would be silly.
Maybe if you ask him politely he could try to help you again.
So, let's try to help them once more:
If this doesn't help them to understand ZIGZAG argument, then nothing will:
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
By, by heliocentricity!!!
1. ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.420#.VMeW9PL5N_U (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.420#.VMeW9PL5N_U)
2. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824)
3. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night. Read more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645458#msg1645458 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645458#msg1645458)
4. Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
5. Has jury reached a verdict? Yes, HC is sentenced to death : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639873#msg1639873 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639873#msg1639873)
My condolences to all REs!
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://)
-
Is the zig zag problem a problem for the FET impossible South Pole midnight sun?
-
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
Are you asking me to add some Aussie slang into what cikljamas has written so it will be in my own words?
For I am Aussie.
Other than that, I have only read what he has written and understood it. So I would only be repeating what he has written, and that would be silly.
Maybe if you ask him politely he could try to help you again.
So, let's try to help them once more:
If this doesn't help them to understand ZIGZAG argument, then nothing will:
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
By, by heliocentricity!!!
1. ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.420#.VMeW9PL5N_U (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.420#.VMeW9PL5N_U)
2. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824)
3. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night. Read more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645458#msg1645458 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645458#msg1645458)
4. Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
5. Has jury reached a verdict? Yes, HC is sentenced to death : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639873#msg1639873 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639873#msg1639873)
My condolences to all REs!
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://)
Repeating false statements over and over does not make them true.
-
Is the zig zag problem a problem for the FET impossible South Pole midnight sun?
Had you been diligent enough, by scrolling 30 pages back, you would have been able to found my answer to your false claims : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644134#msg1644134 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644134#msg1644134)
-
I'm at work so I can't watch it, but what does a video about the pope have to do with anything? I am talking about the midnight sun in the south.
-
I'm at work so I can't watch it, but what does a video about the pope have to do with anything? I am talking about the midnight sun in the south.
Sokarul, you have been faster than me for just about 4 seconds (see the time when i edited my post), you are really, really fast gunman, you should have lived in golden wild west age... ;D
By pulling your pistol so fast, you can save your life, but if you want to properly comprehend some theoretical concepts you must think a little bit slower, but not too slow, also... ;)
-
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
Are you asking me to add some Aussie slang into what cikljamas has written so it will be in my own words?
For I am Aussie.
Other than that, I have only read what he has written and understood it. So I would only be repeating what he has written, and that would be silly.
Maybe if you ask him politely he could try to help you again.
So, let's try to help them once more:
If this doesn't help them to understand ZIGZAG argument, then nothing will:
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
By, by heliocentricity!!!
1. ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.420#.VMeW9PL5N_U (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.420#.VMeW9PL5N_U)
2. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824)
3. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night. Read more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645458#msg1645458 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645458#msg1645458)
4. Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
5. Has jury reached a verdict? Yes, HC is sentenced to death : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639873#msg1639873 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639873#msg1639873)
My condolences to all REs!
Flat Earth All Around You : (http://)
I refer you to this:
I have just finished my simulation animation thingy, here it is:
(http://i.imgur.com/Cvb0hvc.gif)
Ignore the nonsense going on with the stars, the Blender star feature makes the stars appear closer then I would like. Pay attention to how little the Sun wobbles, and this is when Earth is expended, the distance to the Sun is less, and time is WAY faster. Now can you see why this effect is too small to notice?
That simulation is proof that the effect is too small to notice. By the way, click on the link in my signature labeled "R.I.P. Flat Earth Theory" to see my irrefutable proof that the Earth is round.
-
I'm at work so I can't watch it, but what does a video about the pope have to do with anything? I am talking about the midnight sun in the south.
Sokarul, you have been faster than me for just about 4 seconds (see the time when i edited my post), you are really, really fast gunman, you should have lived in golden wild west age... ;D
By pulling your pistol so fast, you can save your life, but if you want to properly comprehend some theoretical concepts you must think a little bit slower, but not too slow, also... ;)
They do understand what you're saying but they will never accept it. the reasons are obvious. They aren't here to find a truth - they are here to hang onto a lie and to keep their mass indoctrinated beliefs intact.
The mere fact that the so called scientific top dogs have had to make up so many names for fictional forces to keep the globe alive should be enough in itself to tell any rational thinker that there's something seriously wrong.
The problem is, they know there is something seriously wrong with a lot of it but their ego's will not allow them to change their stance, because they have been made to believe that anyone who thinks or shows alternatives to their accepted ways, are deemed unstable nutcases. It's fed directly into their psyche by mainstream media and schooling.
I've been keeping tabs on what you've been posting, as well as the videos you put up. All I can say is, there's a lot of people adhereing to what you are giving out, so don't think for a second that you are doing it in vain.
The only issue left is to figure out exactly how the Earth is and stands in the grand scheme of things.
We've ruled out space being what we are told. We've ruled out Earth being a globe.
We know that Earth is basically flatish.
Trying to reason with many of these people is like urinating against the wind on top of a 50 mph moving car.
Believe me, most on here know they aren't living on a globe. They wouldn't be here if they did. Only some are here to muddy the waters, deliberately and you can spot them a mile off. I know you can, easily.
-
I'm at work so I can't watch it, but what does a video about the pope have to do with anything? I am talking about the midnight sun in the south.
Sokarul, you have been faster than me for just about 4 seconds (see the time when i edited my post), you are really, really fast gunman, you should have lived in golden wild west age... ;D
By pulling your pistol so fast, you can save your life, but if you want to properly comprehend some theoretical concepts you must think a little bit slower, but not too slow, also... ;)
They do understand what you're saying but they will never accept it. the reasons are obvious. They aren't here to find a truth - they are here to hang onto a lie and to keep their mass indoctrinated beliefs intact.
The mere fact that the so called scientific top dogs have had to make up so many names for fictional forces to keep the globe alive should be enough in itself to tell any rational thinker that there's something seriously wrong.
The problem is, they know there is something seriously wrong with a lot of it but their ego's will not allow them to change their stance, because they have been made to believe that anyone who thinks or shows alternatives to their accepted ways, are deemed unstable nutcases. It's fed directly into their psyche by mainstream media and schooling.
I've been keeping tabs on what you've been posting, as well as the videos you put up. All I can say is, there's a lot of people adhereing to what you are giving out, so don't think for a second that you are doing it in vain.
The only issue left is to figure out exactly how the Earth is and stands in the grand scheme of things.
We've ruled out space being what we are told. We've ruled out Earth being a globe.
We know that Earth is basically flatish.
Trying to reason with many of these people is like urinating against the wind on top of a 50 mph moving car.
Believe me, most on here know they aren't living on a globe. They wouldn't be here if they did. Only some are here to muddy the waters, deliberately and you can spot them a mile off. I know you can, easily.
What an I invisible? Has anyone seen my simulation that proves how small this effect is?
I have just finished my simulation animation thingy, here it is:
(http://i.imgur.com/Cvb0hvc.gif)
Ignore the nonsense going on with the stars, the Blender star feature makes the stars appear closer then I would like. Pay attention to how little the Sun wobbles, and this is when Earth is expended, the distance to the Sun is less, and time is WAY faster. Now can you see why this effect is too small to notice?
I could even post my .blend file if someone wants to check the numbers.
-
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
Are you asking me to add some Aussie slang into what cikljamas has written so it will be in my own words?
For I am Aussie.
Other than that, I have only read what he has written and understood it. So I would only be repeating what he has written, and that would be silly.
Maybe if you ask him politely he could try to help you again.
Because if its so simple to you, then explain it to us dense meatheads that you had to poke in the eye by saying you could get it.
I fully expect you're just like scepti and just bandwagoning for the sake of cause.
-
SCEPTI SAYS: Believe me, most on here know they aren't living on a globe. They wouldn't be here if they did. Only some are here to muddy the waters, deliberately and you can spot them a mile off. I know you can, easily.
Well, let me name a few of them : Alpha2Omega, 29silhouette, ausGeoff, Rotingroom, Sokarul, Mikeman, JimmyTheCrabb, i apologize if i left someone out of this list...
SCEPTI SAYS:Trying to reason with many of these people is like urinating against the wind on top of a 50 mph moving car.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
SCEPTI SAYS:The only issue left is to figure out exactly how the Earth is and stands in the grand scheme of things.
We've ruled out space being what we are told. We've ruled out Earth being a globe.
We know that Earth is basically flatish.
Absolutely true!!!
SCEPTI SAYS:I've been keeping tabs on what you've been posting, as well as the videos you put up. All I can say is, there's a lot of people adhereing to what you are giving out, so don't think for a second that you are doing it in vain.
Thanks for encouraging me, your role in this thread has been very precious, and i know that you are very well aware of that fact! So, thumbs up for you once more!
SCEPTI SAYS:They do understand what you're saying but they will never accept it. the reasons are obvious. They aren't here to find a truth - they are here to hang onto a lie and to keep their mass indoctrinated beliefs intact.
Yeap!
MIKEMAN SAYS: What an I invisible? Has anyone seen my simulation that proves how small this effect is?
You are not invisible, you are just hilarious!!! ;D
-
SCEPTI SAYS: Believe me, most on here know they aren't living on a globe. They wouldn't be here if they did. Only some are here to muddy the waters, deliberately and you can spot them a mile off. I know you can, easily.
Well, let me name a few of them : Alpha2Omega, 29silhouette, ausGeoff, Rotingroom, Sokarul, Mikeman, JimmyTheCrabb, i apologize if i left someone out of this list...
SCEPTI SAYS:Trying to reason with many of these people is like urinating against the wind on top of a 50 mph moving car.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
SCEPTI SAYS:The only issue left is to figure out exactly how the Earth is and stands in the grand scheme of things.
We've ruled out space being what we are told. We've ruled out Earth being a globe.
We know that Earth is basically flatish.
Absolutely true!!!
SCEPTI SAYS:I've been keeping tabs on what you've been posting, as well as the videos you put up. All I can say is, there's a lot of people adhereing to what you are giving out, so don't think for a second that you are doing it in vain.
Thanks for encouraging me, your role in this thread has been very precious, and i know that you are very well aware of that fact! So, thumbs up for you once more!
SCEPTI SAYS:They do understand what you're saying but they will never accept it. the reasons are obvious. They aren't here to find a truth - they are here to hang onto a lie and to keep their mass indoctrinated beliefs intact.
Yeap!
MIKEMAN SAYS: What an I invisible? Has anyone seen my simulation that proves how small this effect is?
You are not invisible, you are just hilarious!!! ;D
What exactaly is wrong with my simulation to make it invalid? There must be something if you are rejecting it.
-
Mikeman, since i am not skilled in making a video animations, I have sent an apeal to Rory Cooper, if he would be so willing to invest a little of his precious time in making a video animation on a basis of my ZIGZAG argument. You can see my request which i sent to him, below his new interesting and amusing video : (http://)
But, honestly, you should be able to understand this simple argument without anyone's help.
You should have put an observer (camera) (somewhere within an arctic circle), on your rotating globe (not behind a globe), so that we could see what an observer would be able to see while he is spinning on a globe, that's what you have done wrong.
Anyway, i still think that you are kidding me.
-
Mikeman, since i am not skilled in making a video animations, I have sent an apeal to Rory Cooper, if he would be so willing to invest a little of his precious time in making a video animation on a basis of my ZIGZAG argument. You can see my request which i sent to him, below his new interesting and amusing video : (http://)
But, honestly, you should be able to understand this simple argument without anyone's help.
You should have put an observer (camera) (somewhere within an arctic circle), on your rotating globe (not behind a globe), so that we could see what an observer would be able to see while he is spinning on a globe, that's what you have done wrong.
Anyway, i still think that you are kidding me.
The camera in my simulation is on the globe, it's center point never moves in relation to the surface and it's absolute orientation never changes, it's also at a quite high altitude on Earth but that's so you can see the sun better.
-
Mikeman, since i am not skilled in making a video animations, I have sent an apeal to Rory Cooper, if he would be so willing to invest a little of his precious time in making a video animation on a basis of my ZIGZAG argument. You can see my request which i sent to him, below his new interesting and amusing video : (http://)
But, honestly, you should be able to understand this simple argument without anyone's help.
You should have put an observer (camera) (somewhere within an arctic circle), on your rotating globe (not behind a globe), so that we could see what an observer would be able to see while he is spinning on a globe, that's what you have done wrong.
Anyway, i still think that you are kidding me.
The camera in my simulation is on the globe, it's center point never moves in relation to the surface and it's absolute orientation never changes, it's also at a quite high altitude on Earth but that's so you can see the sun better.
You camera is a space camera in your space looking over a globe. You know this and are taking the urine.
-
Mikeman, since i am not skilled in making a video animations, I have sent an apeal to Rory Cooper, if he would be so willing to invest a little of his precious time in making a video animation on a basis of my ZIGZAG argument. You can see my request which i sent to him, below his new interesting and amusing video : (http://)
But, honestly, you should be able to understand this simple argument without anyone's help.
You should have put an observer (camera) (somewhere within an arctic circle), on your rotating globe (not behind a globe), so that we could see what an observer would be able to see while he is spinning on a globe, that's what you have done wrong.
Anyway, i still think that you are kidding me.
The camera in my simulation is on the globe, it's center point never moves in relation to the surface and it's absolute orientation never changes, it's also at a quite high altitude on Earth but that's so you can see the sun better.
You camera is a space camera in your space looking over a globe. You know this and are taking the urine.
How does the camera being at a higher altitude effect this at all? Isn't the point of this that the Sun moves across the sky due to parallax caused by your change of position doe to the Earth's rotation? If that's the case then why does your altitude matter as long as the camera as moving as if it's on the surface?
-
Mikeman, since i am not skilled in making a video animations, I have sent an apeal to Rory Cooper, if he would be so willing to invest a little of his precious time in making a video animation on a basis of my ZIGZAG argument. You can see my request which i sent to him, below his new interesting and amusing video : (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=L4fTfoqKSIc)
But, honestly, you should be able to understand this simple argument without anyone's help.
You should have put an observer (camera) (somewhere within an arctic circle), on your rotating globe (not behind a globe), so that we could see what an observer would be able to see while he is spinning on a globe, that's what you have done wrong.
Anyway, i still think that you are kidding me.
The camera in my simulation is on the globe, it's center point never moves in relation to the surface and it's absolute orientation never changes, it's also at a quite high altitude on Earth but that's so you can see the sun better.
You camera is a space camera in your space looking over a globe. You know this and are taking the urine.
How does the camera being at a higher altitude effect this at all? Isn't the point of this that the Sun moves across the sky due to parallax caused by your change of position doe to the Earth's rotation? If that's the case then why does your altitude matter as long as the camera as moving as if it's on the surface?
You didn't answer to his urine allegation.
-
Awesome, explain it in your own words to us then.
Are you asking me to add some Aussie slang into what cikljamas has written so it will be in my own words?
For I am Aussie.
Other than that, I have only read what he has written and understood it. So I would only be repeating what he has written, and that would be silly.
Maybe if you ask him politely he could try to help you again.
Because if its so simple to you, then explain it to us dense meatheads that you had to poke in the eye by saying you could get it.
I fully expect you're just like scepti and just bandwagoning for the sake of cause.
I know I should not be responding to this.
Put a torch on a table and turn it on. Get some chalk and make a cross on the floor a meter in size. Now number the ends of the cross 1 2 3 4. Make sure you number these in one direction, it will keep you from getting confused. Now step on the 1, then step on the 2 and so on. As you go around face the torch and watch what happens. Oh shit the light source looks like it is zigzagging.
-
Mikeman, since i am not skilled in making a video animations, I have sent an apeal to Rory Cooper, if he would be so willing to invest a little of his precious time in making a video animation on a basis of my ZIGZAG argument. You can see my request which i sent to him, below his new interesting and amusing video : (http://)
But, honestly, you should be able to understand this simple argument without anyone's help.
You should have put an observer (camera) (somewhere within an arctic circle), on your rotating globe (not behind a globe), so that we could see what an observer would be able to see while he is spinning on a globe, that's what you have done wrong.
Anyway, i still think that you are kidding me.
The camera in my simulation is on the globe, it's center point never moves in relation to the surface and it's absolute orientation never changes, it's also at a quite high altitude on Earth but that's so you can see the sun better.
If that is so, then what your video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absoulute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what your video animation shows:
(http://i.imgur.com/Cvb0hvc.gif)
Now, you have to ask yourself has anyone ever witnessed such a scenario in reality?
Of course not!
Regarding our ZIGZAG scenario (which is something completely different from my argument No 1), you have to ask yourself the same question: Has anyone ever witnessed such a scenario in reality?
Now, make another video (according ZIGZAG scenario), and put your observer (camera) 1000 miles, or even better, 2000 miles away from Potato's axis and let us see what your camera has recorded. O.K.?
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
When you combine these two arguments, then our argumentation against the alleged Potato's rotation is even more strenghten.
It is so obvious that the Earth is at rest that no sane person would dare to even try to refute these strong arguments against alleged Potato's spin, do you agree?
@ Scepti, regarding your excellent posts that you have written in new "Great conspiracy..." thread, i would like to show you one link (http://)
That's the link that i have put (by mistake) yesterday in my answer to Sokarul.
Interesting quote:
I THINK YOU'D SHOCK SOME CHRISTIANS IF YOU'D REMIND THEM THAT THE BIBLE SAYS THE SUN, MOON and STARS WERE NOT CREATED UNTIL THE FOURTH DAY OF CREATION!--Totally contrary to their theory!
You've heard that slop that they put out about the big ball of fire first, the sun coming first, and the sun threw off these planets, and you thought maybe that's the way God created it.--All pure evil imagination, that's all! It just isn't so! It just didn't happen that way. What did God make first?--The Heaven and the Earth! (Gen.1:1)
When I was young, they said the process of evolution had taken only a few million years. By the time I was a young teenager in high school, it had grown to a few hundred million. But by the time I got to college age, they were already hitting the billion mark! And I notice now they've gone up to 4-1/2 billion, because the further they can put it back, the more impossible it is to both prove or disprove.
The discovery that the sun is shrinking may prove to be the downfall of the accepted theory of solar evolution. All accepted theories of the evolution of the stars are based on the assumption that thermonuclear fusion is the energy source for the stars. If this assumption is unjustified for our own star, the sun, it is unjustified for the other stars too. The entire theoretical description of the evolution of the universe is at stake. With the stakes that high, it is no wonder that the experimental evidence for the shrinkage of the sun is "explained away" by evolutionists. Evolutionists claim that the sun probably undergoes temporary shrinkages and expansions as small fluctuating oscillations on its overall regular evolutionary development. They point to other cyclic solar occurrences such as the 11-year sunspot cycle on the surface of the sun. This claim is made in spite of the evidence that the shrinkage rate of the sun has remained essentially constant over the past 100 years when very accurate measurements have been made on the size of the sun. Less accurate astronomical records spanning the past 400 years indicate the shrinkage rate has remained the same for the past 400 years.
The change in the size of the sun over the past 400 years is important in the study of origins. Over 100 thousand years these changes would have accumulated so much that life of any kind on the earth would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, all life on the earth must be less than 100 thousand years (upper limit) old.
Those dates as upper limits rule out any possibility of evolution requiring hundreds of millions of years. However, the tiny change that would have occurred in the sun during the Biblical time since creation would be so small as to go almost unnoticed. Thus, the changes in the sun are consistent with recent creation.
The changes detected in the sun call into question the accepted thermonuclear fusion energy source for the sun. This, in turn, questions the entire theoretical structure upon which the evolutionary theory of astrophysics is built.
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/xprx75nj4yy09q1c75.jpg)
And pope Francis doesn't know any of this... OMG, what a moron, what a shame for the catholic church, what an apostasy...
-
My animation does show the Sun wobbling, but you can barely see it. I made my animation with about half of the RE distance to the Sun, the Earth being about 10x as large as normal, and time sped op by a factor of 86,400. If you can barely see the wobble on my animation then how small do you think it would be if my animation was more to scale? The point I am trying to make is that although the wobble does exist it's far too small to notice.
-
Mikeman, just answer to this simple question:
What is the main (or even exclusive) cause (according to HC theory) for the apparent daily motion of the Sun (and of the other celestial lights) across the sky?
-
Mikeman, just answer to this simple question:
What is the main (or even exclusive) cause (according to HC theory) for the apparent daily motion of the Sun (and of the other celestial lights) across the sky?
It's the rotation of the Earth.
-
Mikeman, just answer to this simple question:
What is the main (or even exclusive) cause (according to HC theory) for the apparent daily motion of the Sun (and of the other celestial lights) across the sky?
It's the rotation of the Earth.
So now you mentioned this, don't you think your camera would be best placed ON the actual rotating Earth and not in your space?
-
Mikeman, just answer to this simple question:
What is the main (or even exclusive) cause (according to HC theory) for the apparent daily motion of the Sun (and of the other celestial lights) across the sky?
It's the rotation of the Earth.
So now you mentioned this, don't you think your camera would be best placed ON the actual rotating Earth and not in your space?
Like these? Where's the zig zag?
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
Mikeman, just answer to this simple question:
What is the main (or even exclusive) cause (according to HC theory) for the apparent daily motion of the Sun (and of the other celestial lights) across the sky?
It's the rotation of the Earth.
So now you mentioned this, don't you think your camera would be best placed ON the actual rotating Earth and not in your space?
The camera is parented to the Earth and it has no location key frames, which is jargon for the camera is in the same place relative to the Earth the entire time. The reason I moved the camera up into space is just so you can see the Sun the whole time, but the motion of the camera is the same as it would be if it were on the surface. Imagine that the camera is just on the top of an insanely tall building in the arctic circle. The camera is above the same point on Earth during the entire animation.
-
1. Since there isn't any ZIGZAG anywhere, this is the plain, simple and absolute proof that there isn't any rotation of the Potato anywhere, also.
2. First video (Antarctic Midnight Sun) is obviously a hoax.
This video is an obvious hoax, because South Pole doesn't exist, and even if the South Pole existed, then this video would be another proof (because of the lack of ZIGZAG phenomena) against the alleged Potato's rotation.
On top of that, in the South Pole ZIGZAG phenomena would be necessity in both cases:
A) If the Earth were flat
B) If the Earth were round and spun on it's axis.
2a. This hoax video must have been shot somewhere within Arctic circle, close to the North Pole.
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
4. Third video could have been recorded somewhere at the edge of the great South Wall, but in this video there is nothing of any importance for our discussion...
@ Mikeman :
1. Start to use your brain, and stop taking the urine (pretending that you are stupid).
2. Make a new video in accordance with my instructions.
-
1. Since there isn't any ZIGZAG anywhere, this is the plain, simple and absolute proof that there isn't any rotation of the Potato anywhere, also.
2. First video (Antarctic Midnight Sun) is obviously a hoax.
This video is an obvious hoax, because South Pole doesn't exist, and even if the South Pole existed, then this video would be another proof (because of the lack of ZIGZAG phenomena) against the alleged Potato's rotation.
On top of that, in the South Pole ZIGZAG phenomena would be necessity in both cases:
A) If the Earth were flat
B) If the Earth were round and spun on it's axis.
2a. This hoax video must have been shot somewhere within Arctic circle, close to the North Pole.
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
4. Third video could have been recorded somewhere at the edge of the great South Wall, but in this video there is nothing of any importance for our discussion...
@ Mikeman :
1. Start to use your brain, and stop taking the urine (pretending that you are stupid).
2. Make a new video in accordance with my instructions.
In my animation the camera is actually around the Greenland longitude, I exaggerated so many things in that animation and still the effect is tiny and could only be noticed with a camera hooked up to an automatic equatorial mount that tracks with incredible precision. If time went at the same speed on a proportional animation then the zig zag would be smaller by at least a factor of 50.
-
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
Are you completely crazy?
From now on i am going to stop responding to your bullshit-hand-waving performance...you've just gone too far with your stupidity...
-
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
Are you completely crazy?
From now on i am going to stop responding to your bullshit-hand-waving performance...you've just gone too far with your stupidity...
I was talking about the zig zag, not the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky. Did you even read my post?
-
Like these? Where's the zig zag?
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
Fixed links.
The entire "zig-zag" argument of cikljamas is ridiculous, and a total waste of time even discussing further.
-
Like these? Where's the zig zag?
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
Fixed links.
The entire "zig-zag" argument of cikljamas is ridiculous, and a total waste of time even discussing further.
I was posting on my phone.
The second video is the one I was looking for and found a bunch of videos.
1. Since there isn't any ZIGZAG anywhere, this is the plain, simple and absolute proof that there isn't any rotation of the Potato anywhere, also.
Or your zig zag argument is crap.
2. First video (Antarctic Midnight Sun) is obviously a hoax.
Only because it's impossible on a flat earth, not because you have evidence of it being a hoax. Also, how do you explain away 1000s of accounts of midnight sun in antarctic region?
This video is an obvious hoax, because South Pole doesn't exist, and even if the South Pole existed, then this video would be another proof (because of the lack of ZIGZAG phenomena) against the alleged Potato's rotation.
Your attempt to prove it didn't exist failed.
On top of that, in the South Pole ZIGZAG phenomena would be necessity in both cases:
A) If the Earth were flat
B) If the Earth were round and spun on it's axis.
Or more the likely your zigzag argument is crap, still.
2a. This hoax video must have been shot somewhere within Arctic circle, close to the North Pole.
And all the other accounts of the midnight sun in the antartic?
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
It contains no zigzag. So it's agreed your zigzag argument is false.
4. Third video could have been recorded somewhere at the edge of the great South Wall, but in this video there is nothing of any importance for our discussion...
Just a midnight sun in the Antarctic.
-
I know I should not be responding to this.
Put a torch on a table and turn it on. Get some chalk and make a cross on the floor a meter in size. Now number the ends of the cross 1 2 3 4. Make sure you number these in one direction, it will keep you from getting confused. Now step on the 1, then step on the 2 and so on. As you go around face the torch and watch what happens. Oh shit the light source looks like it is zigzagging.
And what should the sun be "zig zagging" in relation to? The horizon? Are you saying as someone slowly turned in order to track the sun for 24 hours in the Arctic circle, that as some point the horizon would stop moving left and the sun would stop moving right, and they would reverse direction?
-
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
No, it's just proof your zig-zag hypothesis is a joke.
-
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
No, it's just proof your zig-zag hypothesis is a joke.
Of course, as usual you guys adopt the dumbest strategy. Simply deny the argument without trying to understand it. Great! If you can't disprove it let's deny it. Don't you think you're a little predictable by now?
-
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
No, it's just proof your zig-zag hypothesis is a joke.
Of course, as usual you guys adopt the dumbest strategy. Simply deny the argument without trying to understand it. Great! If you can't disprove it let's deny it. Don't you think you're a little predictable by now?
What kind of strategy is crying hoax every time you can't explain something?
-
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
No, it's just proof your zig-zag hypothesis is a joke.
Of course, as usual you guys adopt the dumbest strategy. Simply deny the argument without trying to understand it. Great! If you can't disprove it let's deny it. Don't you think you're a little predictable by now?
What kind of strategy is crying hoax every time you can't explain something?
You're the one who can't explain why the zigzag argument is wrong.
-
Most global Earther's who come on here are like lazy teenagers. They prefer to stay asleep for as long as possible and will only wake up when they realise they're laying, saturated in their own urine.
-
Looks like you know all about it septic. Maybe wash your sheets.
-
Looks like you know all about it septic. Maybe wash your sheets.
Maybe rather wash your brain after HC-RET brainwashing, or explain why ZIGZAG argument is wrong?
This is the moment for opening champagne, because it's more than obvious that ZIGZAG argument is that final HC stumbling block, after which first presentation (more than 30 pages back) and after additional explanations that i have put forward in last few pages, all that you can do is to declare unconditional capitulation!
Only, it seems that some FEs here are teetotalists..., so waiter, please bring us a couple of glasses of milk, also...
Cheers!
-
Looks like you know all about it septic. Maybe wash your sheets.
Maybe rather wash your brain after HC-RET brainwashing, or explain why ZIGZAG argument is wrong?
This is the moment for opening champagne, because it's more than obvious that ZIGZAG argument is that final HC stumbling block, after which first presentation (more than 30 pages back) and after additional explanations that i have put forward in last few pages, all that you can do is to declare unconditional capitulation!
Only, it seems that some FEs here are teetotalists..., so waiter, please bring us a couple of glasses of milk, also...
Cheers!
I proved how small the zig zag is with my animation, so could you stop going around claiming that you killed heliocentricity with your flawed argument? I expect that now you are going to start about how I don't understand your argument ::)
-
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
No, it's just proof your zig-zag hypothesis is a joke.
Of course, as usual you guys adopt the dumbest strategy. Simply deny the argument without trying to understand it. Great! If you can't disprove it let's deny it. Don't you think you're a little predictable by now?
What kind of strategy is crying hoax every time you can't explain something?
You're the one who can't explain why the zigzag argument is wrong.
And you guys cry hoax whenever you can't explain or don't understand something.
I showed it to be wrong, like others in the past.
-
3. Second video (Arctic Midnight Sun) is obviously authentic and 100 % certain proof against the rotation of our alleged Potato.
No, it's just proof your zig-zag hypothesis is a joke.
Of course, as usual you guys adopt the dumbest strategy. Simply deny the argument without trying to understand it. Great! If you can't disprove it let's deny it. Don't you think you're a little predictable by now?
Ok, I'll ask you too. What type of zig-zag should be observed by someone standing within the arctic circle and watching the sun all day? The sun would move right in relation to the horizon, which would be seen to move left if the person or camera tracks the sun the entire 24 hours (as seen in the video).
Are you, cikljamas, and tappet all saying the sun would stop and move back to the left in relation to the horizon for several hours?
-
just wondering if any-one here has "checked out" those Y-tb vidz which show a flat Earth horizon from several miles up...... ???
there is one with a balloon that went up to, i think, over 35klmtr altitude and another with an amateur rocket that went up to abt 30klmtr altitude......
all clearly showed the Earth "as flat as a pan-cake" :-X
(the balloon Y-tb vid' was of a flight/ascent sponsored by Red Bull drinks, i think)
-
Most global Earther's who come on here are like lazy teenagers. They prefer to stay asleep for as long as possible and will only wake up when they realise they're laying, saturated in their own urine.
Why am I not in the least surprised to see sceptimatic back to his old tricks despite just having been benched for a couple of weeks.
Low content; off-topic; personal insults; offensive language. Let's see if the moderators do their job as they should with his comments.
-
Low content; off-topic; personal insults; offensive language. Let's see if the moderators do their job as they should with his comments.
uh......."personal insults and offensive language"?
don't you mean content that challenges your politically correct, pseudo-marxist, God-hating garbage "world view" ?.....which seems to be the national "religion" of your country, eh?!? ::)
-
uh......."personal insults and offensive language"?
don't you mean content that challenges your politically correct, pseudo-marxist, God-hating garbage "world view" ?.....which seems to be the national "religion" of your country, eh?
You need to be made aware that these forums are nominally science-based, and are not intended to act as a platform for religious proselytizing. Science and religion are not compatible, and religion has no place in any serious scientific debate.
No scientist, or person of a scientific bent believes in the existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena—as you obviously do.
All your postings thus far have been nothing more than thinly-disguised religious and racist diatribes which have no relevance or bearing on the content of any of these forums.
Please go away. Thank you.
-
uh......."personal insults and offensive language"?
don't you mean content that challenges your politically correct, pseudo-marxist, God-hating garbage "world view" ?.....which seems to be the national "religion" of your country, eh?
You need to be made aware that these forums are nominally science-based, and are not intended to act as a platform for religious proselytizing. Science and religion are not compatible, and religion has no place in any serious scientific debate.
No scientist, or person of a scientific bent believes in the existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena—as you obviously do.
All your postings thus far have been nothing more than thinly-disguised religious and racist diatribes which have no relevance or bearing on the content of any of these forums.
Please go away. Thank you.
Just because you don't accept it does not mean everyone has to follow your suit. I don't follow a god but I have no issues with anyone who does. why?
Because deep down, we don't know what the trueness of life is in it's entirety.
You just believe you know it all because you're like a daft kid who believes reading your little science books with colourful pictures makes you some kind of expert, when - if you take them away from you, you're about as much use as a ice sculptured fire-guard. ;D
-
29silhouette, even the average kid in elementary school is able to easily understand ZIGZAG argument, so what are you trying to prove here? It seems that you would be much more happy if we were to believe that you are a plain idiot instead that you are just a repugnant shill (what you really are, aren't you?)???
Thus, my ZIGZAG argument is not just last nail in HC-RET coffin, it is also the final test that helps us to discern a plain idiot from an ordinary coward (a.k.a. repugnant shill).
So, this is not (any more) kind of a game "who is right, who is wrong", from now on this is kind of a game "have you got enough integrity to admit obvious obviousness of ZIGZAG argument or you have no integrity whatsoever?" !!!
St James, of course that they have seen these videos, and even if they didn't see them earlier, then they certainly watched at least a few excerpts which has been taken out from some of those videos, after i uploaded next two videos to youtube channel:
FLAT EARTH ALL AROUND YOU : (http://)
The picture is worth a thousand words : (http://)
P.S. Would you like to see what ausGeoff could come up with while trying to answer to this question:
I'm starting to read, "the art of happiness" based on epicurus. He basically states that, according to his theories on atomism, when a person dies, they cease to exist, it might as well have been that they were never born. That there is no such thing as a heaven or hell, and that there is gods, but that they don't concern us and we surely don't concern them. I'm not trying to start any kind of religious debate, i'm more interested if anyone could give me some solid explanations for my way of thinking (and i'm sure that a lot of other people think this way so i think it would be interesting to pick this apart).
So basically, I believe this concept is the most likely outcome. we die, and nothing becomes of us. we have no feelings towards actual death or regrets or any lasting impression, we just no longer exist. this shouldn't be groundbreaking, but what i want to know is, "why do i feel the need to still be a good person, and have any kind of lasting effect after my death. If life is so fleeting for every individual, and when we die, it's all over anyway; why do i care about what i've done and what kind of footprint it leaves?"
-
uh......."personal insults and offensive language"?
don't you mean content that challenges your politically correct, pseudo-marxist, God-hating garbage "world view" ?.....which seems to be the national "religion" of your country, eh?
You need to be made aware that these forums are nominally science-based, and are not intended to act as a platform for religious proselytizing. Science and religion are not compatible, and religion has no place in any serious scientific debate.
excuse me!
but if the FET is true...which seems likely (although i am still not fully convinced of it, quite frankly), then, science and THE BIBLE (note i said "the Bible", not "science and religion) are 100% compatible .....although, admittedly, other texts such as the Q'uran and the Bhagavada Gita [sic?] also have a claim.....
here i would like to direct some thanks to a Y-tb channel run by "Bible Skeptic" who pointed out the innumerable Biblical verses that speak of a flat Earth....unequivocally....and of the ludicrous if not absurd antics of "apologists" who do extreme violence to the Scriptures by trying to say OTW....
No scientist, or person of a scientific bent believes in the existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena—as you obviously do.
i'm not 100% sure what you mean by "paranormal phenomenon", but if yr referring to scientists who believe the Bible...then.....here's FIFTY of them (http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422621394&sr=8-1&keywords=50+scientists+who+believe+the+Bible)
and...here's (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/what_darwins_da093111.html) a nice little "deconstruction" of the village idiot atheist critique of such "paranormal phenomenon" as miracles
All your postings thus far have been nothing more than thinly-disguised religious and racist diatribes which have no relevance or bearing on the content of any of these forums.
they've got every bearing....or...@ least as much bearing as yours have....i seen through your agenda pretty much straight away.....
and....don't try to beat me over the head with ad homs like "racist"...i couldn't give a STUFF if people think i'm "racist" (a 'term' invented by a God-hating, marxist psychopath, incidentally!)....i'm only interested in the facts....
you see.....and this applies not only to you.....as "scepticmatic" (?) has previously pointed out.....why are people like YOU even on this Forum, eh?
if you think the FET is so absurd.....then....there are other venues that would suit you better.....
personally....i think it is because you are very, very afraid that it might, just might be true....and.....if so.....then....the Bible or, @ least, monotheism, must, ipso facto, also be true.....and.....that leaves you where?....standing accountable for your life before some sort of holy and awesome Being?.....i guess that makes you and yr ilk a tad uncomfortable, eh?
Please go away. Thank you.
maybe you should take yr own advice! thank-you!
-
God dammit, we have another iWitness.
Though Geoff, thats not really true. I believe in a higher power and I am firmly grounded in hard science. I would be very much very close to an agnostic because I don't believe we can define what the higher power is, but I do believe it exists.
-
God dammit, we have another iWitness.
Though Geoff, that's not really true. I believe in a higher power and I am firmly grounded in hard science. I would be very much very close to an agnostic because I don't believe we can define what the higher power is, but I do believe it exists.
As a lifelong atheist, I've never had any personal issues with theists or agnostics. I'm very much of the "live and let live" school of relationships.
I do however get seriously pissed off when people such as iWitness, and now this st james character start in with their religious sermonising on what's nominally a science-based forum. This is definitely not the place for theists to endlessly quote biblical scripture, or make any attempts to conflate science and religion.
I'm also aware that a great many contemporary scientists are also theists; Freeman Dyson comes to mind immediately for one. In that sense, science and religion are not incompatible—one doesn't necessarily diminish the relevance of the other. Imperious religious zealotry is another thing altogether though.
-
GAME IS OVER - After my presentation of ZIGZAG argument nothing will ever be the same. I challenge anyone to refute this argument, but i tell you, this is absolutely irrefutable argument, and no one will ever succeed to refute it.
Cikljamas presents:
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT - 100 % proof against "the rotation of the Earth" hypothesis : (http://)
-
GAME IS OVER - After my presentation of ZIGZAG argument nothing will ever be the same. I challenge anyone to refute this argument, but i tell you, this is absolutely irrefutable argument, and no one will ever succeed to refute it.
Cikljamas presents:
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT - 100 % proof against "the rotation of the Earth" hypothesis : (http://)
"100% proof" yet you have to ignore all the videos and accounts of the midnight sun in the Antarctic.
-
Low content; off-topic; personal insults; offensive language. Let's see if the moderators do their job as they should with his comments.
uh......."personal insults and offensive language"?
don't you mean content that challenges your politically correct, pseudo-marxist, God-hating garbage "world view" ?.....which seems to be the national "religion" of your country, eh?!? ::)
No, we mean this;
Fucking morons...
or this;
you should consider yourself as an ultimate idiots
-
Most global Earther's who come on here are like lazy teenagers. They prefer to stay asleep for as long as possible and will only wake up when they realise they're laying, saturated in their own urine.
This is the kind of crap Scepti has been posting ever since he got back. Just look through his posts. No actual arguments. Can he actually get banned now?
-
Most global Earther's who come on here are like lazy teenagers. They prefer to stay asleep for as long as possible and will only wake up when they realise they're laying, saturated in their own urine.
This is the kind of crap Scepti has been posting ever since he got back. Just look through his posts. No actual arguments. Can he actually get banned now?
I really am intrigued by the urine. Only two people use that insult with the same terminology over and over again. Him and heiwa, it makes me think.
-
As a lifelong atheist....
a life-long FOOL would be more likely.....
I've never had any personal issues with theists or agnostics. I'm very much of the "live and let live" school of relationships
except when they start presenting evidence and facts to justify their beliefs....then.....the gloves come off, right? i guess that's why they held that atheist conference in yr neck of the woods some years back, eh?.....the low moral quality of the people attending that farce matches the low moral quality of the country in general i guess, eh? ::)
I do however get seriously pissed off when people such as iWitness, and now this st james character start in with their religious sermonising on what's nominally a science-based forum.
do you own this Forum?
if not, then who are you to say what should and shouldn't be posted, eh?
This is definitely not the place for theists to endlessly quote biblical scripture
uh....what "biblical scripture" did i "endlessly quote"?
or make any attempts to conflate science and religion
define "science";
define "religion";
I'm also aware that a great many contemporary scientists are also theists; Freeman Dyson comes to mind immediately for one. In that sense, science and religion are not incompatible—one doesn't necessarily diminish the relevance of the other. Imperious religious zealotry is another thing altogether though.
what-ever!
so....go yr own way....
i couldn't care LESS what happens to you......in this world or the next!
oh....BTW....."atheism" IS a religion......(see here (http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion))
does that make you a hypocrite also?
-
GAME IS OVER - After my presentation of ZIGZAG argument nothing will ever be the same. I challenge anyone to refute this argument, but i tell you, this is absolutely irrefutable argument, and no one will ever succeed to refute it.
Cikljamas presents:
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT - 100 % proof against "the rotation of the Earth" hypothesis : (http://)
I think I understand your argument better now, and you neglected one very important detail: the Sun is not on top of the Earth. Here is your diagram with the actual path of the Sun drawn in:
(http://i.imgur.com/2L6510F.png)
By the way, the Earth rotates counterclockwise meaning that the Sun appears to go around us clockwise, get that right next time.
The Sun totally would zig zag like that if the Earth's axis were pointed in the direction of the Sun, but the axis is actually perpendicular (give or take 23.5 degrees) to the direction of the Sun and the path of the Sun is always between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of Capricorn and the Sun is never at any point above the arctic circle.
I hate to break it to you, but your "absolutely irrefutable argument" is in fact fundamentally flawed. FET actually predicts that the Sun would zig zag like that from anywhere in the southern hemisphere, food for thought.
-
@ Mikeman, we don't want to believe that you are SO stupid, but if you continued to talk such nonsense, then we could not be responsible if our final conclusion about your insanity will be in accordance with an actual state of your insanity....
-
@ Mikeman, we don't want to believe that you are SO stupid, but if you continued to talk such nonsense, then we could not be responsible if our final conclusion about your insanity will be in accordance with an actual state of your insanity....
Or maybe you just suck at explaining things and/or that your theory is just complete nonsense. I don't see how you think that the Sun would zig zag like your (badly edited) video explains because the Sun turning around and going the other way is not what would happen if the Earth rotated at a constant rate (which it is). You obviously have at least a little bit of experience with Blender so please create an animation or a better diagram to prove your point.
-
@ Mikeman, we don't want to believe that you are SO stupid, but if you continued to talk such nonsense, then we could not be responsible if our final conclusion about your insanity will be in accordance with an actual state of your insanity....
How's the antarctic midnight sun going?
-
29silhouette, even the average kid in elementary school is able to easily understand ZIGZAG argument, so what are you trying to prove here?
That the average kid in elementary school is able to easily understand your zigzag hypotheses, but also understand it's wrong.
It seems that you would be much more happy if we were to believe that you are a plain idiot instead that you are just a repugnant shill (what you really are, aren't you?)???
Considering you don't understand long exposure photography or even comprehend a sphere, your attempt to ridicule others is laughable. Anyway, whether or not Earth is round or flat, it's a simple fact that there would be no zig-zag of the sun as seen from the arctic.
Thus, my ZIGZAG argument is not just last nail in HC-RET coffin, it is also the final test that helps us to discern a plain idiot from an ordinary coward (a.k.a. repugnant shill).
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
So, this is not (any more) kind of a game "who is right, who is wrong", from now on this is kind of a game "have you got enough integrity to admit obvious obviousness of ZIGZAG argument or you have no integrity whatsoever?" !!!
Again, laughable considering how often you resort to name calling, purposely distorted maps, and carrying on an argument only to try claiming it was a joke all along when you're shown you're wrong. Perhaps you should try having some integrity yourself.
GAME IS OVER - After my presentation of ZIGZAG argument nothing will ever be the same. I challenge anyone to refute this argument, but i tell you, this is absolutely irrefutable argument, and no one will ever succeed to refute it.
The horizon will move the same direction as seen from each position throughout the day. A kid in elementary school can figure this out with a simple desktop globe. Game is over, on to the next topic.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/no%20zigzag_zps3bjugts1.jpg)
-
When someone puts forward such mindless junk he/she should be aware that by doing this he/she throws away last pieces of his/her credibility! That is why, for example, i don't expect of Alpha2Omega to take a stand on ZIGZAG argument, because, even if he still might be adherent of RET (although i can hardly believe that any serious person could proceed with such stubbornness, after taking note of indisputable validity and undeniable power of ZIGZAG argument), he is not stupid at all (QUITE CONTRARY!!!), and i am very sad that i can't use the same words for many other REs here.
-
100%
(http://)
-
When someone puts forward such mindless junk he/she should be aware that by doing this he/she throws away last pieces of his/her credibility! That is why, for example, i don't expect of Alpha2Omega to take a stand on ZIGZAG argument, because, even if he still might be adherent of RET (although i can hardly believe that any serious person could proceed with such stubbornness, after taking note of indisputable validity and undeniable power of ZIGZAG argument), he is not stupid at all (QUITE CONTRARY!!!), and i am very sad that i can't use the same words for many other REs here.
FET predicts that sunsets don't happen and neither model predicts that the Sun zig zags in the arctic circle. The Sun clearly sets and the Sun does not zig zag, so obviously the Earth is round.
-
When someone puts forward such mindless junk he/she should be aware that by doing this he/she throws away last pieces of his/her credibility! That is why, for example, i don't expect of Alpha2Omega to take a stand on ZIGZAG argument, because, even if he still might be adherent of RET (although i can hardly believe that any serious person could proceed with such stubbornness, after taking note of indisputable validity and undeniable power of ZIGZAG argument), he is not stupid at all (QUITE CONTRARY!!!), and i am very sad that i can't use the same words for many other REs here.
FET predicts that sunsets don't happen and neither model predicts that the Sun zig zags in the arctic circle. The Sun clearly sets and the Sun does not zig zag, so obviously the Earth is round.
No, the earth is obviously not flat. It could be toroidal.
-
Nice job with your animation Mike. For some reason they still are clinging to their failure of an argument. To put another nail in the coffin, and to show off a program which I think should be in the disposal of every member of this forum, I have made a video further illustrating your point.
(http://)
Using SpaceEngine (http://en.spaceengine.org/) as a guide can be useful for FE'ers and RE'ers alike. Enjoy the video.
-
When someone puts forward such mindless junk he/she should be aware that by doing this he/she throws away last pieces of his/her credibility! That is why, for example, i don't expect of Alpha2Omega to take a stand on ZIGZAG argument, because, even if he still might be adherent of RET (although i can hardly believe that any serious person could proceed with such stubbornness, after taking note of indisputable validity and undeniable power of ZIGZAG argument), he is not stupid at all (QUITE CONTRARY!!!), and i am very sad that i can't use the same words for many other REs here.
FET predicts that sunsets don't happen and neither model predicts that the Sun zig zags in the arctic circle. The Sun clearly sets and the Sun does not zig zag, so obviously the Earth is round.
No, the earth is obviously not flat. It could be toroidal.
Although your toroidal Earth theory is a LOT better the FET, it still lacks experimental and mathematical evidence.
-
Nice job with your animation Mike. For some reason they still are clinging to their failure of an argument. To put another nail in the coffin, and to show off a program which I think should be in the disposal of every member of this forum, I have made a video further illustrating your point.
(http://)
Using SpaceEngine (http://en.spaceengine.org/) as a guide can be useful for FE'ers and RE'ers alike. Enjoy the video.
I love space engine ;D I have it downloaded on my computer already.
-
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
-
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
This is proof that Ckljamas sucks at explaining things and/or has a fundamentally flawed argument.
-
100%
(http://)
Fixed YouTube link. :)
-
100%
(http://)
Fixed YouTube link. :)
The original works for me.
-
100%
(http://)
Fixed YouTube link. :)
I think there might be something wrong on your end Aus. You seem to be the only one that I have noticed complaining about the links on the site. They all seem to work for me.
-
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
Explanation No 1:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?
Explanation No 2:
If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
Explanation No 3:
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.
Now, we have to put this question:
If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)???
You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :
(http://)
This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.
They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.
Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???
The point is this:
If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.
If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.
Should i be more clear?
-
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
Explanation No 1:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?
Before the first turning point, lets say at mid day, what direction are you looking to see the sun? After the turning point, lets say 12 hours opposite mid day, when you claim the sun should be move backwards, what direction are you looking to see the sun?
-
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
Explanation No 1:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?
Explanation No 2:
If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
Explanation No 3:
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.
Now, we have to put this question:
If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)???
You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :
(http://)
This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.
They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.
Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???
The point is this:
If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.
If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.
Should i be more clear?
The Earth's diameter is about 8,000 miles and the Sun is about 93,000,000 miles away, and some simple trig reveals that daily parallax caused by the rotation of the Earth at the distance of the Sun is a little bit less then 0.01 degrees. Remember that the Sun also does it's normal apparent movements across the sky and it's apparent position being off by 0.01 degrees is not going to be easy to detect let alone have a big effect on things.
-
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
I'm not sure what you mean by being in or out of a circle, or what that circle is. If you're within the arctic circle, then you're in the arctic circle.
Anyway, a merry-go-round. Excellent choice. To be more realistic, place the light source at least a mile away. Now put your observation position close to the surface perhaps a foot away from the center. The edge of the merry-go-round will be the horizon. Spin it and turn so you always face the light source. The edge/horizon moves the same direction the from your point of view the entire time.
There will be no zig-zag.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/mgr_zps6w7ree4t.jpg)
Zig-zag can be dis-proven even using a simple record player (for whoever still owns one anyway). If you have a record player with a square housing, simply put your finger an inch or two from center while holding a pencil with that same hand and spin the record while keeping the pencil parallel with one side of the housing. The pencil is the line of sight looking toward the sun and the edge of the record is the horizon. It moves only one direction in relation to the pencil the entire time.
Zig-zag is done. Next topic.
-
If your argument is that this parallax is imperceptible on a rotating globe because of that 0,01 degree, then you should be able to explain why apparent daily and "nightly" motion of the midnight Sun is so drastically perceptible despite this very same 0,01 degree?
Anyway, a merry-go-round. Excellent choice. To be more realistic, place the light source at least a mile away. Now put your observation position close to the surface perhaps a foot away from the center. The edge of the merry-go-round will be the horizon. Spin it and turn so you always face the light source. The edge/horizon moves the same direction the from your point of view the entire time.
There will be no zig-zag.
There will be zig-zag, only you wouldn't notice it with naked eyes.
But the point is that in that case you wouldn't notice huge apparent daily motion of the Sun as we know it in our reality, also!
What you are depicting is a scenario of my argument "NO 1" which is something completely different than my ZIGZAG argument.
You can not use that 0,01 degree (when it suits you) to rule out parallax, and then discard that 0,01 degree (when it doesn't suit you) when you have to explain huge effect of the apparent motion of the sun across the sky as we see it in our reality.
The very same reason (alleged rotation of the Earth from West to East) that causes you to observe "apparent" daily motion of the Sun from East to West), would be the reason which would enable you to observe (if you could see through the Earth) nightly motion of the Sun from West to East, am i right?
So, the very same reason why you see in Arctic circle Sun's "apparent" motion from East to West during the first 12 hours of one polar day, would be the reason which would enable you to observe "nightly" apparent motion of the midnight Sun from West to East (if the Earth rotated) during the second half of the same polar day, am i right?
Only, during the second half of the same polar day the apparent motion of the Sun would be in opposite direction (with respect to the first half of the polar day), because you would travel in opposite direction (with respect to the direction of your motion during the first half of the polar day) on a rotating globe during the second half of the same polar day.
There is no escape from ZIGZAG argument!
-
If your argument is that this parallax is imperceptible on a rotating globe because of that 0,01 degree, then you should be able to explain why apparent daily and "nightly" motion of the midnight Sun is so drastically perceptible despite this very same 0,01 degree?
Anyway, a merry-go-round. Excellent choice. To be more realistic, place the light source at least a mile away. Now put your observation position close to the surface perhaps a foot away from the center. The edge of the merry-go-round will be the horizon. Spin it and turn so you always face the light source. The edge/horizon moves the same direction the from your point of view the entire time.
There will be no zig-zag.
There will be zig-zag, only you wouldn't notice it with naked eyes.
But the point is that in that case you wouldn't notice apparent daily motion of the Sun, also!
What you are depicting is a scenario of my argument "NO 1" which is something completely different than my ZIGZAG argument.
You can not use that 0,01 degree (when it suits you) to rule out parallax, and then discard that 0,01 degree (when it doesn't suit you) when you have to explain huge effect of the apparent motion of the sun across the sky as we see it in our reality.
The very same reason (alleged rotation of the Earth from West to East) that causes you to observe "apparent" daily motion of the Sun from East to West), would be the reason which would enable you to observe (if you could see through the Earth) nightly motion of the Sun from West to East, am i right?
So, the very same reason why you see in Arctic circle Sun's "apparent" motion from East to West during the first 12 hours of one polar day, would be the reason which would enable you to observe "nightly" apparent motion of the midnight Sun from West to East during the second half of the same polar day, am i right?
Only, during the second half of the same polar day the apparent motion of the Sun would be in opposite direction (with respect to the first half of the polar day), because you would travel in opposite direction (with respect to the direction of your motion during the first half of the polar day) on a rotating globe during the second half of the same polar day.
There is no escape from ZIGZAG argument!
The aperent motion of the Sun across the sky is caused by the Earth rotating so the aperent angle of the Sun changes and it has nothing to do with parallax. The experiment linked in my forum signature proves that the parallax is a tiny effect (as well as disproves FET). On the animation that I made about the zig zag argument the Earth is rotating at a constant rate counter clockwise and the camera is rotating at a constant rate clockwise, which means that the Sun's apperent motion is always in the same direction. You should try to prove your (flawed) zig zag argument using Space Engine, which simulates a round Earth just like the one we live on.
-
Ciklajamas, can you please read the responses we're giving you? We've given you TWO simulation models, we've given you trig explanations, and we've told you hundreds of times that the sun is too big and too far away for any movement to be visible.
Read.
-
@ Jet Fission, you should first learn how to spell out "mama" and "papa", then you should come back here and give us a straight answer to this simple question:
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
@ Jroa, is there anything that you would like to clarify regarding my ZIGZAG argument?
@ Saros, do you understand ZIGZAG argument?
@ Other Flat Earthers, how are you?
-
@ Jet Fission, you should first learn how to spell out "mama" and "papa", then you should come back here and give us a straight answer to this simple question:
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
@ Jroa, is there anything that you would like to clarify regarding my ZIGZAG argument?
@ Saros, do you understand ZIGZAG argument?
@ Other Flat Earthers, how are you?
Right to left.
-
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
From left to right, in the northern hemisphere, and from right to left in the southern. Are you suggesting that because of perspective the sun moves in different directions for both hemispheres? I hope not.
-
@ Jet Fission, you should first learn how to spell out "mama" and "papa", then you should come back here and give us a straight answer to this simple question:
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
@ Jroa, is there anything that you would like to clarify regarding my ZIGZAG argument?
@ Saros, do you understand ZIGZAG argument?
@ Other Flat Earthers, how are you?
That depends on what hemisphere you are in and weather you are always facing the Sun. If you are always facing the Sun then it will appear to travel in the same direction throughout the day.
-
@ Jet Fission, you should first learn how to spell out "mama" and "papa", then you should come back here and give us a straight answer to this simple question:
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
@ Jroa, is there anything that you would like to clarify regarding my ZIGZAG argument?
@ Saros, do you understand ZIGZAG argument?
@ Other Flat Earthers, how are you?
Right to left.
That settles the matter!
-
@ Jet Fission, you should first learn how to spell out "mama" and "papa", then you should come back here and give us a straight answer to this simple question:
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
@ Jroa, is there anything that you would like to clarify regarding my ZIGZAG argument?
@ Saros, do you understand ZIGZAG argument?
@ Other Flat Earthers, how are you?
Right to left.
That settles the matter!
That settles what? Perspective?
-
Well, we won this game, but there is another croatian victory ahead us : http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/more-family-fun/201501/pete-carroll-bill-belichick-super-bowl-nfl-football-croatia (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/more-family-fun/201501/pete-carroll-bill-belichick-super-bowl-nfl-football-croatia)
Cheers!
-
Well, we won this game, but there is another croatian victory ahead us : http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/more-family-fun/201501/pete-carroll-bill-belichick-super-bowl-nfl-football-croatia (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/more-family-fun/201501/pete-carroll-bill-belichick-super-bowl-nfl-football-croatia)
Cheers!
Lol, you're a joke. You seem too scared to even explain yourself, or even read. Seriously, read the responses. It's annoying watching you prance around claiming yourself victorious as we rittle you with bullets.
-
ZigZag argument is as beautiful as Croatia : You can't beat this beauty : (http://)
-
ZigZag argument is as beautiful as Croatia : You can't beat this beauty : (http://)
Good to know you've given up. Nothing to here then, move along.
-
@ Jet Fission, you should first learn how to spell out "mama" and "papa", then you should come back here and give us a straight answer to this simple question:
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
@ Jroa, is there anything that you would like to clarify regarding my ZIGZAG argument?
@ Saros, do you understand ZIGZAG argument?
@ Other Flat Earthers, how are you?
From my latitude in the northern hemisphere, it would appear to move from left to right in relation to the other side of the planet, which would be moving right to left... just like the horizon from within the arctic circle as the person or camera tracks the sun.
Case closed. Zigzag is wrong. Next topic.
Right to left.
Can you explain this answer?
-
Perhaps we should stop using the terms "right" and "left" when talking about two dimensional motion dependent on perspective.
How about the terms "clockwise" and "counter clockwise" with respect to the north pole?
-
Perhaps we should stop using the terms "right" and "left" when talking about two dimensional motion dependent on perspective.
How about the terms "clockwise" and "counter clockwise" with respect to the north pole?
Or, how about turnwise and widdershins?
-
Perhaps we should stop using the terms "right" and "left" when talking about two dimensional motion dependent on perspective.
How about the terms "clockwise" and "counter clockwise" with respect to the north pole?
Great idea, but I have a feeling ciklajamas is currently high on his own fabricated victory.
-
We have heard many times this question:
Who cares if the Earth is flat or round? Haven't we heard that question many times?
Haven't we answered to this question many times, also?
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
A LIAR IS A THIEF, A THIEF IS A MURDERER
“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either." Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason".
Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”
The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...
Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!
Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.
20th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theocentric (God-centered). Before the "earth-movers" arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.
Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html)
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact! Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
If you still think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:
Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)
More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)
Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
JUST WATCH THIS : Pilots, Doctors & Scientists Tell Truth about Chemtrails [Excerpts] : (http://)
It is important to get to the core of the problem:
People like Richard Dawkins are engaged in propaganda of anti-religion thoughts and sentiments. His quest is against Christianity even at the expense of science and scientific truth.
As long as the predatory policies persist, the Neo-Darwinism will remain relevant to the contemporary level of social relations in traditional capitalist society, no matter how outdated it gets scientifically.
The ruling minority elite needs public consciousness to match their criminal, predatory policies. That is why primitive Darwinism retains its positions in public debate so far. Therefore, people in general are being educated that they are “predators”, who are destined to eat each other out.
Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647606#msg1647606 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647606#msg1647606)
I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html)
At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.
A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax : http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/ (http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/)
Before Copernican heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up at the sky and notice that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve above a stationary Earth. All empirical evidence from our perspective clearly shows that we are fixed and everything rotates above us.
"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning."
(http://i.imgur.com/j4HOVHu.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/rxBBwBz.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/YcZaz7f.jpg)
September 11, 1984 Orwell, 9/11 and Homeland Security : http://www.oilempire.us/1984.html (http://www.oilempire.us/1984.html)
Homeland Insecurity : http://www.oilempire.us/homeland.html (http://www.oilempire.us/homeland.html)
So, it's about your ass, also!!!
Now, you can close your eyes, again, and fall into a nice round-sheep dreams...
-
cikljamas - a lot of that makes sense but.....
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8622/16444621552_b846059b0e_o.jpg)
-
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
No you haven't. You just keep posting the same jokes over and over and we keep explaining how they're wrong.
-
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
No you haven't. You just keep posting the same jokes over and over and we keep explaining how they're wrong.
Hahahahah....refute this:
@ Dinosauruse urne-besni,
First of all, don't you know how to speak english correctly?
Secondly, you should use this picture of a globe:
(http://i.imgur.com/Pg2H80V.jpg)
Thirdly, you forgot the "tilt" of the Earth.
Fourthly, don't you see that in the next photograph Sun shines even in Eastern part of Australia?
(http://i.imgur.com/4LrWPTD.jpg)
Fifthly, how come that you are still clinging to that stupid HC joke which has been scattered into pieces in my GLOBAL CONSPIRACY thread?
(http://i.imgur.com/KFi58P6.jpg)
-
We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!
When did this happen? Last I checked your posts were just a bunch of hand waving.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/kAp7fjI.jpg)
-
Pretty easily, actually:
https://zippy.gfycat.com/UncommonGiddyArachnid.webm (https://zippy.gfycat.com/UncommonGiddyArachnid.webm)
Edit: I misunderstood the question, it looks like ausGeoff handled it.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/kAp7fjI.jpg)
You need to rotate that globe so that the sun is dead center. Then you will see which parts of the globe would be lit.
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
It's really quite easy. Especially when half the globe is lit up. What is tough is doing that in a flat earth a close sun.
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
It's really quite easy. Especially when half the globe is lit up. What is tough is doing that in a flat earth a close sun.
What is easy? To be stupid?
Haven't you seen/read this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723)
I hope that you are able to apprehend the difference between "absolute impossibility" and "apparent impossibility"?
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
It's really quite easy. Especially when half the globe is lit up. What is tough is doing that in a flat earth a close sun.
What is easy? To be stupid?
Haven't you seen/read this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723)
I hope that you are able to apprehend the difference between "absolute impossibility" and "apparent impossibility"?
Nope, it really is that easy:
(http://i.imgur.com/bkbSaUE.gif)
You can clearly see a bit of eastern Australia in the beginning there.
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
It's really quite easy. Especially when half the globe is lit up. What is tough is doing that in a flat earth a close sun.
What is easy? To be stupid?
No, that is your job. You do it well.
Haven't you seen/read this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723)
I hope that you are able to apprehend the difference between "absolute impossibility" and "apparent impossibility"?
[/quote]
I read some of it. It's just another played out argument.
Anyways, those light maps are handy.
http://www.die.net/earth/ (http://www.die.net/earth/)
It's a past noon in New Zealand and California is still lit up, like the map shows.
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
It's really quite easy. Especially when half the globe is lit up. What is tough is doing that in a flat earth a close sun.
What is easy? To be stupid?
Haven't you seen/read this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1658723#msg1658723)
I hope that you are able to apprehend the difference between "absolute impossibility" and "apparent impossibility"?
6
Nope, it really is that easy:
(http://i.imgur.com/bkbSaUE.gif)
You can clearly see a bit of eastern Australia in the beginning there.
can you stop it on easten Australia . I'm a little confused
-
can you stop it on easten Australia . I'm a little confused that seems to look like westen Australia
Of course:
(http://i.imgur.com/IPFk1v2.gif)
Here's a quick map of Australia for reference:
(http://www.spotlight.com.au/site_media/img/map-australia.jpg)
-
can you stop it on easten Australia . I'm a little confused that seems to look like westen Australia
Of course:
(http://i.imgur.com/IPFk1v2.gif)
Here's a quick map of Australia for reference:
(http://www.spotlight.com.au/site_media/img/map-australia.jpg)
I live in australia . So can you stop the animation on it
-
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
So just for the heck of it, I turned on a light bulb in my kitchen, put a desktop globe out in the living room (the further away from the light source, the better it simulates the RE sun) , aligned the west coast of N. America with the light source, tilted it so it was aligned roughly with the Tropic of Capricorn, and found the east coast of Australia was receiving light. Case closed.
-
I live in australia . So can you stop the animation on it
Sure, sorry.
(http://i.imgur.com/icie3QU.png)
-
Well you pharked up there didn't you , they are not being shone on at the same time .
-
I live in australia .
Please tell us you actually do know which end is west, and which end is east.
Because at the moment, I don't believe you do......... unless of course you're a troll.
-
Well you pharked up there didn't you , they are not being shone on at the same time .
That's why I used the animation, so it would be easier to see. But as you wish:
(http://i.imgur.com/K9dgKhZ.png)
-
I live in australia .
Please tell us you actually do know which end is west, and which end is east.
Because at the moment, I don't believe you do......... unless of course you're a troll.
I'm guessing that (possibly uncalibrated monitor?) that Charles couldn't discern the eastern coastline of Australia in this grab...
(http://i.imgur.com/icie3QU.png)
-
What time is it in Sydney when it is NOON in Los Angeles?
It is 7 AM!
Look:
(http://i.imgur.com/4LrWPTD.jpg)
What does this mean?
It means, that when the Sun is DIRECTLY above Los Angeles, it is ALREADY A NEW BRIGHT DAY in Sydney!
Now, explain to me, how is this possible ON THE ROUND EARTH:
(http://i.imgur.com/kAp7fjI.jpg)
This is absolutely impossible ON THE ROUND EARTH.
SO, ONCE AGAIN: IT'S NOON IN LOS ANGELES - THE SUN IS DIRECTLY ABOVE LOS ANGELES!!!
So, Jet Fission, why don't you show that animation to your close friends, and then ask them what they really think about your sanity and your honesty!!!
-
Here we go again. Not only is it perfectly geometrically possible, but once again, I'll show you the model.
(http://i.imgur.com/IPFk1v2.gif)
-
So, Jet Fission, you want us to believe, that when the Sun is in this position ALTHOUGH THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE ROUND, the same Sun can shine above Australia in the same time (when the NOON is in LA) ?
(http://i.imgur.com/oxmcDCb.jpg)
Should i cry or should i laugh?
-
So, Jet Fission, you want us to believe, that when the Sun is in this position ALTHOUGH THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE ROUND, the same Sun can shine above Australia in the same time (when the NOON is in LA) ?
(http://i.imgur.com/oxmcDCb.jpg)
Should i cry or should i laugh?
The sun will be setting in Australia when it's noon in LA, which is exactly what happens in my model, and in reality. Anything else?
-
AH! Why am I still seeing cikljamas new posts?!
Also I live in Southern California and know people in Australia, I can first and verify with facetime on the phone that there is daylight in both places.
-
I live in Melbourne Australia. When I'm watching golf from the USA 9am in the morning, it is still daylight in the afternoon in the US. This is live TV and you cannot dispute it.
-
This is live TV and you cannot dispute it.
I guess we're done then. Time to pack up the domain name and move on to bigger and better things. Show's over, guys.
-
This is live TV and you cannot dispute it.
I guess we're done then. Time to pack up the domain name and move on to bigger and better things. Show's over, guys.
I think both of you have misunderstood the original point.
-
I was joint pointing out how the sun is shining in both places at the same time for 3 to 4 hours or so. ;)
-
This is absolutely impossible ON THE ROUND EARTH.
No, it is possible. If you had actually performed the very experiment you mentioned earlier:
Take the model of a globe in your little hands, enlighten it so that the focus of your torch is aligned with West Coast of Northern America and see if any single ray that comes out of your torch can hit New Zealand, let alone East Coast of Australia...
- and positioned the light far enough away, you would see that the 'sun' would be near the horizon or setting if observed from eastern Australia while it was noon for the west coast of N. America.
Now that we have once again destroyed your argument, what do you have next for us?
-
Cikljamas presents:
The Earth is flat - Gaslight : (http://)
@ 29silhouette, just watch yourself, you play a main role in my video...
Special thanks goes to iWitness!!!
iWitness says:
I was a Christian before I was a flat earther, but after seeing the earth is flat I was absolutely amazed to find out that the Bible clearly describes the shape of the Heavens and Earth. Now I know for a fact the Bible is the Truth, and the people of this world have been Deceived by the Evil One.
Read more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62714.msg1656627#msg1656627 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62714.msg1656627#msg1656627)
-
Cikljamas presents:
The Earth is flat - Gaslight : (http://)
When woman dressed like a woman :D
-
I live in Melbourne Australia. When I'm watching golf from the USA 9am in the morning, it is still daylight in the afternoon in the US. This is live TV and you cannot dispute it.
Cikljamas, what do you say about this?
-
I live in Melbourne Australia. When I'm watching golf from the USA 9am in the morning, it is still daylight in the afternoon in the US. This is live TV and you cannot dispute it.
Cikljamas, what do you say about this?
I am not sure what do you mean, but i would say that this is the point of no return...
Thanks for your testimony! :)
The truth will prevail, but not without great sacrifices that men of honor always must suffer for the sake of Truth! Let me show you just one example of that kind :
8 minutes with Kent Hovind : (http://)
Kent Hovind Innocent. PEDOFILE Lawyer kills himself after trial : (http://)
-
Easy solution to this:
Sydney is at longitude 151W and Los Angeles is at 118E. This equates to a longitudinal separation of 29 + 62 = 91 degrees. Without an atmosphere 180 degrees of longitude would be lit (barring effects axial tilt and current season), but with an atmosphere this figure is a few degrees higher due to atmospheric refraction. This clearly hows that it would indeed be sunrise in western Australia when it is midday in LA.
-
Cikljamas, just showing you that indeed there is daylight in Australia and the US for a period of time. Do you have facetime or skype? Anyone can prove it. My Brother lives in the USA and I have skyped him when both countires were in daylight. What do you say now? :P
-
Cikljamas, just showing you that indeed there is daylight in Australia and the US for a period of time. Do you have facetime or skype? Anyone can prove it. My Brother lives in the USA and I have skyped him when both countires were in daylight. What do you say now? :P
Guys ciklajamas is not denying this fact, he is using it to attempt to prove that the Earth is not round, because he thinks 8,500km is enough for the sun to go out of view (which it isn't).
-
Cikljamas, just showing you that indeed there is daylight in Australia and the US for a period of time. Do you have facetime or skype? Anyone can prove it. My Brother lives in the USA and I have skyped him when both countires were in daylight. What do you say now? :P
Guys ciklajamas is not denying this fact, he is using it to attempt to prove that the Earth is not round, because he thinks 8,500km is enough for the sun to go out of view (which it isn't).
Wait, he's saying that now the sun is only 8500km up? Because if so then both FET and REF trig say he's wrong.
-
Cikljamas, just showing you that indeed there is daylight in Australia and the US for a period of time. Do you have facetime or skype? Anyone can prove it. My Brother lives in the USA and I have skyped him when both countires were in daylight. What do you say now? :P
Guys ciklajamas is not denying this fact, he is using it to attempt to prove that the Earth is not round, because he thinks 8,500km is enough for the sun to go out of view (which it isn't).
Wait, he's saying that now the sun is only 8500km up? Because if so then both FET and REF trig say he's wrong.
No, he's saying that because there is still sunlight in eastern Australia when its noon in LA means that the Earth isn't round, because he thinks that the Earth should be blocking the sun's light by then. He thinks Australia is behind North America in the sphere.
-
Cikljamas, just showing you that indeed there is daylight in Australia and the US for a period of time. Do you have facetime or skype? Anyone can prove it. My Brother lives in the USA and I have skyped him when both countires were in daylight. What do you say now? :P
Guys ciklajamas is not denying this fact, he is using it to attempt to prove that the Earth is not round, because he thinks 8,500km is enough for the sun to go out of view (which it isn't).
Wait, he's saying that now the sun is only 8500km up? Because if so then both FET and REF trig say he's wrong.
No, he's saying that because there is still sunlight in eastern Australia when its noon in LA means that the Earth isn't round, because he thinks that the Earth should be blocking the sun's light by then. He thinks Australia is behind North America in the sphere.
Wow, his theory was so batcrap crazy he lost all of us except the NASA shill. I think you deserve an award.
-
Cikljamas, just showing you that indeed there is daylight in Australia and the US for a period of time. Do you have facetime or skype? Anyone can prove it. My Brother lives in the USA and I have skyped him when both countires were in daylight. What do you say now? :P
Guys ciklajamas is not denying this fact, he is using it to attempt to prove that the Earth is not round, because he thinks 8,500km is enough for the sun to go out of view (which it isn't).
Wait, he's saying that now the sun is only 8500km up? Because if so then both FET and REF trig say he's wrong.
No, he's saying that because there is still sunlight in eastern Australia when its noon in LA means that the Earth isn't round, because he thinks that the Earth should be blocking the sun's light by then. He thinks Australia is behind North America in the sphere.
Wow, his theory was so batcrap crazy he lost all of us except the NASA shill. I think you deserve an award.
Well, you know, I don't get paid for nothing.
/s
-
The truth will prevail, but not without great sacrifices that men of honor always must suffer for the sake of Truth! Let me show you just one example of that kind :
8 minutes with Kent Hovind : (http://)
Kent Hovind Innocent. PEDOFILE Lawyer kills himself after trial : (http://)
A bit off-topic, but here goes; sorry.
In case anybody's wondering who ckljama's hero Mr Kent Hovind is, and why he's serving a ten-year jail sentence.....
Mr Hovind is one of the leading lights in Young Earth Creationism (YEC) which follows a hyper-literal reading of the bible to arrive at the world being roughly 6,000 years old. There is no such thing as prehistoric in the YEC view—just antediluvian. Antediluvian means "before the flood", which is used to account for the geologic evidence of a much older earth. One of the implications of YEC is that people and dinosaurs must have been running around at the same time, a concept dear to Mr Hovind’s heart, giving him the "Doctor Dino" sobriquet and inspiring him to have his ministry, Creation Science Evangelism (CSE), create a theme park called "Dinosaur Adventureland".
CSE and the park were the focus of Mr Hovind's tax problems which earned him a ten-year sentence in federal prison. He considered the ministry to be tax exempt and had taken a vow of poverty. He considered the people who worked there to be missionaries and paid them in cash without filing payroll tax returns. In his criminal prosecution, the greatest number of counts was for something called “structuring”—systematically keeping cash deposits and withdrawals below $10,000 (and which he admits to in his own video!) to avoid currency reporting requirements.
Mr Hovind was recently hit with another criminal charge for contempt of court arising out of a filing that was made in connection with federal seizure of CSE property.
On October 23, 2014 the US Fourth Circuit turned down Mr Hovind’s appeal of a Tax Court order finding him liable for over $3 million in taxes and penalties for the years 1996 to 2006. Far from being innocent, Mr Hovind is now facing a further indictment whose outcome will probably see him locked up for another ten years. And rightly so.
You can find the new indictment against Mr Hovind HERE (http://bit.ly/1vG7POH).
-
Let's make a slide show using Jet Fission's video animation:
(http://i.imgur.com/e3ZBi6j.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/hQLLPh3.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/XSRCz3N.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/1xzV84J.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/928VQF7.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/H6hzHi1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/f7g2JdL.jpg)
Q :WHAT DO WE SEE IN THE FIRST PICTURE ABOVE?
A : IT'S NOON IN LOS ANGELES - THE SUN IS DIRECTLY ABOVE LOS ANGELES!!!
ONCE AGAIN :
What time is it in Sydney when it is NOON in Los Angeles?
It is 7 AM (NEXT DAY)!
Look:
(http://i.imgur.com/4LrWPTD.jpg)
What does this mean?
It means, that when the Sun is DIRECTLY above Los Angeles, it is ALREADY A NEW BRIGHT DAY in Sydney!
What does it mean (BRIGHT DAY)? It means this :
(http://i.imgur.com/1miftKC.jpg)
Now, explain to me, how is this possible ON THE ROUND EARTH:
(http://i.imgur.com/kAp7fjI.jpg)
As for the INJUSTICE that was done to this INNOCENT MAN - Kent Hovind:
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE : 20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
Maybe now it is going to be easier for you to understand the true meaning and importance of this video : (http://)
-
Errrr.
Those slides you displayed clearly show it as sunrise in eastern Australia....
What's the problem?
-
Errrr.
Those slides you displayed clearly show it as sunrise in eastern Australia....
What's the problem?
He doesn't understand the round earth model. I believe he is stuck on the fact that half the world is lit up.
-
IT'S NOON IN SALT LAKE CITY (UTAH) AND THE SUN BRIGHTLY SHINES OVER SYDNEY :
(http://i.imgur.com/PKsrfLr.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/w2s4qnE.jpg)
How deep must be such hole in your mind in which you can hide and keep this FLAT truth from yourself?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/w2s4qnE.jpg)
Yes. It is perfectly in accord with RET, as we have shown you dozens of times, and as you have shown yourself by posting our own proofs.
Brilliant.
-
Round Earthers, enjoy the game "chase your tail", try to catch the sun behind the globe :
(http://i.imgur.com/pOCUhKZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/fdA6PFH.jpg)
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
-
[graphics]
It would be approximately sunrise in Sydney when it is noon in Salt Lake City.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)
So no, it would not be "shining over Australia", it would be dawn in Australia depending on the time of year. The sun rose on Sydney at 6:28am today.
-
[graphics]
It would be approximately sunrise in Sydney when it is noon in Salt Lake City.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)
So no, it would not be "shining over Australia", it would be dawn in Australia depending on the time of year. The sun rose on Sydney at 6:28am today.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^
-
Cikljamas, you need an isometric view. Those 3D renderings look like they have a lot of perspective to them.
-
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE : 20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
Maybe now it is going to be easier for you to understand the true meaning and importance of this video : (http://)
Kent Hovinid is an idiot. Even some creationist groups admit that. His degree is from the degree mill Bob Jones University, and isn't acknowledged by any major institution. His graduate thesis was not available to the public unlike most respectable and legitimate papers. When it was leaked, it was found to be on an 6th grade reading level (no joke- there are algorithms to calculate these things.)
-
Cikljamas:
(http://i.imgur.com/q8eKmZj.gif)
Easy!
NEXT.
-
so cikljamas, when I skype my brother who lives in texas USA with me living in melbourne australia and both of us are in daylight.....is that Satan deceiving me?B ::)
-
so cikljamas, when I skype my brother who lives in texas USA with me living in melbourne australia and both of us are in daylight.....is that Satan deceiving me?B ::)
He is not denying that both places have daylight, he is using that fact as evidence against a round Earth.
-
I'm guessing that because cikljamas places so much relevance and reliance on the times showing on clocks at different locations around the planet to support his arguments, he doesn't understand that "time" is nothing more than a human, abstract construct. Time per se has nothing to do with natural phenomenon such as the spinning of the planet, or where on that planet a city is located. It is what it is.
As an example, it's now pitch dark in Melbourne at 1:21AM, but broad daylight in New York at 9:21AM (as far as I know LOL).
How could the separation of 16,635 kilometres possibly work on cikljamas's alleged flat earth? The sun's distance of 149,600,000 kilometres from the earth would mean it'd be daylight in both cities (on his hypothetical flat earth model).
:o
-
@ ausGeoff, did you know that the best "proof" for the supposed rotation of the Earth is STILL (in 21. century) FOUCAULT PENDULUM??? OMG!!!
Let me remind you what intelligent men had had to say on this "pendulum-garbage 'evidence'", even more than 150 years ago:
1. The Pendulum was summoned into court to be a witness for the spheroidity of the World, and its revolution round an imaginary axis. The length of a Pendulum, vibrating seconds at the Equator, was found to be 39,027 inches, while at 79° 49' 58" N, it was 39.197 inches. The Earth being thus assumed to be a globe, it is argued that it must have " a centre of attraction of gravitation," and, as the Pendulum falls more rapidly at the North Pole than at the Equator, the radius must thus be shorter, so it is said that the Earth is a sphere flattened at the Poles. But all this is beside the mark, for the very first element of proof is wanting, namely, that the Earth is a globe at all. It is a well ascertained fact that heat expands while cold contracts most metals, and it was at last acknowledged that variations of temperature are quite sufficient to cause variations in the vibrations of the Pendulum.
Mr. Bailey, in Vol. 7 of Memoirs of the Royal Society, says that " the vibrations of a pendulum are powerfully affected in many places by local attraction of the substratum on which it is swung, or by some other influence at present unknown to us, and the effect of which far exceeds the errors of observation."
General Sabine himself relates, that " Captain Foster was furnished with two invariable Pendulums of precisely the same form and construction as those which had been employed by Captain Kayter and myself. Both Pendulums were vibrated at all the stations, but, from some cause which Mr. Bailey was unable to explain, the observations of one of them was so discordant at South Shetland as to require their rejection." The Pendulum declines, therefore, to stand sponsor for the supposed Rotation of the Earth.
2. Something more on pendulum garbage "argument":
Many were the experiments made in the Pantheon and other halls of science to test the truth of this wonderful experiment, but the indignant Pendulum would not lend itself to lure men into the belief of a Rotating Earth, for its vibrations were most variable, and even sometimes entirely contrary to what the Newtonians said they ought to be, so that this marvellous experiment, which was to convince the public at sight, that the world is a Rotating Planet, had to be abandoned with disgust. But how could it be otherwise? If the Earth rotates at the rate of 1,000 miles per hour at the Equator, and in the same space of time goes 65,000 miles on its journey round the Sun, how could any Pendulum, under such disadvantageous circumstances be ever expected to beat equal vibrations? It would be an impossibility. Hence no proof can be adduced from the Pendulum that the Earth is a spheroid rotating on an imaginary axis. Vunch could not miss the opportunity of having a joke at the expense of this rotating -fiasco, with which I shall close my remarks of the supposed manifestation of the rotation of the Earth.
To the Editor of Punch,
Sir,
"Allow me to call your serious and polite attention to the extraordinary phenomenon demonstrating the rotation of the Earth, which I at the present moment experience, and you yourself or anybody else, I have not the slightest doubt, would be satisfied of under similar circumstances. Some sceptical individuals may doubt that the Earth's motion is visible, but I say, from personal observation, it is a positive fact. I don't care about latitude or longitude, or a vibratory pendulum, revolving round the line of a tangent on a spherical surface, nor axes, nor apsides, nor anything of the sort. That is all rubbish. All I know is that I see the ceiling of this coffee-room going round. I perceive this distinctly with the naked eye—only my sight has been sharpened by a slight stimulant. I write after my sixth go of brandy and water, whereof witness my hand."
SWIGGINS.
"Goose and Gridiron, May 5, 1851.
"P.S.— Why do two waiters come when I only call one?" ;D ;D ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/YZHYb.gif)
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE : 20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
Maybe now it is going to be easier for you to understand the true meaning and importance of this video : (http://)
Day and night on Earth at Vernal Equinox (so that you can't call on alleged tilt of the Earth) :
(http://i.imgur.com/CyE5aKa.jpg)
Now, you should have to be able to explain this:
(http://i.imgur.com/fdA6PFH.jpg)
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS???
-
Okay cikjamas! Let's go one more time:
(http://i.imgur.com/q8eKmZj.gif)
Wooohoooooo! Let's ride the debunking train!
It's hilarious because you set the time on your program to December-March, meaning that the north pole is going to be tilted back further, allowing for your scenario to even occur. At any other time of the year, the tilt would make it impossible. It's hilarious how blatantly you ignore responses- and how you disprove yourself in your own responses!
-
Jet Fission, your animations are ridiculous. Don't you see that in your animation more than half of the Earth is lit with Sun's rays? It's VERNAL EQUINOX, see above... So, something is wrong with your model of a globe...But even if you managed to correct this error in your model of a globe, your RET position would still be ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS, because :
1. 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.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
2. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
3. Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
4. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
6. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
7. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
8. ZIGZAG ARGUMENT ILLUSTRATION :
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN THIS VIDEO : (http://)
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ZIGZAG ARG. - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY page 45 - post # 881: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ZIGZAG ARG. - EQUATOR PROBLEM page 15 - post " 282 : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
I explained this many times, but i will do it once more for you:
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there is no TILT of the Earth!
2. If there is no TILT of the Earth, then there is no way for anyone to explain how it happens (how this phenomena can occur on a round Earth) that longer (than 12 hours) lenghts of a daylight could appear anywhere on the Earth at any given period of the year.
Did you forget this:
Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
P.S. You should be banned for ignoring my arguments all along, and in the same time you are unable to show us at least one valid proof for any of your ridiculous claims. Just give us one valid proof for the rotation of the Earth and you can declare victory. On the other hand, if you are unable to do that, then why don't you just leave this place voluntarily and for good?
Rotation/revolution of the Earth is the final and decisive "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" question of all questions here!
My ZIGZAG argument is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth hypothesis!!!
You see, i have got a proof for my claims, and you have nothing to offer here, so figure out what you should do now, even without anyone's (moderator's) assistance...
-
Jet Fission, your animations are ridiculous. Don't you see that in your animation more than half of the Earth is lit with Sun's rays? It's VERNAL EQUINOX, see above... So, something is wrong with your model of a globe...But even if you managed to correct this error in your model of a globe, your RET position would still be ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS, because :
1. 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.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
2. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
3. Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
4. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
6. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
7. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
8. ZIGZAG ARGUMENT ILLUSTRATION :
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN THIS VIDEO : (http://)
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ZIGZAG ARG. - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY page 45 - post # 881: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ZIGZAG ARG. - EQUATOR PROBLEM page 15 - post " 282 : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
Fantastically put together. I applaud your efforts in all this.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
This is the bitterness that makes me laugh with you people. So cikljamas should be banned for drumming the truth into people's heads?
The truth is, you want him banned because he scares the hell out of you and is destroying everything you believed and you can't handle it, because you realise that it makes you as gullible as hell...or you're simply a shill that's trying to get him banned so you have less people see through this crap we get fed everyday.
If he gets banned from here, I'll make a Earth not a globe site up myself and invite him to put as much work into it as he wants to....UNHINDERED by people like you who I would deal with by shutting down your crap posts.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
This is the bitterness that makes me laugh with you people. So cikljamas should be banned for drumming the truth into people's heads?
The truth is, you want him banned because he scares the hell out of you and is destroying everything you believed and you can't handle it, because you realise that it makes you as gullible as hell...or you're simply a shill that's trying to get him banned so you have less people see through this crap we get fed everyday.
If he gets banned from here, I'll make a Earth not a globe site up myself and invite him to put as much work into it as he wants to....UNHINDERED by people like you who I would deal with by shutting down your crap posts.
Half of his copypasta doesn't even jive with your "theories". This is just bandwagoning and blatant baiting, you should get a nice time off as well.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
This is the bitterness that makes me laugh with you people. So cikljamas should be banned for drumming the truth into people's heads?
The truth is, you want him banned because he scares the hell out of you and is destroying everything you believed and you can't handle it, because you realise that it makes you as gullible as hell...or you're simply a shill that's trying to get him banned so you have less people see through this crap we get fed everyday.
If he gets banned from here, I'll make a Earth not a globe site up myself and invite him to put as much work into it as he wants to....UNHINDERED by people like you who I would deal with by shutting down your crap posts.
He can post whatever he wants to- just not in this thread when we're talking about things completely unrelated.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
I explained this many times, but i will do it once more for you:
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there is no TILT of the Earth!
2. If there is no TILT of the Earth, then there is no way for anyone to explain how it happens (how this phenomena can occur on a round Earth) that longer (than 12 hours) lenghts of a daylight could appear anywhere on the Earth at any given period of the year.
Did you forget this:
Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
P.S. You should be banned for ignoring my arguments all along, and in the same time you are unable to show us at least one valid proof for any of your ridiculous claims. Just give us one valid proof for the rotation of the Earth and you can declare victory. On the other hand, if you are unable to do that, then why don't you just leave this place voluntarily and for good?
Rotation/revolution of the Earth is the final and decisive "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" question of all questions here!
My ZIGZAG argument is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth hypothesis!!!
You see, i have got a proof for my claims, and you have nothing to offer here, so figure out what you should do now, even without anyone's (moderator's) assistance...
We've presented you with two models for how both of your scenarios are perfectly possible in a round Earth, and you didn't listen. We've also proved it mathematically.
1. Why not? It's tilted in relation to its orbital plane. It rotates around an axis, and that axis is not perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. It's as simple as that.
2. See 1.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
This is the bitterness that makes me laugh with you people. So cikljamas should be banned for drumming the truth into people's heads?
The truth is, you want him banned because he scares the hell out of you and is destroying everything you believed and you can't handle it, because you realise that it makes you as gullible as hell...or you're simply a shill that's trying to get him banned so you have less people see through this crap we get fed everyday.
If he gets banned from here, I'll make a Earth not a globe site up myself and invite him to put as much work into it as he wants to....UNHINDERED by people like you who I would deal with by shutting down your crap posts.
We are not afraid of cikljamas at all. When he says that heliocentricity has not been proven he means that it has not been proven by his biased standards and when he says that he has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat he means that he found a speck of evidence that he misinterpreted as being in favor of FET. I have proved that his zig zag argument is false with my animation which assumes a round Earth and demonstrates a distinct lack of wobble, yet cikljamas still sticks to it. Cikljamas's "arguments" demonstrate a complete lack of mathematical and scientific knowledge which is funny because if he doesn't know what mainstream science even is then what makes him qualified to call it false with any credibility?
-
I must say, this has been the most entertaining thread I have read yet on this forum.
Love the arguments of hey its true because I said it responses also. Here ya go a copy paste of the same stuff I pasted 120 times already.
I have also seen this argument made, the Earth is stationary. So how, if the Earth is a stationary celestial body, do things fall back down to Earth if there isn't this universal acceleration thing going on to explain gravity?
Now before you rebut with I didn't say that, you have in many places.
Also before you say gravity explains that, you have already stated that gravity doesn't exist or exists in a much more diminished "power" than is believed by mainstream scientists, thus the stationary Earth will not work for even a flat Earth scenario.
Before you try the higher pressure argument pushing down on us, know that is 100% verifiable and observed that the higher in altitude you go the lower the air pressure is. Scepti argued this himself with the its impossible to climb Mt. Everest debate because of the lower atmospheric pressure.
Also the argument of the sun seems to sink due to light refraction cannot be argued and then argue against a light refraction cause of the whoever it was that did the 6 mile canal experiment. So its either that light can bend due to gravitational and/or atmospheric causes or light doesn't bend. So either both models are wrong or both are possible. This means the boat experiment, and unfortunately sunrise/sunset arguments will have to be removed from the "proof".
Now on to observational evidence. Planets can be seen by basically anyone with a telescope, and it doesn't have to be a good telescope at that. Lets look at the moon for instance. Not a planet but a large enough celestial body for, if gravity is real, to make it form into a spherical body. With a really cheap telescope you can look at the moon and ascertain that it is in fact round. Watch it, starting with a full moon and observe it over several nights to watch how the shadow, night side of the moon, changes. You can also tell by looking at it that it is in fact a sphere. Ok now if you have access to a larger telescope, focus on Mars, or Jupiter. Watch them closely the same observations can be made that they are also, in fact spheres. So believe what you see in your own personal observations. Now I postulate that if the other celestial bodies in our immediate vicinity are in fact spheres, why is the Earth shaped differently? But lets make the argument that those other celestial bodies are just small objects and the Earth is not the same class of object then. Now then, why are they there in the first place? Also if they are not orbiting the sun in different orbits than what the Earth is in, oh yeah the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun, my bad I forgot you said so therefore its overwhelmingly shattering of everyone else's observations, why does gravity explain their movements in the sky? Mathematically predictable movements based on gravity with basically so near perfect accuracy that you can point a telescope to where ever the math tells you to that the planet in question is centered in your view.
But hey, I'm just a cool-aid drinker right. I'm upset because you are devastating my beliefs, or lies, whatever you think I have. It's not like I have any engineering degrees or ever did things like climb mountains, or visit other parts of the world... oh wait I do and I have done those things. Well I haven't been to space, I'm too old now and too broke to do that. I have to rely on other experts that have to bring me back data for analysis. Wait a minute... they are also part of the BIG CONSPIRACY. To save face because someone, somewhere a thousand years or so ago did some failed math and theorized that the Earth was round, We are in a world wide conspiracy to make sure this one person's theories are protected. Hell we even "created" the moon landings, all the shuttle flights, numerous satellites, Probes, etc. All the Pilots and the airplane factories are in on it, all the telecommunications companies are in on it, GPS is magical, Unicorns are real, Governments spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on this conspiracy to support one dude and the few globe manufacturers income. I guess Google is in on it also since they made Google Earth, oh yeah they got the original backbone of that program from the military (which used it as a tracking program for highly precise drone and missle strikes), BTW did I admit that Unicorns were real?
-
I live in australia .
Please tell us you actually do know which end is west, and which end is east.
Because at the moment, I don't believe you do......... unless of course you're a troll.
I'm guessing that (possibly uncalibrated monitor?) that Charles couldn't discern the eastern coastline of Australia in this grab...
(http://i.imgur.com/icie3QU.png)
i wanted the run time slowed , so i put a little bate out, to bringing him in for the sucker punch. As if i wouldn't know the east coast from the west .But rudely I was thwarted & banned. Appeasing the Re sooks seems to be paramount.
-
I live in australia .
Please tell us you actually do know which end is west, and which end is east.
Because at the moment, I don't believe you do......... unless of course you're a troll.
I'm guessing that (possibly uncalibrated monitor?) that Charles couldn't discern the eastern coastline of Australia in this grab...
(http://i.imgur.com/icie3QU.png)
i wanted the run time slowed , so i put a little bate out, to bringing him in for the sucker punch. As if i wouldn't know the east coast from the west .But rudely I was thwarted & banned. Appeasing the Re sooks seems to becoming paramount.
So what was the sucker punch?
-
I live in australia .
Please tell us you actually do know which end is west, and which end is east.
Because at the moment, I don't believe you do......... unless of course you're a troll.
I'm guessing that (possibly uncalibrated monitor?) that Charles couldn't discern the eastern coastline of Australia in this grab...
(http://i.imgur.com/icie3QU.png)
i wanted the run time slowed , so i put a little bate out, to bringing him in for the sucker punch. As if i wouldn't know the east coast from the west .But rudely I was thwarted & banned. Appeasing the Re sooks seems to becoming paramount.
So what was the sucker punch?
Well after having a holiday for three days .lets say motivation is at an all time low & I have no time for flate or round earthers or this forum. At the moment. So its swim to deeper water your off the hook to be caught another day.
-
I live in australia .
Please tell us you actually do know which end is west, and which end is east.
Because at the moment, I don't believe you do......... unless of course you're a troll.
I'm guessing that (possibly uncalibrated monitor?) that Charles couldn't discern the eastern coastline of Australia in this grab...
(http://i.imgur.com/icie3QU.png)
i wanted the run time slowed , so i put a little bate out, to bringing him in for the sucker punch. As if i wouldn't know the east coast from the west .But rudely I was thwarted & banned. Appeasing the Re sooks seems to becoming paramount.
So what was the sucker punch?
Well after having a holiday for three days .lets say motivation is at an all time low & I have no time for flate or round earthers or this forum. At the moment. So its swim to deeper water your off the hook to be caught another day.
Okay, sure. Hope the water isn't too cold down there.
-
I have been posting on forums for over 10 years and I don't think I have ever seen a thread where someone was crushed so many times. Cikljamas is now just stuck in a loop. He might actually have suffered permanent damage to his brain.
-
I give you the Official Flat Earth map with red lines on it...
Ok If you were to fly from Santiago nonstop flight to Aukland 11hours 20 minutes
If you flew from Los Angeles nonstop to Aukland 12 hours 15 minutes
Ok I guess we are flying in a circle coming from LAX for maybe 4 hours to cover up the truth of the flat Earth?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/xwoH_ZDIZc2HcAYMeUa2vHvE1dsiGqVMArdjrTV3iQg=w244-h207-p-no)
Ok I'll admit it, not only are Unicorns real but the NASA government types ride them along the ice wall due to their extreme resistance to cold weather
-
No no no sokarul didn't you see, he said he crushed all round Earthers with his "proo.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA uhh sorry
He proved undeniably that the Earth is flat.
I apologize for my outburst of laughter there, no disrespect intended.
I await my ban hammer
-
While I await my punishment for being rude, Ill talk about this zig zag argument.
Ok I am now imagining myself on a merry-go-round and a large stadium light is high and away from me but pointing in my general direction. I am not riding on a horse so I can remain focused on the light. as the merry-go-round spins with me on it I have to turn my body to keep the light in my field of view. Also because the thing is spinning the light looks like it circles the merry-go-round.
BTW this is a bad analogy since you have so much other objects around you.
Lets imagine myself on a ball,say the size of the "fake, global conspiracy model" Earth, slightly tilted towards a extremely bright object, lets say the Sun. Now nothing else is perceivable due to the brightness of this Sun. The huge ball spins. I being quite small compared to the ball cannot feel the spin, but I can see the light. It appears to circle the ball. Without knowing that I am on a ball, I assume the light is circling me rather than the ball is turning and the light is relatively stationary. The tilt of the ball allows me to see the light for the full rotation, and depending on how far I am from the center of rotation (pole), the angle of the light will rise and fall. Now if I am very close to the center of rotation, and if the tilt is say, I dunno 23 or so degrees towards the light, The light will appear to remain higher in the field of view and rise and fall to a lesser degree, as lang as the tilt is toward the light.
Oh another thing, the main reason there are not many, yes there are some, videos of the south pole midnight sun is because there are only a few people who work on Antarctica. It is treaty bound to not be claimed by any one nation and therefore no permanent residents. Also most of the people there are either Scientists, support staff for the scientists, or military support for... you guessed it, scientists. I don't think they feel the need to prove the Earth is round for you. Even the videos that are out there are called hoaxes, actually at the North Pole,or photo-shopped.
Unicorns
-
Antarctica. It is treaty bound to not be claimed by any one nation
What does that actually mean?
-
No one lives there, they go there for a short period.
Many people live in the Arctic circle (North Pole region).
No one lives in Antarctica. It is only research stations.
Therefore, less people, less cameras.
-
Has every country signed this "treaty"?
-
http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm (http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm)
-
and putting quotes around treaty? Seriously another conspiracy? And no not all countries have signed it, originally it was the 12 that had research areas there but now I believe its up to 39 or so that have signed it.
-
So are any of the many countries that have not signed the "treaty" allowed to go there and, well, you know, just do some "non-treaty" stuff.
-
ok the treaty in a nutshell is that all countries with stations present there agree that all research shall be shared with anyone, stations available to inspection, no military, and no territorial claims.
The countries that haven't signed the treaty are pretty much the ones that either do not give a crap about doing anything there or have not developed to a point to be able to waste time and resources on it.
Quite possibly, no, they would be facing the combined resistance of the 39 countries that have signed the treaty so why provoke them if you can easily just share in their research or sign the charter to set up your own station.
-
ok the treaty in a nutshell is that all countries with stations present there agree that all research shall be shared with anyone, stations available to inspection, no military, and no territorial claims.
The countries that haven't signed the treaty are pretty much the ones that either do not give a crap about doing anything there or have not developed to a point to be able to waste time and resources on it.
Quite possibly, no, they would be facing the combined resistance of the 39 countries that have signed the treaty so why provoke them if you can easily just share in their research or sign the charter to set up your own station.
Its so nice to know that 39 counties will protect Antarctica from the underdeveloped countries, Oh , and also from the ones that don't give a crap, so that we can research some climate change, or even maybe find a plant that can be used to make a new medicine that we don't even know about yet.
Ahh science! Working together to create utopia.
-
Errrr.
Those slides you displayed clearly show it as sunrise in eastern Australia....
What's the problem?
have you ever flown from melbourne to LA .its 16 .22 hour flight at 5ookmh if the weather good .as for watching golf in LA at 9am in melbourne live feed with them playing in the afternoon . Is just plain BS . It would have to be live feed on delayed telecast.
-
Australian is ahead of the USA in date & time . eg..Australia am Saturday the14th would be friday the 13th in the USA.
-
You should be banned for all of those copy and pastes. They are annoying. Respond to a few things at a time. No one is going to read that.
My animations are only ridiculous to you because they show the truth. No, both sides of the Earth are more or less equal in night time and in daylight.
I explained this many times, but i will do it once more for you:
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there is no TILT of the Earth!
2. If there is no TILT of the Earth, then there is no way for anyone to explain how it happens (how this phenomena can occur on a round Earth) that longer (than 12 hours) lenghts of a daylight could appear anywhere on the Earth at any given period of the year.
Did you forget this:
Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
P.S. You should be banned for ignoring my arguments all along, and in the same time you are unable to show us at least one valid proof for any of your ridiculous claims. Just give us one valid proof for the rotation of the Earth and you can declare victory. On the other hand, if you are unable to do that, then why don't you just leave this place voluntarily and for good?
Rotation/revolution of the Earth is the final and decisive "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" question of all questions here!
My ZIGZAG argument is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth hypothesis!!!
You see, i have got a proof for my claims, and you have nothing to offer here, so figure out what you should do now, even without anyone's (moderator's) assistance...
We've presented you with two models for how both of your scenarios are perfectly possible in a round Earth, and you didn't listen. We've also proved it mathematically.
1. Why not? It's tilted in relation to its orbital plane. It rotates around an axis, and that axis is not perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. It's as simple as that.
2. See 1.
@ Mikey T Lovzballs, i would like to leave just one little comment on your stupid posts:
(http://i.imgur.com/YZHYb.gif)
1. Why not? It's tilted in relation to its orbital plane. It rotates around an axis, and that axis is not perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. It's as simple as that.
This is utterly stupid, exactly so stupid as i would expect of you!
If the Earth is at rest then the Sun travels above the equator and above the tropic of cancer and tropic of capricorn and along (above) various paths in between these two tropics (ecliptic-analema).
So, if the Sun travels travels along these lines, what would be the point of your alleged tilt of the Earth?
Celestial Equator is aligned with the Earth's Equator, not with Sun's Equator, isn't that interesting? Don't you know what it means? It means that in heliocentric theory the Earth is not tilted with respect to the stars, but with respect to the Sun (your "orbital plane" is referring to the alleged Earth's orbit around the Sun)!
The earth is NOT TILTED 23.45°degrees....It is UPRIGHT as God created man to walk UPRIGHT. The tilted earth probably came from Galileo as he looked through the telescope and saw that some of the planets were tilted in their orbits around the sun. A tilted EARTH could be an explanation for the seasons, he reasoned, as people were still apt to ask difficult questions about the reason for the seasons!!
In order to cut your suffering, i am going to remind you that even Alpha2Omega acknowledged that if we took away your holly heliocentric grail which is alleged tilt of the Earth the whole heliocentric theory would fall to pieces immediately.
Heliocentric "astronomers" greatly exaggerate the size of the solar system and the universe. They make the universe so big that it cannot possibly orbit the earth in 24 hours.
Take the sun for example, the ancient Greeks said that the sun was only about 3,000,000 miles (4,828.032 km) from the earth. This was the number given by Ptolemy and the great Arab astronomer al-Battani. Even Copernicus in his book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. gives the number at about 3,000,000 miles. The rotating earth people stuck a 9 in front of the 3 and with this mathematical sleight of hand we have a sun whose distance from the earth is exaggerated 30 times!!
You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours. It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
Many "astronomers" cite the Foucault pendulum experiment that was carried out in Paris in 1851 as PROOF that the earth turns. It's a pity that the NASA space program has not provided them with more recent proof. Here is a quote from a 36-year veteran of the space program with a Ph.D., in astronomy from the University of Michigan:
Proof of Earth's turning, or rotation, didn't come until 1851, more than two millennia after Heraclides (researchers didn't have much government funding back then, so progress was slow). The proof came from a big French swinger: a heavy metal ball suspended from the ceiling above the floor of the Pantheon (a church) in Paris on a 200-foot wire. The ball is called a Foucault pendulum, after the French physicist who came up with the plan. If you kept an eye on the pendulum as it swung back and forth all day, you could see that the direction taken by the swinging ball across the floor gradually changed, as though the floor was turning underneath it. (Maran, Astronomy for Dummies, p. 42).
The Foucault Pendulum remains the only "proof" for a rotating earth. (in 21th century!!!)
This is a geocentric model:
(http://i.imgur.com/L7f4YfZ.jpg)
I repeat:
If there is no TILT of the Earth, then there is no way for anyone to explain how it happens (how this phenomena can occur on a round Earth) that longer (than 12 hours) lenghts of a daylight could appear anywhere on the Earth at any given period of the year!!!
No way!!!
Refute it if you can!!!
-
Please without copy pasting yet again, clearly and calmly explain why the Earth isn't tilted.
Once again, do not copy paste the same stuff again, lets just give this to me piece by piece since you like to state something is a fact then use that as proof of the rest of your argument.
Lets stick to just why the Earth isn't tilted.
Plus this before you copy paste from your previous comment
The celestial equator is a great circle on the imaginary celestial sphere, in the same plane as the Earth's equator. In other words, it is a projection of the terrestrial equator out into space. As a result of the Earth's axial tilt, the celestial equator is inclined by 23.4° with respect to the ecliptic plane.
This is not anything but a reference tool for plotting and relaying where to look in the sky to see celestial bodies. Since it is said that we rotate on this ball the stars move along this path from your point of view.
-
Please without copy pasting yet again, clearly and calmly explain why the Earth isn't tilted.
Once again, do not copy paste the same stuff again, lets just give this to me piece by piece since you like to state something is a fact then use that as proof of the rest of your argument.
Lets stick to just why the Earth isn't tilted.
Because, there is no rotation of the Earth!
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.
2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.
3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
Haven't you read this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Jet Fission, your animations are ridiculous. Don't you see that in your animation more than half of the Earth is lit with Sun's rays? It's VERNAL EQUINOX, see above... So, something is wrong with your model of a globe...But even if you managed to correct this error in your model of a globe, your RET position would still be ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS, because :
1. 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.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
2. Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride. Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.
3. Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
4. “It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
5. If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!"
6. The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.
7. “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves
8. ZIGZAG ARGUMENT ILLUSTRATION :
(http://i.imgur.com/XG5hVkG.jpg)
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN THIS VIDEO : (http://)
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ZIGZAG ARG. - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY page 45 - post # 881: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ZIGZAG ARG. - EQUATOR PROBLEM page 15 - post " 282 : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)
Fantastically put together. I applaud your efforts in all this.
Thanks Scepti! :)
-
ok immediately to the copy paste again. Lets try this one more time. Tell me why there is no tilt. Then we will work on other items.
-
Proof of rotation of Earth:
Foucault pendulum
Coriolis effect
Equatorial telescope mounts
Meteor shower intensity after midnight
24 daylight in Antarctica during Dec - Feb
Proof of revolution round sun:
Difference between solar day and sidereal day
Change in position of stars during course of the year
Meteor intensity after midnight
Just off the top of my head.
-
ok immediately to the copy paste again. Lets try this one more time. Tell me why there is no tilt. Then we will work on other items.
Do you understand english? If yes, then just answer to the next question:
If the Earth is at rest then the Sun travels above the equator and above the tropic of cancer and tropic of capricorn and along (above) various paths in between these two tropics (ecliptic-analema).
So, if the Sun travels travels along these lines, what would be the point of your alleged tilt of the Earth?
-
Yes but the Earth isn't at rest and does travel round the sun and this is why axial tilt is important.
-
Yes but the Earth isn't at rest and does travel round the sun and this is why axial tilt is important.
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:
- the alleged tilt of the earth's axis,
- the so called Copernican principle,
- positive stellar parallax,
- uniformitiy of the speed of light,
- lengh contraction
- time dilation
- denial of inertia (only accepting an imaginary and isolated "chosen" inertial frame of reference)
- the earth supposedly moving at a various speeds (in order to account for the observed eclipses)
Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun. What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos. It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies. As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact, but rather a metaphysical assumption supported by profoundly convincing ideas and theories.
For thousands of years, there was a prevailing geocentric view of the cosmos, in which the Earth was believed to be the centre of the universe. By looking up at the sky and seeing the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars moving about Earth along circular paths day after day, it seemed evident to ancient people that the Earth was stationary and the rest of the universe moved around it. Such a perspective was also in accordance with the God-centred worldview which maintained that a god or gods created us, and that there is a purpose to this creation.
The ancients were more than intelligent enough to understand that the same observational phenomena would be equally attributable to a rotation of the earth on its axis. So, why then was this perspective not adopted in ancient times?
“The simple truth is that the ancient world found it more plausible to believe that we were clearly the focus and centre of what we saw going around us”
The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), a brilliant experimental scientist whose measurements of the positions of the stars and planets surpassed any that were made prior to the invention of the telescope, proposed a model that attempted to serve as a compromise between the geocentric explanation and the Copernican theory. In this model, all planets except the Earth revolve around the Sun. In other words, the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
“The remarkable thing is that the Tycho system absolutely duplicates the observations we see in the sky just as the heliocentric system does. There is no visual distinction at all between the Tycho system and the Copernican system.”
“For two centuries the greatest scientists in the world tried to come up with an experiment that would measure that motion of the earth around the sun, that everyone almost knew was obviously occurring. But paradoxically, for two centuries every one of these experiments that tried to measure this universally assumed motion of the Earth around the Sun kept returning a value of zero for the motion of the earth, and this became a really big issue in science.”
Over the last decade, a number of anomalous cosmological observations have emerged which do not make sense according to the Copernican Principle, the latest being the Planck satellite results of March 2013. While the science behind the findings is complex, to put it simply, the Copernican Principle requires that any variation in the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background (thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the ‘Big Bang’) be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe. However, the results of three separate missions, starting with the WMAP satellite in 2001, has shown anomalies in the background radiation which are aligned directly with the plane of our solar system and the equator of the Earth. This never-before-seen alignment of the Earth results in an axis through the universe, which scientists have dubbed the ‘Axis of Evil’, owing to the shocking implications for current models of the cosmos.
Laurence Krauss, American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, commented in 2005:
"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and others initially brushed off the strange finding as an artifact, and dozens of papers and reports followed trying to address the anomaly. But when the Planck results returned in March 2013, the alignment showed up in yet even higher resolution and detail, and has now been replicated across three separate missions, suggesting there is something more than an ‘artifact’ that is going on here.
“The thing that has really launched the media hysteria about our film, is that we are pulling the covers off the dirty little secret that not only is there structure, that structure is related in astonishing ways to one and precisely one location in the universe, and it happens to be us!"
So much about the alleged tilt of the Earth!
-
Use sources please.
-
ok immediately to the copy paste again. Lets try this one more time. Tell me why there is no tilt. Then we will work on other items.
Do you understand english? If yes, then just answer to the next question:
If the Earth is at rest then the Sun travels above the equator and above the tropic of cancer and tropic of capricorn and along (above) various paths in between these two tropics (ecliptic-analema).
So, if the Sun travels travels along these lines, what would be the point of your alleged tilt of the Earth?
The sun would have to travel almost twice as fast at the Tropic of Capricorn than it would at the Tropic of Cancer to complete one 24hr lap. I forget the exact speeds.
Is there any evidence of the sun moving overhead faster in the south during summer than it does in the north during summer? No? Looks like Earth is a sphere then.
-
Use sources please.
You should know by now that cikljamas never provides any citations to any of his alleged "sources". His modus operandi is to post several screensfull of plagiarised copypasta, along with half a dozen over-sized photos, and a few inexplicable, Photoshopped diagrams, and then simply..... claim "victory".
I've never seen anybody, on any forum, spend so much time, and make so much effort to produce so little evidence of so little LOL.
-
When someone puts forward such mindless junk he/she should be aware that by doing this he/she throws away last pieces of his/her credibility! That is why, for example, i don't expect of Alpha2Omega to take a stand on ZIGZAG argument, because, even if he still might be adherent of RET (although i can hardly believe that any serious person could proceed with such stubbornness, after taking note of indisputable validity and undeniable power of ZIGZAG argument), he is not stupid at all (QUITE CONTRARY!!!), and i am very sad that i can't use the same words for many other REs here.
Sorry to disappoint, but I have taken and still do take a stand on your "ZIGZAG" argument. To refresh your memory, the stand was (and still is): "You're wrong."
Postings in the last few weeks clarified that you're conflating two entirely different processes into what you call your "ZIGZAG argument."
One of these is the parallax expected due to the observer's distance distance from the axis, which, on a perfectly spherical earth, is the radius of the earth times the cosine of the observer's latitude. Let's see how big this is.
D = Re cos( lat ).
If you say Re is 4000 miles, then D would be very close to 1600 miles at the Arctic or Antarctic Circle.
Solar parallax due to the daily rotation would be twice arctan (D / distance to the sun)
psol = 2 tan-1( D / 1 AU )
= 2 tan-1( 1600 mi / 93000000 mi)
= 2 tan-1( 1.72 X 10-5 )
= 2 ( 9.9 X 10-4 )°
= ( 2 X 10-3 )° = 0.002° approximately
This tiny apparent shift occurs over a period of 12 hours, varying sinusoidally with a maximum rate of about ( 2.6 X 10-4 )°/hr at local noon and midnight.
Now, the Sun's apparent movement against the stars is 360° / 365.25 days; call it 1° per day, a bit over 0.04° / hr. This is more than 150 times the maximum rate of parallax shift!
Even this apparent motion is swamped by the diurnal rate of 15°/hour times the cosine of the sun's declination,
= 15°/hour cos( 23.5° ) at the solstice
= 13.76°/hour.
13.76°/hour is more than 50,000 times the maximum parallax rate of .00026°/hour! So, no, the Sun doesn't come anywhere near "zig-zagging" due to parallax. Its diurnal rate would shift ever so slightly, but it's clearly not going to reverse direction of movement through the sky due to this tiny, tiny effect. Your not-to-scale diagrams with the Sun located way too close to the Earth have misled you into thinking this would be significant. Despite suggestions by several here, though, the size of the Sun makes no difference here; only the Sun's distance and the diameter of the observer's circle of latitude matter.
Your interpretation of the completely separate issue of the Sun's direction of motion over a full day is also clearly incorrect. For an observer above the Arctic Circle at (or near) the summer solstice, as long as he continues facing the Sun, it continues moving left to right for the full day. He will, of course, have completed a full rotation relative to the point where he is standing, over the course of the full day; this counteracts the full rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun over the same period. The Earth, in effect, rotated once under him.
Returning to the thought experiment with a transparent earth, for an observer at mid-northern latitude during summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and proceeds left to right across the sky as the observer faces it until it "sets" in the northwest. After this, with our hypothetical transparent earth, if the observer continues facing the Sun, it continues moving left to right until it intersects the northeastern horizon at its beginning point. No reversal of direction.
-
Use sources please.
You should know by now that cikljamas never provides any citations to any of his alleged "sources". His modus operandi is to post several screensfull of plagiarised copypasta, along with half a dozen over-sized photos, and a few inexplicable, Photoshopped diagrams, and then simply..... claim "victory".
I've never seen anybody, on any forum, spend so much time, and make so much effort to produce so little evidence of so little LOL.
You should go the the "Believer's Section" or the "Information Repository" and read the enormous scroll of copypasta Sandokhan types for nobody else to read. Makes CKllamapyjama's posts look like a pithy haiku.
-
Alpha2Omega, you are trying to be smart again?
Well, you are smarter than many REs here, but you are too weak to dispute validity of my ZIGZAG argument:
You can not use that 0,01 degree (when it suits you) to rule out parallax, and then discard that 0,01 degree (when it doesn't suit you) when you have to explain huge effect of the apparent motion of the sun across the sky as we see it in our reality.
The very same reason (alleged rotation of the Earth from West to East) that causes you to observe "apparent" daily motion of the Sun from East to West), would be the reason which would enable you to observe (if you could see through the Earth) nightly motion of the Sun from West to East, am i right?
So, the very same reason why you see in Arctic circle Sun's "apparent" motion from East to West during the first 12 hours of one polar day, would be the reason which would enable you to observe "nightly" apparent motion of the midnight Sun from West to East (if the Earth rotated) during the second half of the same polar day, am i right?
Only, during the second half of the same polar day the apparent motion of the Sun would be in opposite direction (with respect to the first half of the polar day), because you would travel in opposite direction (with respect to the direction of your motion during the first half of the polar day) on a rotating globe during the second half of the same polar day.
Your technique of lying becomes evident from these words of yours:
Returning to the thought experiment with a transparent earth, for an observer at mid-northern latitude during summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and proceeds left to right across the sky as the observer faces it until it "sets" in the northwest. After this, with our hypothetical transparent earth, if the observer continues facing the Sun, it continues moving left to right until it intersects the northeastern horizon at its beginning point. No reversal of direction.
Do you really think that people are so stupid to be unable to understand such simple geometry, and thus easily figure out obvious truth, which is: you deliberately lie all the time!?
-
uhh the zigzag argument as you call it, why would the sun change directions if you were on a rotating ball? if you were tilted slightly towards the sun it would stat out the day, in the Arctic or Antarctic during their respective summers, lower on the horizon then as you rotated rise higher in the sky while traveling across the sky till you reached midday where (because you are on a spinning ball) it would continue to travel in the same circular direction (from your relative perspective) but start to sink toward the horizon. If you accept the tilt argument then while the spinning ball you are on is tilted towards the sun, depending on how close you were to the axis of spin, then sun would rise and fall in the sky but not quite set beyond the horizon as long as you were situated on the tilted ball where the sunlight still reached. This also explains the longer days during the summer, if you are on a tilted ball then your transit time through the dark side would be shorter the further towards the axis of rotation you go. You keep trying to say the sun goes East then West therefore it zigzags. It circles all the way around you on a tilted sphere. But if you want to think in 2 dimensional then yeah it travels from your right to your left behind you then it travels from your left to your right in front of you so long as you remain fixed facing one direction and don't look up.
-
you deliberately lie all the time!?
If you have any honesty, you can explain why this image you insist on repeatedly posting has been obviously distorted compared to the original.
(http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg)
Your silence on the matter will only confirm that you are in fact dishonest and a liar.
-
uhh the zigzag argument as you call it, why would the sun change directions if you were on a rotating ball? if you were tilted slightly towards the sun it would stat out the day, in the Arctic or Antarctic during their respective summers, lower on the horizon then as you rotated rise higher in the sky while traveling across the sky till you reached midday where (because you are on a spinning ball) it would continue to travel in the same circular direction (from your relative perspective) but start to sink toward the horizon. If you accept the tilt argument then while the spinning ball you are on is tilted towards the sun, depending on how close you were to the axis of spin, then sun would rise and fall in the sky but not quite set beyond the horizon as long as you were situated on the tilted ball where the sunlight still reached. This also explains the longer days during the summer, if you are on a tilted ball then your transit time through the dark side would be shorter the further towards the axis of rotation you go.
I didn't want to go in all possible details regarding ZIGZAG argument (at that time), but now that you have mentioned this, i can say this:
Yes, if the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
You keep trying to say the sun goes East then West therefore it zigzags. It circles all the way around you on a tilted sphere. But if you want to think in 2 dimensional then yeah it travels from your right to your left behind you then it travels from your left to your right in front of you so long as you remain fixed facing one direction and don't look up.
Precisely!
-
so how does the zig zag argument prove anything? If the ball is spinning then from your perspective the sun travels in a circle above you while near the poles during their summer.
The way the sun travels at the North pole zig zag or around you, however you want to limit the dimensional reality of your field of view, will not prove or disprove either argument. It can be proof of both the sun spotlighting down on a flat Earth traveling in a circle, a small sun rotating around a round stationary Earth, or a tilted rotating Earth. The transit of the sun at the North pole alone is not proof, it is evidence to support all three claims. Now if you believe the South pole midnight sun is correct, then that does provide proof of the flat Earth model, but does not disprove the other 2.
So since we are on the flat Earth society website lets remove any data concerning the south pole, since it clearly is not acceptable to the flat theory.
So zig zag argument is invalid for these purposes. I am not saying incorrect, just that it is not valid to the shape of the Earth or can disprove tilt.
-
so how does the zig zag argument prove anything? If the ball is spinning then from your perspective the sun travels in a circle above you while near the poles during their summer.
The way the sun travels at the North pole zig zag or around you, however you want to limit the dimensional reality of your field of view, will not prove or disprove either argument. It can be proof of both the sun spotlighting down on a flat Earth traveling in a circle, a small sun rotating around a round stationary Earth, or a tilted rotating Earth. The transit of the sun at the North pole alone is not proof, it is evidence to support all three claims. Now if you believe the South pole midnight sun is correct, then that does provide proof of the flat Earth model, but does not disprove the other 2.
So since we are on the flat Earth society website lets remove any data concerning the south pole, since it clearly is not acceptable to the flat theory.
So zig zag argument is invalid for these purposes. I am not saying incorrect, just that it is not valid to the shape of the Earth or can disprove tilt.
ZIGZAG argument isn't direct proof for the general flatness of the surface of the Earth, but it is indirect proof for the same purpose.
I explained it one page back, don't you remember?
Lack of a ZIGZAG phenomena within the Arctic circle is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth!
If there is no rotation of the Earth, there is no tilt of the Earth, if there is no tilt of the Earth, then the Earth must be flat.
Everything explained in details on the page 50 of this thread!
-
so how does the zig zag argument prove anything? If the ball is spinning then from your perspective the sun travels in a circle above you while near the poles during their summer.
The way the sun travels at the North pole zig zag or around you, however you want to limit the dimensional reality of your field of view, will not prove or disprove either argument. It can be proof of both the sun spotlighting down on a flat Earth traveling in a circle, a small sun rotating around a round stationary Earth, or a tilted rotating Earth. The transit of the sun at the North pole alone is not proof, it is evidence to support all three claims. Now if you believe the South pole midnight sun is correct, then that does provide proof of the flat Earth model, but does not disprove the other 2.
So since we are on the flat Earth society website lets remove any data concerning the south pole, since it clearly is not acceptable to the flat theory.
So zig zag argument is invalid for these purposes. I am not saying incorrect, just that it is not valid to the shape of the Earth or can disprove tilt.
ZIGZAG argument isn't direct proof for the general flatness of the surface of the Earth, but it is indirect proof for the same purpose.
I explained it one page back, don't you remember?
Lack of a ZIGZAG phenomena within the Arctic circle is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth!
If there is no rotation of the Earth, there is no tilt of the Earth, if there is no tilt of the Earth, then the Earth must be flat.
Everything explained in details on the page 50 of this thread!
Cikljamas, you cannot expect us to copy and paste our proof against your invalid argument over and over.
Because you never actually read what we say.
Let it go, you're wrong, it's okay.
It isn't the first time you've been defeated, anyway.
-
Alpha2Omega, you are trying to be smart again?
Well, you are smarter than many REs here, but you are too weak to dispute validity of my ZIGZAG argument:
You can not use that 0,01 degree (when it suits you) to rule out parallax, and then discard that 0,01 degree (when it doesn't suit you) when you have to explain huge effect of the apparent motion of the sun across the sky as we see it in our reality.
The very same reason (alleged rotation of the Earth from West to East) that causes you to observe "apparent" daily motion of the Sun from East to West), would be the reason which would enable you to observe (if you could see through the Earth) nightly motion of the Sun from West to East, am i right?
So, the very same reason why you see in Arctic circle Sun's "apparent" motion from East to West during the first 12 hours of one polar day, would be the reason which would enable you to observe "nightly" apparent motion of the midnight Sun from West to East (if the Earth rotated) during the second half of the same polar day, am i right?
Only, during the second half of the same polar day the apparent motion of the Sun would be in opposite direction (with respect to the first half of the polar day), because you would travel in opposite direction (with respect to the direction of your motion during the first half of the polar day) on a rotating globe during the second half of the same polar day.
Your technique of lying becomes evident from these words of yours:
Returning to the thought experiment with a transparent earth, for an observer at mid-northern latitude during summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and proceeds left to right across the sky as the observer faces it until it "sets" in the northwest. After this, with our hypothetical transparent earth, if the observer continues facing the Sun, it continues moving left to right until it intersects the northeastern horizon at its beginning point. No reversal of direction.
Do you really think that people are so stupid to be unable to understand such simple geometry, and thus easily figure out obvious truth, which is: you deliberately lie all the time!?
It seems like you are confusing left and right with east and west
-
You seem to be missing the point here than. The "zig Zag" argument cannot prove anything. It circles around your head above the horizon. Thats exactly what would happen on a large ball spinning.
Lets be open about this, I admitted what your zig zag argument could provide evidence of three scenarios, including the flat earth argument (only if you ignore the south pole). I ask you to try to think about this for just a second.
If the Sun is very far away, and the Earth rotates on a tilt.
Then what you would see during the summer in the Arctic circle is a sun that circles the entire sky while wobbling up and down depending on distance from the axis of rotation.
Because you are spinning the point of how the sun lines up along the horizon moves around that arc. So from an observer on the balls perspective the sun circles them.
-
Alpha2Omega, you are trying to be smart again?
I try to be as smart as possible. Don't you? Sometimes it's good enough, sometimes not.
Well, you are smarter than many REs here, but you are too weak to dispute validity of my ZIGZAG argument:
::)
You can not use that 0,01 degree (when it suits you) to rule out parallax, and then discard that 0,01 degree (when it doesn't suit you) when you have to explain huge effect of the apparent motion of the sun across the sky as we see it in our reality.
Why not? It's 0.002° of parallax, not 0.001°, but whatever; if it's small enough to ignore as an insignificant effect in comparison to 180° in the same time period (that's a ratio of 1:90000; 1:180000 using your incorrect number), then why not discard it? Is this what you really meant to say?
Where did I say that parallax was the source of the diurnal motion of the Sun across the sky? I said it's insignificant in comparison. I think 1:90000 counts as insignificant in this context.
The very same reason (alleged rotation of the Earth from West to East) that causes you to observe "apparent" daily motion of the Sun from East to West), would be the reason which would enable you to observe (if you could see through the Earth) nightly motion of the Sun from West to East, am i right?
So, the very same reason why you see in Arctic circle Sun's "apparent" motion from East to West during the first 12 hours of one polar day, would be the reason which would enable you to observe "nightly" apparent motion of the midnight Sun from West to East (if the Earth rotated) during the second half of the same polar day, am i right?
Hold it... earlier, you were asking about left-to-right motion. Now it's east-to-west? What changed?
If you think about it, once anything that appears to be moving in a circular-type path (ellipses count) reaches its westernmost point, if it keeps moving, it has to change from east to west to west to east. It doesn't matter if it's your motion that makes it appear to move, or if you're stationary and it's moving. You can't be more west than west.
Only, during the second half of the same polar day the apparent motion of the Sun would be in opposite direction (with respect to the first half of the polar day), because you would travel in opposite direction (with respect to the direction of your motion during the first half of the polar day) on a rotating globe during the second half of the same polar day.
Your technique of lying becomes evident from these words of yours:
Returning to the thought experiment with a transparent earth, for an observer at mid-northern latitude during summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and proceeds left to right across the sky as the observer faces it until it "sets" in the northwest. After this, with our hypothetical transparent earth, if the observer continues facing the Sun, it continues moving left to right until it intersects the northeastern horizon at its beginning point. No reversal of direction.
Do you really think that people are so stupid to be unable to understand such simple geometry, and thus easily figure out obvious truth, which is: you deliberately lie all the time!?
Actually, I'm hoping at least some of the readers are smart enough to understand such simple geometry and be able to recognize the obvious truth about the motion of celestial objects. Do you? It seems you don't. If something appears to trace a circular path, in half a rotation it will travel in the opposite direction it did before. This is called "expected", not "impossible". What, specifically, is it you think I'm lying about? What is it about the quoted passage that you think is wrong?
-
If we applied your "0,002" logic consistently, then not only that we couldn't notice any parallax in the sky, but we couldn't notice any apparent motion of the sun across the sky, also. That's what you are avoiding to admit all along.
We would have some kind of sunrise, and some kind of sunset, but nothing alike a huge apparent motion (as we know it from our reality) in between these strange kind of abrupt sunrise and strange kind of abrupt sunset...That would be our reality if we applied your "0,002" logic consistently.
A huge apparent motion of the sun across the sky (as we know it) is a result of the very close distance between the Sun and the Earth.
Mixing two different criteria (applying "0,002" logic to "the parallax issue", and in the same time avoiding to apply same "0,002" logic to "a huge apparent motion of the Sun across the sky issue", can confuse some readers, but it can not confuse me.
Now, we are going to witness a new round of your "hide and seek" pathetic-little game...
-
If we applied your "0,002" logic consistently, then not only that we couldn't notice any parallax in the sky, but we couldn't notice any apparent motion of the sun across the sky, also. That's what you are avoiding to admit all along.
We would have some kind of sunrise, and some kind of sunset, but nothing alike a huge apparent motion (as we know it from our reality) in between these strange kind of abrupt sunrise and strange kind of abrupt sunset...That would be our reality if we applied your "0,002" logic consistently.
A huge apparent motion of the sun across the sky (as we know it) is a result of the very close distance between the Sun and the Earth.
Mixing two different criteria (applying "0,002" logic to "the parallax issue", and in the same time avoiding to apply same "0,002" logic to "a huge apparent motion of the Sun across the sky issue", can confuse some readers, but it can not confuse me.
Now, we are going to witness a new round of your "hide and seek" pathetic-little game...
What? There's a huge difference between moving from side to side and rotating 360 degrees. His ".002" logic is not something that can be denied- it's proved mathematics.
The sun's movement would still work perfectly fine.
-
If we applied your "0,002" logic consistently, then not only that we couldn't notice any parallax in the sky, but we couldn't notice any apparent motion of the sun across the sky, also. That's what you are avoiding to admit all along.
That 0.002° specifically refers to the parallax of the Sun relative to distant stars from points at a latitude near the Arctic (or Antarctic) circle 180° apart in longitude, not any object in the sky from anywhere. Parallax of the Moon from the same points is much greater (because it's much closer). Parallax of LEO satellites is vastly greater (because they're vastly closer than even the Moon). The apparent motion of the Sun across the sky is independent of that, and depends only on the rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun - nothing else - not its size, not its distance, not your distance from the Earth's axis of rotation.
We would have some kind of sunrise, and some kind of sunset, but nothing alike a huge apparent motion (as we know it from our reality) in between these strange kind of abrupt sunrise and strange kind of abrupt sunset...That would be our reality if we applied your "0,002" logic consistently.
How would applying the parallax of the Sun at the Arctic circle affect sunrises or sunsets in any meaningful way? The Sun's diurnal motion is some five orders of magnitude greater than its parallax at the Arctic circle and totally swamps any tiny parallax effects.
A huge apparent motion of the sun across the sky (as we know it) is a result of the very close distance between the Sun and the Earth.
No, it's a result of the angular velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun - one rotation per 24 hours. Once the distance is great enough that parallax isn't significant, distance to the Sun has nothing to do with it.
Mixing two different criteria (applying "0,002" logic to "the parallax issue", and in the same time avoiding to apply same "0,002" logic to "a huge apparent motion of the Sun across the sky issue", can confuse some readers, but it can not confuse me.
The "parallax issue" depends only on the lateral distance from observer to the Earth's axis of rotation. These don't apply to the diurnal apparent motion of the Sun, which depends only on the rate of rotation of the Earth wrt the Sun (once per 24 hours). Apparently you are confused.
Now, we are going to witness a new round of your "hide and seek" pathetic-little game...
Completely open here. If you still don't understand, just ask. Asking politely might help your cred.
-
Five orders of magnitude, wow, i am trembling...hahaha...
So, it is not 0,002, it's 0,010, ha?
But, wait, the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is the result of the angular velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun, so we should neglect this 0,010 or we shouldn't neglect it?
Mixing two different criteria (applying "0,002" logic to "the parallax issue", and in the same time avoiding to apply "0,010" logic to "a huge apparent motion of the Sun across the sky issue", can confuse some readers, but it can not confuse me.
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
And this effect would be FIVE orders of magnitude greater than the ZIGZAG phenomena observable from within the Arctic circle.
I told you, people are not stupid:
Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on February 14, 2015, 01:31:51 PM
You keep trying to say the sun goes East then West therefore it zigzags. It circles all the way around you on a tilted sphere. But if you want to think in 2 dimensional then yeah it travels from your right to your left behind you then it travels from your left to your right in front of you so long as you remain fixed facing one direction and don't look up.
You know, Alpha2Omega, one day you will stand in front of your Creator who created Heaven and Earth, and then you will have to explain some things....
It's one thing when someone don't understand something, but it is completely different when someone deliberately and persistently lie...
I afraid that you will have no excuse for your persistent (and even obvious) lying and deceiving...
He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.…
And there is the most severe punishment for such persistent and deliberate, conscious behavior...
In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says to the Pharisees,
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (NKJV, emphasis added).
...However, the Pharisees had so firmly set their hearts against accepting Jesus as the Messiah that they rejected the obvious truth before them and perversely twisted it to influence the crowds....
They turned away from the abundant light graciously provided to them, and chose to remain forever in their unbelief. They persistently refused to listen to anything the Holy Spirit was telling them. Like the Pharisees, they chose self-imposed blindness. For this reason, they were strongly judged. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required…” (Luke 12:48). Thus, along with nearby Chorazin and Bethsaida, Capernaum received a very stern warning from Jesus, “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee” (Matt. 11:21-24).
-
So instead of listening and actually trying to offer proof, you call Alpha and me liars? Explain what you mean by the sun will go across the sky then reverse its direction on a spinning Earth. I know its getting hard to conceptualize for you since you refuse to listen to reason.
The sun does not zig zag back and forth across the sky. It would not in any way do so on either a flat Earth or a spinning Earth (whether its shaped like a ball or not)
If you are on a very large sphere and there is a light source on one side of that sphere, your sunrise will happen in the same direction every day. I am not even going to go into the tilt argument yet because you are completely lost on the spinning part right now.
ZIG ZAG is utterly STUPID and in no way represents reality of anyone who can think or reason for themselves.
Your arguments are redundant at best, you make a claim of fact, then use that claimed fact to "disprove" other facts. Seriously?
What I said is if you want to think completely in 2 dimensions then the sun would go one direction behind you then the other in front of you, now look up and widen your viewing angle a bit to observe the same thing and the sun would appear to circle all the way around you.
-
It's one thing when someone don't understand something, but it is completely different when someone deliberately and persistently lie...
I afraid that you will have no excuse for your persistent (and even obvious) lying and deceiving...
And still no reply or explanation to my post earlier on this page regarding your edited and deceiving world map you persistently post.
I guess that settles it?
-
So instead of listening and actually trying to offer proof, you call Alpha and me liars? Explain what you mean by the sun will go across the sky then reverse its direction on a spinning Earth. I know its getting hard to conceptualize for you since you refuse to listen to reason.
The sun does not zig zag back and forth across the sky. It would not in any way do so on either a flat Earth or a spinning Earth (whether its shaped like a ball or not)
If you are on a very large sphere and there is a light source on one side of that sphere, your sunrise will happen in the same direction every day. I am not even going to go into the tilt argument yet because you are completely lost on the spinning part right now.
ZIG ZAG is utterly STUPID and in no way represents reality of anyone who can think or reason for themselves.
Your arguments are redundant at best, you make a claim of fact, then use that claimed fact to "disprove" other facts. Seriously?
What I said is if you want to think completely in 2 dimensions then the sun would go one direction behind you then the other in front of you, now look up and widen your viewing angle a bit to observe the same thing and the sun would appear to circle all the way around you.
Your posts are utterly STUPID, but since we came so far away (51th page), i will give a try once more:
(http://i.imgur.com/k2xdCw5.jpg)
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
What is it exactly that you don't understand here?
-
cikljamas, you got the part in black wrong. Rotation is still from west to east all the way around. Anyone with a desktop globe can use it to prove your zig-zag hypothesis wrong.
-
So instead of listening and actually trying to offer proof, you call Alpha and me liars? Explain what you mean by the sun will go across the sky then reverse its direction on a spinning Earth. I know its getting hard to conceptualize for you since you refuse to listen to reason.
The sun does not zig zag back and forth across the sky. It would not in any way do so on either a flat Earth or a spinning Earth (whether its shaped like a ball or not)
If you are on a very large sphere and there is a light source on one side of that sphere, your sunrise will happen in the same direction every day. I am not even going to go into the tilt argument yet because you are completely lost on the spinning part right now.
ZIG ZAG is utterly STUPID and in no way represents reality of anyone who can think or reason for themselves.
Your arguments are redundant at best, you make a claim of fact, then use that claimed fact to "disprove" other facts. Seriously?
What I said is if you want to think completely in 2 dimensions then the sun would go one direction behind you then the other in front of you, now look up and widen your viewing angle a bit to observe the same thing and the sun would appear to circle all the way around you.
Your posts are utterly STUPID, but since we came so far away (51th page), i will give a try once more:
(http://i.imgur.com/k2xdCw5.jpg)
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
What is it exactly that you don't understand here?
The animation that I made a few pages back disproved your zig zag argument, just face it, it's false.
-
Five orders of magnitude, wow, i am trembling...hahaha...
So, it is not 0,002, it's 0,010, ha?
I see in the earlier post you claimed 0.01°, not 0.001°, for the expected parallax... sorry about that. How did you get that number? I keep getting 0.002° of parallax over a day for an object 1 AU (93 million miles) away for an observer 1600 miles from the Earth's axis - close to the arctic circle. It would be just under 0.005° for an observer on the equator.
But, wait, the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is the result of the angular velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun, so we should neglect this 0,010 or we shouldn't neglect it?
Go back and read. Since 0.002° (the amount of parallax in 12 hours) is about 100,000 times less than 180° (diurnal motion in 12 hours), we can safely neglect the parallax. Five orders of magnitude means a difference in magnitude of 100 thousand, in case that was not clear.
Mixing two different criteria (applying "0,002" logic to "the parallax issue", and in the same time avoiding to apply "0,010" logic to "a huge apparent motion of the Sun across the sky issue", can confuse some readers, but it can not confuse me.
You apparently still seem confused. Where did that 0.010 come from? Are you suggesting that 0.01° of motion (presuming it even means something) is significant compared to 180° of motion? It isn't. We can ignore it.
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
No, the Sun doesn't "go in the opposite direction". It continues on the same circular path.
If you're confused about the eastward or westward component of this motion, imagine driving around a roundabout (imagine riding a bicycle if you don't have a car). At some point you'll be traveling due west, then south, then east, then north, then west again (if you go counterclockwise like we do). You're traveling in a smooth circle, not "zigzagging".
What does this have to do with the tiny solar parallax we've already calculated? "Zigzag" would be a good description of the apparent retrograde motion of the planets against the stars due to parallax from earth's orbit. The baseline for this parallax is the diameter of earth's orbit, not the much, much smaller diameter of the planet.
And this effect would be FIVE orders of magnitude greater than the ZIGZAG phenomena observable from within the Arctic circle.
It would be five orders of magnitude greater than parallax at the Arctic Circle, yes. This is why we can safely ignore the tiny amount of parallax (in case that wasn't clear earlier).
I told you, people are not stupid:
I never said they were. Mikey, quoted below, seems to get it. Listen to him if you don't want to listen to me.
Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on February 14, 2015, 01:31:51 PM
You keep trying to say the sun goes East then West therefore it zigzags. It circles all the way around you on a tilted sphere. But if you want to think in 2 dimensional then yeah it travels from your right to your left behind you then it travels from your left to your right in front of you so long as you remain fixed facing one direction and don't look up.
You know, Alpha2Omega, one day you will stand in front of your Creator who created Heaven and Earth, and then you will have to explain some things....
It's one thing when someone don't understand something, but it is completely different when someone deliberately and persistently lie...
<yet another religious rant>
Since I don't happen to believe that particular superstition, it doesn't scare me. Believe what you want if it gives you comfort, but there's no point in repeating it here again and again.
-
Aha, sorry, now i know what you meant by "five orders of magnitude"...
180 degree of Sun's motion (as we know it from our reality) is possible (in this manner) only because the Sun is few hundreds or few thousands (maximally) km far away from the Earth.
If the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away from the Earth there would be my ass "five orders of magnitude"..., will you finally stop with your ridiculous and repugnant technique of spreading your disgusting lies (mixing different criteria)?
(http://i.imgur.com/k2xdCw5.jpg)
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
What is it exactly that you don't understand here?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZgrymUp.jpg)
-
Cikljamas, let me know if this image visualizes what you're trying to convey-
(http://i.imgur.com/fp1U5QZ.png)
I think visualizing the system from this perspective is much better than from any other. Now, tell us, why you think the sun would zig zag in the first place, using this type of visualization.
-
The earth is always rotating west to east. So there is no change in rotation.....
-
Cikljamas, let me know if this image visualizes what you're trying to convey-
I think visualizing the system from this perspective is much better than from any other. Now, tell us, why you think the sun would zig zag in the first place, using this type of visualization.
1.
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
Explanation No 1:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?
Explanation No 2:
If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
Explanation No 3:
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.
Now, we have to put this question:
If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)???
You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :
(http://)
This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.
They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.
Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???
The point is this:
If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.
If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.
Should i be more clear?
2.
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
3. Hoppy's answer : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1656008#msg1656008 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1656008#msg1656008)
4. Tappet's answer : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1654293#msg1654293 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1654293#msg1654293)
So, how come Tappet and Hoppy easily understand my ZIGZAG argument, and you still can't figure it out? Are you stupid, or what?
-
Aha, sorry, now i know what you meant by "five orders of magnitude"...
180 degree of Sun's motion (as we know it from our reality) is possible (in this manner) only because the Sun is few hundreds or few thousands (maximally) km far away from the Earth.
If the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away from the Earth there would be my ass "five orders of magnitude"..., will you finally stop with your ridiculous and repugnant technique of spreading your disgusting lies (mixing different criteria)?
(http://i.imgur.com/k2xdCw5.jpg)
??? I sure hope you're being intentionally obtuse here, or is this another gambit that's going to end in "I was just kidding... can't you take a joke?"
You were the one that suggested parallax was somehow significant, not me. I just showed that it's way too small to make the sun appear to reverse direction in its movement across the sky.
Those black arrows in your drawing are still west to east. And all meridians divide the Earth into halves; what's special about the one you marked?
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
What is it exactly that you don't understand here?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZgrymUp.jpg)
I don't understand is what your point is with this sketch. The fuscia-colored arrows are right, so what's confusing you? Are you suggesting the far side of the Earth would have to rotate in a different direction than the side facing the Sun? Why?
-
Just because I don't think your argument is valid does not mean that I don't understand it. You clearly don't understand our explanations for why you are wrong.
-
Alpha2Omega, you've changed your tactic, now you are playing the role of a complete idiot, ha?
Jet Fission, you are just awesome...
-
Cikljamas, let me know if this image visualizes what you're trying to convey-
I think visualizing the system from this perspective is much better than from any other. Now, tell us, why you think the sun would zig zag in the first place, using this type of visualization.
1.
Ckljamas, please explain your zig zag argument in words again. The video wasn't helpful to me.
Explanation No 1:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?
Explanation No 2:
If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
Explanation No 3:
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.
Now, we have to put this question:
If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)???
You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :
(http://)
This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.
They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.
Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???
The point is this:
If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.
If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.
Should i be more clear?
2.
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.
@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?
3. Hoppy's answer : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1656008#msg1656008 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1656008#msg1656008)
4. Tappet's answer : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1654293#msg1654293 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1654293#msg1654293)
So, how come Tappet and Hoppy easily understand my ZIGZAG argument, and you still can't figure it out? Are you stupid, or what?
Clearly it's because they lack basic special reasoning skills, the aperent direction the Sun moves in terms of right and left depends on what hemisphere you are in and what direction you are facing, neither of which were specified.
-
Clearly it's because they lack basic special reasoning skills, the aperent direction the Sun moves in terms of right and left depends on what hemisphere you are in and what direction you are facing, neither of which were specified.
That would be one of the most pathetic attempts at trolling I have seen on this forum.
Lift your game troll.
-
The zigzag argument has already been completely debunked. There's even a simulation showing it.
Give it a rest.
-
When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!
In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruđer Bošković (1711 -1787).
The performance of Bošković's proposed decisive experiment was deemed superfluous and unnecessary. Two plus two equals four, and the earth races around the sun—those are truths beyond reasonable doubt. Not until one and a half centuries later did new theoretical developments make it advisable to affirm assurance doubly sure by buttressing the Copernican conviction with Bošković's verification of Bradley's exegesis. And thereby hangs a tale!
The point is this: Bradley's 20”.5 angle of aberration depends on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth. The latter, Boscović reasoned, we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one.
Enter Airy
In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.
This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.
Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.
1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!
If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)
If 1 & 2 then...guess what? ;D
If 3 then 4!
How come?
This way:
(http://i.imgur.com/kAp7fjI.jpg)
-
When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!
In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruđer Bošković (1711 -1787).
The performance of Bošković's proposed decisive experiment was deemed superfluous and unnecessary. Two plus two equals four, and the earth races around the sun—those are truths beyond reasonable doubt. Not until one and a half centuries later did new theoretical developments make it advisable to affirm assurance doubly sure by buttressing the Copernican conviction with Bošković's verification of Bradley's exegesis. And thereby hangs a tale!
The point is this: Bradley's 20”.5 angle of aberration depends on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth. The latter, Boscović reasoned, we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one.
Enter Airy
In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.
This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.
Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.
1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!
If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)
If 1 & 2 then...guess what? ;D
If 3 then 4!
How come?
This way:
(http://i.imgur.com/kAp7fjI.jpg)
Fun fact: the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum and that was not known at the time because it was Einstein who figured that out. No matter how the stars were moving the result of the experiment would be the same and that means that the experiment in question proves nothing.
-
What would be the point if we were to discuss with a complete idiots?
-
Watch the personal attacks.
-
It was a rhetorical question! Nothing personal!
-
cikljamas, again, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west. To trace the arc of the sun when in the southern hemisphere you need to be facing north. To trace the arc of the sun in the northern hemisphere you need to be facing south. MILLIONS of people see this every day. I summer the sun will be as close to overhead as it is possible and in winter it will be closer to the horizon.
-
iWitness,
These trolls are epical!
Do we really need better FET argument than this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799)
You have to see this video : (http://)
I suggest you to watch this video, also : (http://)
Yeah, you really do.
Toot your own horn much?
You mean something like this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662598#msg1662598 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662598#msg1662598)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662743#msg1662743 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662743#msg1662743)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799)
...or something like this :
CIA killed Aaron Russo : (http://)
Bill Cooper predicted 911 (it cost him his life) : (http://)
Bill coopers....Last prediction : (http://)
10 years before 9/11/01 watch to the end! : (http://)
COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : (http://)
9/11 Jumpers - 18 minutes : (http://)
Oliver Stone on Obama and 9/11 Truth : (http://)
Signs of the End of the World : (http://)
Fox News Cuts off Girl Telling the Truth About Russia : (http://)
Dr. Oz No Flu Shots For My Kids! : (http://)
Bill Gates : "Now if we do a really god job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent..." : Bill Gates Exposed: Funds Chemtrails, and Supports Depopulation 2/7/2012 (http://#ws)
And here is an explanation of one of Bill's modus operandi: ! Video not found (http://#)
OBAMA THE ABORTION EXTREMIST : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html)
Barack Obama brings pro-abortion history to white house : http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama.htm (http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama.htm)
Supports partial-birth abortion
Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling … I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
In the Illinois State Senate, Obama opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion.
(The partial-birth abortion procedure—used from the fifth month on—involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers.) There is a current federal law that bans partial-birth abortions.
Abortion absolutist
Throughout his U.S. Senate career, Obama compiled a 0% voting record on right-to-life issues scored by the National Right to Life Committee. By contrast, he has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. As president he has shared their views and enjoyed their ongoing support.
Writes investigative journalist Freddoso, "Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
As Peter Wehner observes, Obama "has embraced legislation that is extreme, inhumane and outright brutal. There is no indication that he has the slightest sympathy for unborn children or any interest in ending the ‘culture wars.’ His past policies would, in fact, deepen the divisions."[/i] His policies as president have upheld that prediction as current divisions continue to widen.
...or something like this :
Dr. Kent Hovind: Satanic, Illuminati - Doctrine That Damned America : (http://)
Kent Hovind Innocent. PEDOFILE Lawyer kills himself after trial. : (http://)
KENT Hovind 8 minutes : (http://)
20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
...or something like this :
J. F. Kennedy talks about secret devils,(Masons& Illuminati) : (http://)
-
iWitness,
These trolls are epical!
Do we really need better FET argument than this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799)
You have to see this video : (http://)
I suggest you to watch this video, also : (http://)
Yeah, you really do.
Toot your own horn much?
You mean something like this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662598#msg1662598 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662598#msg1662598)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662743#msg1662743 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662743#msg1662743)
Neither of those are very good either. Read the replies to see their weaknesses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799)
This is the same as the original link to a post with your bad argument. Was there a reason for including it again, or did you forget you'd already done that?
...or something like <laundry list of apparently irrelevant youtube links, rant about abortion, more useless links>
Yep... you really need better (and more relevant) arguments than those. What does any of that have to do with the shape of the Earth? Youtube videos about 9/11, vaccination, and Satanism? Seriously???
-
1. These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):
But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).
Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).
Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).
Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).
As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
2.
Every point on a UNTILTED globe that is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the observer - NOON time), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!
Since there is no motion of the Earth whatsoever, there is no TILT of the Earth, also!
Now, if there is no TILT of the Earth, and if you still want to stipulate RET, you have to take into consideration that on an UNTILTED globe EVERY point which is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the NOON time meridian), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!
It doesn't matter if the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, the sun's rays still can't reach Australia from that particular point (being directly above the meridian which goes thru Salt Lake City, Utah), because we are now on an UNTILTED globe for this particular purpose!
Did you forget this illustration:
(http://i.imgur.com/w2s4qnE.jpg)
3.
Here's a photo of my globe centered on those coordinates from a distance about 35 times its diameter (roughly the distance of the Moon at scale).
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Globe1_zpsjxh1akhq.jpg)
Yeah, i can see East Coast of Australia, but i can't see West Coast of Africa...
December 1th
Sydney - Sunrise 5.37
Dakar Senegal - Sunset 18.51
Time difference between Sydney and Dakar = 11 hours
So, in the first half of December (at least) Sun is already above the horizon for the observer in Sydney and in the same time the Sun is still above the horizon for the observer in Dakar - Senegal.
You can't even explain this with the help of your heliocentric holly grail "the alleged tilt of the Earth", let alone how could this be possibly explainable without the alleged tilt of the Earth???
Now, will you show us the picture of your globe in a proper position, so that we can see in the same time Sydney and Dakar?
Watch:
(http://i.imgur.com/f4oOpJR.jpg)
4.
When you split a globe into two halves, Sydney is about 1,5 hours away from the meridian thru which we have cut a globe (into two halves), and Dakar is aproximately 0,5 hours away from the same meridian.
You have to compensate 2 hours in order to make this possible, and you can't do it, because no one can do it.
Watch this, once again:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Globe1_zpsjxh1akhq.jpg)
Do you notice something?
Even if we were on a tilted globe this would be the problem:
When you tilted your model of a globe (toward us who watch this illustration (imagine that your nose represents the sun)) so that Australian East Coast can receive some light from the Sun (when is the NOON above the meridian which goes through Salt Lake City), what you have just done (also) is that you have tilted West Coast of Africa (Dakar - Senegal) AWAY from the Sun.
So, it's mission impossible even on TILTED globe!
And the Earth is not a globe at all! Have you forgotten it?
5.
OBAMA THE ABORTION EXTREMIST : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html)
Barack Obama brings pro-abortion history to white house : http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama.htm (http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama.htm)
Supports partial-birth abortion
Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling … I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
In the Illinois State Senate, Obama opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion.
(The partial-birth abortion procedure—used from the fifth month on—involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers.) There is a current federal law that bans partial-birth abortions.
Abortion absolutist
Throughout his U.S. Senate career, Obama compiled a 0% voting record on right-to-life issues scored by the National Right to Life Committee. By contrast, he has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. As president he has shared their views and enjoyed their ongoing support.
Writes investigative journalist Freddoso, "Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
As Peter Wehner observes, Obama "has embraced legislation that is extreme, inhumane and outright brutal. There is no indication that he has the slightest sympathy for unborn children or any interest in ending the ‘culture wars.’ His past policies would, in fact, deepen the divisions."[/i] His policies as president have upheld that prediction as current divisions continue to widen.
...or something like this :
Dr. Kent Hovind: Satanic, Illuminati - Doctrine That Damned America : (http://)
Kent Hovind Innocent. PEDOFILE Lawyer kills himself after trial. : (http://)
KENT Hovind 8 minutes : (http://)
20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
...or something like this :
J. F. Kennedy talks about secret devils,(Masons& Illuminati) : (http://)
So, what is the point here?
So, what is the point here?
Obama is one of those that Kennedy had talked about!
Everybody can see what kind of people these masons are, just watch your current president.
Lyndon Johnson and Nixon were masons, also!
Now, the question:
Had Kennedy knew that Mission to the Moon is mission Impossible, maybe he wouldn't have been killed at all?
At the bottom of this story is the fact that the Earth is flat!!!
-
Does copying and re-posting all that make it more correct? No, it doesn't. Your arguments still have no merit.
Stick with using links if you insist on referring to your debunked posts, please; doing so won't make your arguments more correct, but at least it saves space.
-
Does copying and re-posting all that make it more correct? No, it doesn't. Your arguments still have no merit.
Stick with using links if you insist on referring to your debunked posts, please; doing so won't make your arguments more correct, but at least it saves space.
It's ultimately a waste of time even endeavouring to debate a contentious issue of any sort with people such as cikljamas. They're invariably so rigidly single-minded and tunnel-visioned that no amount of viable, empirical scientific evidence will alter their personal opinions on or about anything.
Daniel Pipes PhD, in an early essay "adapted from a study prepared for the CIA", attempted to define which beliefs distinguish 'the conspiracy mentality' from 'more conventional patterns of thought'. He defined them as: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains power, fame, money, and sex.
The only thing Pipes left out, in my opinion, was paranoia. And cikljamas has that in spades. ;D
-
@ AusGeoff, have you forgotten this sentence : "If you can't beat them, join them!" ?
What are you waiting? Why don't you try to join us? We won't accept you, but you can still give a try, anyway... ;D
You have to see this video : (http://)
I suggest you to watch this video, also : (http://)
-
@ AusGeoff, have you forgotten this sentence : "If you can't beat them, join them!" ?
What are you waiting? Why don't you try to join us? We won't accept you, but you can still give a try, anyway... ;D
You have to see this video : (http://)
I suggest you to watch this video, also : (http://)
You are like the Oakland Raiders, you don't beat anyone.
-
@ AusGeoff...
Why don't you try to join us?
Sorry; I'm not prepared to have a frontal lobotomy. Thanks all the same. ;D
-
The entire video sums up this forum in a nutshell : (http://)
-
@ AusGeoff, have you forgotten this sentence : "If you can't beat them, join them!" ?
What are you waiting? Why don't you try to join us? We won't accept you, but you can still give a try, anyway... ;D
You have to see this video : (http://)
I suggest you to watch this video, also : (http://)
You are like the Oakland Raiders, you don't beat anyone.
That's a deep burn he probably doesn't get.
-
@ AusGeoff...
Why don't you try to join us?
Sorry; I'm not prepared to have a frontal lobotomy. Thanks all the same. ;D
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
cikljamas, I would join you if you can demonstrate how your model works better than the one I already use. So far, yours is a non-starter. Ignoring everything else for the moment, you could begin by explaining how you think a sunset works.
-
What would be a consequences of the admission that the Earth is flat:
(http://)
-
What would be a consequences of the admission that the Earth is flat:
(http://)
If you can't answer his simple question just say so.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/pgYgFnK.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/8lOrEoo.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ON68md7.jpg)
P.S. Sokarul, what simple question are you talking about?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/pgYgFnK.jpg)
This diagram shows the sun's illumination on the days of the equinox where the sun is directly above the equator and there are almost exactly 12 hours of daylight all over the world.
(http://i.imgur.com/8lOrEoo.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ON68md7.jpg)
These diagrams show the sun closer to the southern summer solstice where the sun is about 20 degrees or so south of the equator and one would expect the maximum daylight in the southern hemiplane. Perhaps if you were consistent in your diagrams, then you might have a better argument.
-
@ markjo,
See explanation under number 4 in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1663164#msg1663164 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1663164#msg1663164)
When you tilted your model of a globe toward us so that Australian East Coast can receive some light from the Sun (when is the NOON above the meridian which goes through Salt Lake City), what you have just done (also) is that you have tilted West Coast of Africa (Dakar - Senegal) AWAY from the Sun.
That is how your tilt proposition became your HC grave.
In my latter post (in first illustration) i have corrected this part :
When you split a globe into two halves, Sydney is about 1,5 hours away from the meridian thru which we have cut a globe (into two halves), and Dakar is aproximately 0,5 hours away from the same meridian.
So, Sydney is not 1,5 hours away from that particular meridian but 40 minutes, and Dakar is not 0,5 hours away from the same meridian-line, but about 10 minutes.
Anyway, these 50 minutes show us in a very illustrative way how HC model of a globe is utterly wrong and unsustainable.
-
Anyway, these 50 minutes show us in a very illustrative way how HC model of a globe is utterly wrong and unsustainable.
No, those 50 minutes show how significant the earth's tilt is when you properly take it into consideration. Any model can be "proven" wrong when it's improperly presented.
-
What is the point of posting here if you're not going to listen to any of our refutations?
Having both those places be in sunlight is perfectly possible in our model. Please tell us why not.
-
@ markjo,
See explanation under number 4 in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1663164#msg1663164 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1663164#msg1663164)
When you tilted your model of a globe toward us so that Australian East Coast can receive some light from the Sun (when is the NOON above the meridian which goes through Salt Lake City), what you have just done (also) is that you have tilted West Coast of Africa (Dakar - Senegal) AWAY from the Sun.
Maybe you ignored it, but the answer to number 4 was already given in the "Evidence" thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662792#msg1662792 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662792#msg1662792).
The photo of the globe is missing almost a degree all the way around because it's from much closer than the sun actually would be at scale, it's missing another half degree because the photo of the globe doesn't account for refraction, and another quarter degree because the Sun is 1/2° in apparent size, not a point. Since your own day/night map shows eastern Australia and Dakar right on the line, this seems about right.
That is how your tilt proposition became your HC grave.
Very colorful prose. Wrong, but entertaining.
In my latter post (in first illustration) i have corrected this part :
When you split a globe into two halves, Sydney is about 1,5 hours away from the meridian thru which we have cut a globe (into two halves), and Dakar is aproximately 0,5 hours away from the same meridian.
So, Sydney is not 1,5 hours away from that particular meridian but 40 minutes, and Dakar is not 0,5 hours away from the same meridian-line, but about 10 minutes.
Anyway, these 50 minutes show us in a very illustrative way how HC model of a globe is utterly wrong and unsustainable.
This was also addressed in that same reply. Why do you keep bringing this back up after it's been addressed? Or did you just ignore the answer? In either case, please stop. If you disagree with or don't understand the explanation given, ask about it; when we take the effort to answer your questions or show you your error, at least have the courtesy to acknowledge it by not simply repeating the question or assertion again (and again, and again...)
Meridians (great circles through the poles) would apply only when the Sun is directly over the equator (i.e. the equinoxes). I don't think anyone disagrees that the Sun would set in Dakar before it rises in Sydney. Since the Sun is well south of the equator in your scenario, splitting the globe along any meridian doesn't prove anything. Even at an equinox you would still have to allow about 3/4° more beyond the meridian, on both sides, for refraction and the size of the solar disc.
-
From my diagrams it is obvious that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Eastern Australia (and above the whole Tasmanian island) and that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Western Africa IN THE SAME TIME!!! So, two hypothetical observers (one of which observers would be placed in Australia, and one of them would observe the Sun from Africa), clearly could see that the Sun is FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME!
In this case your holly refraction crap can't help you, because the Sun would be FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME.
We have to shorten the time between sunrise and sunset by at least three minutes on each end?
Well, 3 minutes on each end is still far away from 50 minutes (off), that you have to compensate to make this possible on the round globe!
In your picture of a globe, we can see East Coast of Australia, but we can barely see East Coast of South America, and what we have to see instead of East Coast of South America is West Coast of Africa.
How far off would be the Sun for an observer in Africa if the Earth were a globe (in our particular example)? Roughly 1000 miles (half a distance between East Coast of Brasil and West Coast of Africa)!
I have checked it with several experiments using different distances, different light bulbs and the model of a globe.
Although West Coast of Africa is 6 hours away from the sun (which is quarter of a full circle), and Australia is 7 hours away from the same spot (meridian), the tilt of the Earth is making a huge difference, so the results of my experiments are as follows:
- A line of light can reach the edge of Australian Eastern Coast (because a globe is TILTED towards the source of light), but light can't reach West Coast of Africa (because a globe is TILTED AWAY from the same source of light)!!!
- Now, if you brought in " a holly refraction" (or anything else) as a crucial factor of this game, you should be aware that by trying to make possible for light to reach West Africa from this particular meridian (above which the source of light is placed), you have to increase enlightened portion of West Australia also. So, on one side, you have to prevent increasing the amount of surface of enlightened portion of West Australia, and on the other side, you have to be able to increase the distances which light rays can reach in the direction of West Africa by using the same METHOD-EXCUSE ("holly refraction")!
You can't do that in this way!
That is how your tilt presumption became your HC grave!
If you want to dispute what i just have said, make the experiment and show me that i am wrong!
In the meantime, try to answer, how you can explain away this ratio between DAY and NIGHT (7 : 5) on your model of a globe:
(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
As i already said several times, you can't help yourself even with the great help of the alleged tilt of a globe!
And the truth is that there is no tilt of a globe, there is no rotation of a globe, there is no revolution of a globe, and there is no globe in the first place!!!
-
Our efforts are useless. He clearly can't read. Let him live his delusion if it makes him feel good.
-
From my diagrams it is obvious that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Eastern Australia (and above the whole Tasmanian island) and that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Western Africa IN THE SAME TIME!!! So, two hypothetical observers (one of which observers would be placed in Australia, and one of them would observe the Sun from Africa), clearly could see that the Sun is FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME!
In this case your holly refraction crap can't help you, because the Sun would be FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME.
We have to shorten the time between sunrise and sunset by at least three minutes on each end?
Well, 3 minutes on each end is still far away from 50 minutes (off), that you have to compensate to make this possible on the round globe!
In your picture of a globe, we can see East Coast of Australia, but we can barely see East Coast of South America, and what we have to see instead of East Coast of South America is West Coast of Africa.
How far off would be the Sun for an observer in Africa if the Earth were a globe (in our particular example)? Roughly 1000 miles (half a distance between East Coast of Brasil and West Coast of Africa)!
I have checked it with several experiments using different distances, different light bulbs and the model of a globe.
Although West Coast of Africa is 6 hours away from the sun (which is quarter of a full circle), and Australia is 7 hours away from the same spot (meridian), the tilt of the Earth is making a huge difference, so the results of my experiments are as follows:
- A line of light can reach the edge of Australian Eastern Coast (because a globe is TILTED towards the source of light), but light can't reach West Coast of Africa (because a globe is TILTED AWAY from the same source of light)!!!
- Now, if you brought in " a holly refraction" (or anything else) as a crucial factor of this game, you should be aware that by trying to make possible for light to reach West Africa from this particular meridian (above which the source of light is placed), you have to increase enlightened portion of West Australia also. So, on one side, you have to prevent increasing the amount of surface of enlightened portion of West Australia, and on the other side, you have to be able to increase the distances which light rays can reach in the direction of West Africa by using the same METHOD-EXCUSE ("holly refraction")!
You can't do that in this way!
That is how your tilt presumption became your HC grave!
If you want to dispute what i just have said, make the experiment and show me that i am wrong!
In the meantime, try to answer, how you can explain away this ratio between DAY and NIGHT (7 : 5) on your model of a globe:
(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
As i already said several times, you can't help yourself even with the great help of the alleged tilt of a globe!
And the truth is that there is no tilt of a globe, there is no rotation of a globe, there is no revolution of a globe, and there is no globe in the first place!!!
How about since we can prove the sunrise in Sidney and Sunset in Dakar by observations of people on the ground (has been done). How does that happen in the flat Earth model anyway, the distance between those two places are much greater on the Flat Earth model than on the Round Earth reality. your spotlight sun during the Summer in the southern hemisphere cannot possibly work.
Yay I did some copy pasta in honor of you
-
From my diagrams it is obvious that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Eastern Australia (and above the whole Tasmanian island) and that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Western Africa IN THE SAME TIME!!! So, two hypothetical observers (one of which observers would be placed in Australia, and one of them would observe the Sun from Africa), clearly could see that the Sun is FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME!
I don't think anyone is disputing the basic premise, but how do your diagrams make it clear that the Sun is "fully raised"? You don't provide any legend or explanation of the meaning of the various shades of blue on the day-night map. The definition for sunrise and sunset used for USNO's timings is when the very top edge of the sun appears and disappears, respectively; there's nothing to indicate the line between brightest blue and the first darker shade doesn't correspond to exactly the same thing.
In this case your holly refraction crap can't help you, because the Sun would be FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME.
Refraction still applies and extends daylight at least two minutes on each end.
We have to shorten the time between sunrise and sunset by at least three minutes on each end?
No, we lengthen it by that amount.
Well, 3 minutes on each end is still far away from 50 minutes (off), that you have to compensate to make this possible on the round globe!
Because you're counting meridians, those 50 minutes apply only on the equinoxes, and at the equinoxes, the sun will already have set in Dakar when it rises in eastern Australia. Probably by 50 minutes or so. The example you're using is on or near the southern solstice. That's how your "50 minutes" is made irrelevant. You have had this error pointed out numerous times by different people. Please read and think about the answers you get.
Our efforts are useless. He clearly can't read. Let him live his delusion if it makes him feel good.
"Jet", unfortunately, seems to be right. We can hope that at least someone will see this and learn something, even if you won't.
In your picture of a globe, we can see East Coast of Australia, but we can barely see East Coast of South America, and what we have to see instead of East Coast of South America is West Coast of Africa.
That's because it was set up for your "noon in SLC sunrise in Australia" scenario. Sun transit (local solar noon) at SLC is at 19:21 UTC (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable?form=2&ID=AA&year=2014&month=12&day=11&place=SLC&lon_sign=-1&lon_deg=111&lon_min=52&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=40&lat_min=46&tz=0&tz_sign=-1) for December 11. Remember that Dakar sunset is 18:41 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable?form=2&ID=AA&year=2014&month=12&day=11&place=Dakar&lon_sign=-1&lon_deg=17&lon_min=27&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=14&lat_min=42&tz=0&tz_sign=-1) on that date; this means that at High Noon in SLC the Sun's already been down for 40 minutes in Dakar. No wonder you can't see the west coast of Africa from that position.
How far off would be the Sun for an observer in Africa if the Earth were a globe (in our particular example)? Roughly 1000 miles (half a distance between East Coast of Brasil and West Coast of Africa)!
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If you are asking where the sub-solar point would be as the Sun is setting in Dakar on that date? That's probably somewhere around 100° W, in the eastern South Pacific off the coast of Chile. How'd you get it in the middle of the Atlantic?
I have checked it with several experiments using different distances, different light bulbs and the model of a globe.
Although West Coast of Africa is 6 hours away from the sun (which is quarter of a full circle), and Australia is 7 hours away from the same spot (meridian), the tilt of the Earth is making a huge difference, so the results of my experiments are as follows:
Yes. That's what we've been saying all along.
- A line of light can reach the edge of Australian Eastern Coast (because a globe is TILTED towards the source of light), but light can't reach West Coast of Africa (because a globe is TILTED AWAY from the same source of light)!!!
How far away was the light? Believe it or not, this makes a huge difference, and I suspect it's too close for what you're trying to do.
Did you use a bare bulb, as requested, or spotlights?
- Now, if you brought in " a holly refraction" (or anything else) as a crucial factor of this game, you should be aware that by trying to make possible for light to reach West Africa from this particular meridian (above which the source of light is placed), you have to increase enlightened portion of West Australia also. So, on one side, you have to prevent increasing the amount of surface of enlightened portion of West Australia, and on the other side, you have to be able to increase the distances which light rays can reach in the direction of West Africa by using the same METHOD-EXCUSE ("holly refraction")!
What's a "holly refraction"? At your first use I assumed it was a typo, but apparently it's not. So what is it?
If refraction makes the light spill too far west into Australia, then just turn the globe toward the west so the light ends where you want it. This brings W Africa closer to the light. Sheesh!
You can't do that in this way!
Can't do what in what way?
That is how your tilt presumption became your HC grave!
If you want to dispute what i just have said, make the experiment and show me that i am wrong!
Since you apparently didn't read or didn't comprehend the earlier answer about this experiment, why should I bother doing any experiments for you?
In the meantime, try to answer, how you can explain away this ratio between DAY and NIGHT (7 : 5) on your model of a globe:
(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
Your map is horribly distorted. It shows the region "outside" (south of) the equator having three times the area as the region "inside" (north of) the equator. Since the Sun is illuminating more of the southern region, the area on your map makes it look vastly larger. On a globe, the split is close to 1 : 1. This is the sort of reason this map is a poor representation of the spherical globe and useless for making meaningful comparisons of distances, directions, and areas.
As i already said several times, you can't help yourself even with the great help of the alleged tilt of a globe!
You said yourself that the tilt makes a huge difference.
the tilt of the Earth is making a huge difference
And the truth is that there is no tilt of a globe, there is no rotation of a globe, there is no revolution of a globe, and there is no globe in the first place!!!
See my signature line.
-
Alpha2Omega, you are professional NASA shill, so you can lie as much as you want, but you can't do a simple experiment which could back up your lies. Am i right? Of course i am. A picture is worth a thousand words:
(http://i.imgur.com/ZjpEhGT.jpg)
Mickey Mouse, this is how the sun shines above the flat earth:
Cikljamas presents : FLAT EARTH - THE EARTH IS NOT TILTED :
(http://)
-
Alpha2Omega, you are professional NASA shill, so you can lie as much as you want, but you can't do a simple experiment which could back up your lies. Am i right? Of course i am.
At least you agree with yourself.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
They can be. If a picture is interpreted right, it can be worth a thousand meaningful words.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZjpEhGT.jpg)
The meaningful words these pictures convey are: Far less than half the globe is illuminated by the light representing your sun. This is because your light is way too close. The point you're trying to make with this is lost for that reason. You'll need to move the light so it's about one thousand times further away and increase its size by a factor of a couple hundred for this test to be remotely conclusive. This is why the proper experiment isn't as simple as you think. Feel free to try it if you want - I decline due to impracticality.
"Mickey Mouse" (since you bring it up below) is a perfect description of your demonstration. Since you're not a native English speaker (but do get along quite well), in case you're not familiar with the idiom, it means: "Substandard, poorly executed or organized. Amateurish." or "To build or repair something shoddily and with substandard materials." as in "Who built this Mickey Mouse thing anyway?" Etc.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mickey+mouse (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mickey+mouse)
You're welcome.
Mickey Mouse, this is how the sun shines above the flat earth:
Cikljamas presents : FLAT EARTH - THE EARTH IS NOT TILTED :
(http://)
I'm going to presume that video is no less "Mickey Mouse" than your last effort. Can you describe what it presents here? If it sounds like it contains anything that you haven't tried to say before, I might watch it.
-
Shall we compare the sizes of these two hot spots:
(http://i.imgur.com/rJRrB2P.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yEABSCz.jpg)
IT SAYS IT ALL!!!
P.S. Mickey Mouse, that's how i call Mikey T Lovzballs... ;)
-
You'll need to move the light so it's about one thousand times further away and increase its size by a factor of a couple hundred for this test to be remotely conclusive.
Or he could just use the real Sun, everyone agrees that the Sun is at least a few thousand times further away and bigger then cikljamas' flashlight.
-
Shall we compare the sizes of these two hot spots:
(http://i.imgur.com/rJRrB2P.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yEABSCz.jpg)
Go back and look at your triple picture. The hot spot is in different places in each one. So, no, the hot spot is not directly under the sun. I'm not sure what you think the size of the hot spot is supposed to indicate, but whatever that is, it's wrong.
IT SAYS IT ALL!!!
If by "all", you mean "nothing", then you're right.
P.S. Mickey Mouse, that's how i call Mikey T Lovzballs... ;)
He seems to know a lot more than you do, so who does that make you?
-
You'll need to move the light so it's about one thousand times further away and increase its size by a factor of a couple hundred for this test to be remotely conclusive.
Or he could just use the real Sun, everyone agrees that the Sun is at least a few thousand times further away and bigger then cikljamas' flashlight.
That might work. Good idea!
It'll take some effort to get the experiment set up so the globe is illuminated from the right direction, though, and he struggles with this stuff already.
-
oh yeah you were trying to insult me weren't you. Sorry you wasted your effort there cik, I like Mickey Mouse.
BTW cool cartoon, now lets actually answer my question to you?
How, without the stupid mass copy paste crap, does a spotlight sun give you a sunset in Dakar with sunrise in Sidney?
Little tip, if the sun is just below the horizon it actually lights up the sky, so in your model of the real tilted Earth, move your flashlight to the right a tiny bit more where Sidney is right on the edge of the shadow line. This in the real world would kind of simulate the sun just starting to rise. Then look at Africa, Oh My God its right on the shadow line there too, must be Sunset. Of course this works better if you could use something a little better for your light source.
Also weren't you just posting, in mass, about it not being able to be noon in the US and sunrise in Australia, you had such a wonderful model too. Now your own experiments are proving you to be completely wrong there. Did you admit you were stupid about that, I bet not.
Well I gotta get ready for work. Plane is leaving in an hour to take me to my station on the wall.
-
Shall we compare the sizes of these two hot spots:
(http://i.imgur.com/rJRrB2P.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yEABSCz.jpg)
Those are not "hot spots", they are reflections. A reflection of your lamp in the first picture and a reflection of the Sun off the ocean in the second picture. You do know what a reflection is right?
-
No he doesn't understand reflections. or gravity, or light refraction, or electromagnetic waves, or distances, or time measurement, or air, or math, or thinking.
That is all magical crap that NASA has used for thousands of years to confuse us.
But I am not trying to attack him, he is still a special guy and I'm starting to like him, hey cik you wanna be my new pal?
-
No he doesn't understand reflections. or gravity, or light refraction, or electromagnetic waves, or distances, or time measurement, or air, or math, or thinking.
Over time, cikljamas has inadvertently made those shortcomings more than apparent LOL. I don't even bother to struggle through the reams of copypasta he posts here. The only other person who posts on these forums, and who has less understanding of science—and the purported "global conspiracy" question—is sceptimatic.
I'm damning one of them with faint praise, but I'm not sure which one? ???
-
The Earth is a CONE!!!!!!!!!!! The flat Earthers live at the base of the Earth. The round Earthers live on the sides of the earth. I realise the true shape because I live at the vertex. I must stay at the centre of my house so it won't fall into space.
-
Alpha2Omega, you are professional NASA shill, so you can lie as much as you want, but you can't do a simple experiment which could back up your lies. Am i right? Of course i am. A picture is worth a thousand words:
(http://i.imgur.com/ZjpEhGT.jpg)
Now that I'm back after 2 weeks away and I finally get to enjoy some sun here in western WA, I decided to see about this myself using my own globe.
I set up my desktop globe in direct sunlight and angled it so the tropic of Capricorn was parallel with the sun's rays.
Direct sunlight was hitting the coasts of both Australia and Africa, and I was able to cast shadows slightly inland using my finger.
You might want to set up your globe out in direct sunlight and see what you get there cikljamas.
-
MY PERSPECTIVE (Rory Cooper) and ODIUPICKU (Cikljamas) present you ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
After so much time and energy which i have invested in elaborating so much different explanations of this simple argument all i can do (say) is to repeat what i just have written down below this nice Rory's video:
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for your time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
-
MY PERSPECTIVE (Rory Cooper) and ODIUPICKU (Cikljamas) present you ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
After so much time and energy which i have invested in elaborating so much different explanations of this simple argument all i can do (say) is to repeat what i just have written down below this nice Rory's video:
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for you time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
Jesus Christ. We already destroyed you once, do you want to get fucked again? You just keep coming back for more.
-
MY PERSPECTIVE (Rory Cooper) and ODIUPICKU (Cikljamas) present you ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
After so much time and energy which i have invested in elaborating so much different explanations of this simple argument all i can do (say) is to repeat what i just have written down below this nice Rory's video:
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for you time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
Jesus Christ. We already destroyed you once, do you want to get fucked again? You just keep coming back for more.
Yeah, it's like.
1. Cijakamas says something obviously stupid.
2. We f*ck him up.
3. He immediatly shuts up.
4. Then, after a while, he comes back with another topic, saying nothing about last one that was lost for him.
-
After so much time and energy which i have invested in elaborating so much different explanations of this simple argument all i can do (say) is to repeat what i just have written down below this nice Rory's video:
You should have invested that time and energy into something else.
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for your time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
The animation from 2:04 to 2:32 actually disproves your zigzag argument. The edge of the green circle would be the horizon, and it only moves one way.
-
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for your time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
The animation from 2:04 to 2:32 actually disproves your zigzag argument. The edge of the green circle would be the horizon, and it only moves one way.
I can't fathom how he still thinks that the distance between two opposite points on the arctic circle is enough to see the sun move from left to right. How perceptually incapable can one be?
-
MY PERSPECTIVE (Rory Cooper) and ODIUPICKU (Cikljamas) present you ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
After so much time and energy which i have invested in elaborating so much different explanations of this simple argument all i can do (say) is to repeat what i just have written down below this nice Rory's video:
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for your time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
Well, I even watched that one.
Production quality: 3 stars (of 4 possible)
Soundtrack: 2 1/2 stars
Content: 1/2 star. Being generous... they do nicely illustrate why the south-circumpolar Sun circles the sky in the opposite direction, but don't really try to explain it. In fact, it looks like they realized late on that this works against them, but the production was already done, so might as well leave it in and try to paper over it; their intended audience will eat it up uncritically, anyway, and the ones who know enough already know enough not to be fooled, so no loss.
At least now we know that the loudly-touted "Zigzag" is in fact parallax (that wasn't at all clear before; it was getting mixed in with "pure confusion"). The video shows lots of parallax, and if this were realistic, it might even be noticeable. How much parallax is there really? A few seconds of arc (call it 6 seconds, or 1/600 of a degree) in 12 hours. The Sun has moved 180 degrees of arc in that time. There's no way you're going to notice this without very specialized equipment. That 93,000,000 miles to the Sun when you're only 1,000 miles from the pole really takes a toll on arguments like this.
I hope you didn't spend too much money on this. It's time to move on.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
Once again, how does this happen on a Flat Earth model? The sun is supposed to have a spotlight type of effect.
How do you get daylight all the way around the outer ring with the current model of Flat Earth?
After so much time and energy which i have invested in elaborating so much different explanations of this simple argument all i can do (say) is to repeat what i just have written down below this nice Rory's video:
You should have invested that time and energy into something else.
Great job Rory! Thank you very much for your time and energy that you have invested in making this video! It is beyond me - how and why - so many guys at Flat Earth Society (where i firstly presented my ZIGZAG argument) weren't able to grasp this simple concept AT ONCE??? If this beautiful animation is not going to help them either, then we'll be sure that most of them are professional NASA shills, and some of them are plain stupid people who can't put two and two...THANKS once more!!!
The animation from 2:04 to 2:32 actually disproves your zigzag argument. The edge of the green circle would be the horizon, and it only moves one way.
Awesome, I just watched it also. Yep that section pretty much explained it, ZIG ZAG is dead by the owners hand.
-
Jesus Christ. We already destroyed you once, do you want to get fucked again? You just keep coming back for more.
I find this post repulsive and disgusting.
This forum has reached rock bottom, goodbye.
-
Jesus Christ. We already destroyed you once, do you want to get fucked again? You just keep coming back for more.
I find this post repulsive and disgusting.
This forum has reached rock bottom, goodbye.
This thread reached rock bottom about fifty pages ago, and has been careening from low point to low point for months since.
'bye.
-
Firstly, i destroyed them at page 14 - post # 274 : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Secondly, i have showed them what they really know about the real distances between "celestial bodies" : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651347#msg1651347 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651347#msg1651347)
Thirdly, i have taught them how utterly destructive impact to heliocentric theory has EOT problem ("Equation of time" problem) : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652537#msg1652537 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652537#msg1652537) ... www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652537#msg1652537 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652537#msg1652537)
Fourthly, i gave them a lesson about the curvature of the Earth : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653202#msg1653202 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653202#msg1653202) ... www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640860#msg1640860)
Then we resumed our discussion on "ZIGZAG argument" which i had started 30 pages back : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653970#msg1653970 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653970#msg1653970)
www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1654399#msg1654399 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1654399#msg1654399)
www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
Then, i gave them a little summarisation : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.1020#.VP-THfIraRs (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.1020#.VP-THfIraRs)
Then, Rory Cooper made (and published yesterday) his video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1668698#msg1668698 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1668698#msg1668698)
Then they completely freaked out : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1668839#msg1668839 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1668839#msg1668839)
So yes, Flat Earth Society is definetely the controlled opposition!!!
But this can't help them:
They will never recover from this (ZIGZAG argument)...This is what i mean : www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667023#msg1667023 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667023#msg1667023) ... www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101) ... www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
When we say "Flat Earth concept", what do we really want to designate by these words? With these phrase (FE concept) we want to emphasise that all celestial lights (not bodies) are placed and circle ABOVE us (not AROUND us). That is the essence of that (FE) concept, and that is the fact which i have proven with a little help of my "Day and Night-Tilt" arguments with which you could have acquainted yourself watching these two videos of mine:
1. (http://)
2. (http://)
...Next question is something completely different (independent issue) and cannot be used (in any way) as a reason for disputing the essence of FE concept : "What is the exact shape of the surface of the Earth?" True answer to this question has yet to be given : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667151#msg1667151 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667151#msg1667151)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666724#msg1666724 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666724#msg1666724)
One of Alpha2Omega's comments on these words (link above) was:
"Care to divulge where you heard that "9000 nmi?" It's clearly balderdash."
I was already too sick (i had a flu) to participate in this discussion (at that time), so i skipped that question, but had i been in the mood to participate more actively in that discussion this would have been my answer:
I would say that this 9000 nmi must have been (in this old days (150 years ago)) a commonplace-well established fact among sailors! That is why i suppose Rowbotham states this factual-number (without giving any additional reference or citation) 'just like that', as though it is completely unnecessary to corroborate this information with any other credible source or calling upon any other authority.
Brand new interview with Mark Sargent : (http://)
P.S. For those who still can't grasp ZIGZAG argument, here is Rory's video-animation, once more - just for you : (http://)
Enjoy the truth!
-
Cikljamas, your zig zag argument is false, stop using it. The Sun wouldn't zig zag on a round Earth, a flat Earth on the other hand would have the Sun zig zagging from anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. It looks like you are not even reading our posts, what kind of free thinker would ignore the opposing side's arguments?
-
Firstly, i destroyed them at page 14 - post # 274 ...
Secondly, i have showed them ...
Thirdly, i have ...
Fourthly...
Then we resumed our discussion on "ZIGZAG argument"...
Then, i gave them a little summarisation ...
Then, Rory Cooper made (and published yesterday) his video ...
Then they completely freaked out ...
So yes, Flat Earth Society is definetely the controlled opposition!!!
Enjoy the truth!
Again with the jokes
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
Wait, you're serious aren't you.
-
I am very impressed with the knowledge and wisdom of CIKLJAMAS. He destroys the heliocentric system.
I find it strange how Airey's experiment is so ignored. It seems indisputable. A scientific experiment that kills philosophical assumptions. Thank you CIKLJAMIS, I will be reading your many comments.
-
I am very impressed with the knowledge and wisdom of CIKLJAMAS. He destroys the heliocentric system.
I find it strange how Airey's experiment is so ignored. It seems indisputable. A scientific experiment that kills philosophical assumptions. Thank you CIKLJAMIS, I will be reading your many comments.
The blind leading the blind. Here's hopong they walk into a meat packing facility.
-
Firstly, i destroyed them at page 14 - post # 274 ...
Secondly, i have showed them ...
Thirdly, i have ...
Fourthly...
Then we resumed our discussion on "ZIGZAG argument"...
Then, i gave them a little summarisation ...
Then, Rory Cooper made (and published yesterday) his video ...
Then they completely freaked out ...
So yes, Flat Earth Society is definetely the controlled opposition!!!
Enjoy the truth!
Again with the jokes
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
Wait, you're serious aren't you.
I feel sorry for him.
-
I can't even sleep. There is something wonderful and exciting about truth.
-
Well, ZIGZAG is back again... I so love ZIG ZAG, it makes for so much laughter in my life. TY once again cik.
-
I can't even sleep. There is something wonderful and exciting about truth.
Yeah, the truth is great. Too bad you don't have it. I can debunk any of cikljamas's arguments, just link me to one.
-
I can't even sleep. There is something wonderful and exciting about truth.
Yeah, the truth is great. Too bad you don't have it. I can debunk any of cikljamas's arguments, just link me to one.
Yeah the truth is great . Debunk this fork tongue. Since December 2012 all Government and banks have been legally foreclosed under their own (UCC) law, Uniform commercial code, The person who's name appears on any letter you receive now becomes legally liable for their actions and they can't hide behind the corporation anymore or have their crooked judges protect them by non disclosing the court is being ruled under Admiralty jurisdiction. NASA will just have to settle with flying kites & paper planes. The cash cow is no longer .
-
Enjoy the truth!
Also, speaking of 'truth', let us not forget where I proved you to be a liar;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660230#msg1660230 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660230#msg1660230)
as you never did explain the deliberate distortion of the map you are so fond of using, therefore you are obviously hiding something.
-
Something about that experiment, it's inaccurate, that's a spotlight, spotlights commonly have flat lenses, and the sun is curved. Nitpicking a bit, sure, but it would likely change a bit of how the light works.
-
I can't even sleep. There is something wonderful and exciting about truth.
Yeah, the truth is great. Too bad you don't have it. I can debunk any of cikljamas's arguments, just link me to one.
Yeah the truth is great . Debunk this fork tongue. Since December 2012 all Government and banks have been legally foreclosed under their own (UCC) law, Uniform commercial code, The person who's name appears on any letter you receive now becomes legally liable for their actions and they can't hide behind the corporation anymore or have their crooked judges protect them by non disclosing the court is being ruled under Admiralty jurisdiction. NASA will just have to settle with flying kites & paper planes. The cash cow is no longer .
What the hell are you on about? Also why are you upset, cik has been shown to be misinterpreting things, He may be doing it purposefully, he may not be able to understand, or he may just need to read what others are saying and at least open up to the idea that his current imaginings may be wrong.
-
Yeah the truth is great . Debunk this fork tongue. Since December 2012 all Government and banks have been legally foreclosed under their own (UCC) law, Uniform commercial code, The person who's name appears on any letter you receive now becomes legally liable for their actions and they can't hide behind the corporation anymore or have their crooked judges protect them by non disclosing the court is being ruled under Admiralty jurisdiction. NASA will just have to settle with flying kites & paper planes. The cash cow is no longer .
What has this got do do with FET?
-
Also Lets try thinking about this for a second.
Without a conspiracy -- Flat Earth cannot exist.
Without the Flat Earth -- Conspiracy theories CAN exist.
Citing random conspiracy theories do not prove the Earth is Flat.
Using a conspiracy theory as evidence for another conspiracy theory is stacking your argument like a house of cards that any debunked conspiracy theory will crumble your entire argument. It really should not be done. If you want to prove something is a conspiracy, you simply cannot use unconnected claims of yet another conspiracy as evidence, it actually shows a lack of evidence and starts to disprove your original assertion, whether you are right or wrong about it.
-
Man alive! The ZIG ZAG argument is amazing! So very simple!
-
Man alive! The ZIG ZAG argument is amazing! So very simple!
And so very wrong.
-
You have my ears Mike..
-
Yeah the truth is great . Debunk this fork tongue. Since December 2012 all Government and banks have been legally foreclosed under their own (UCC) law, Uniform commercial code, The person who's name appears on any letter you receive now becomes legally liable for their actions and they can't hide behind the corporation anymore or have their crooked judges protect them by non disclosing the court is being ruled under Admiralty jurisdiction. NASA will just have to settle with flying kites & paper planes. The cash cow is no longer .
What has this got do do with FET?
Integrity ,it goes hand in hand with truthfulness. lying deceptive world goverments , their courts & agencies.Now have no credibility what so ever . What is truth now if any coming from them & what is not . When I catch someone out bullshiting to me, I walk away & bin the lot .I dont stand there trying to figure out what bit of bullshit sounded more convincing.
-
You have my ears Mike..
Here is a short animation I made a while back:
(http://i.imgur.com/Cvb0hvc.gif)
Ignore the nonsense going on with the stars, that's happening because if an issue with the animation I forgot to fix and the stars are just for scenery anyways. This animation is from the perspective of a camera neat the north pole of a round Earth, the Earth is rotating counterclockwise and the camera always hovers above the same spot on the Earth and rotates clockwise at the same speed as the Earth and so it always faces the same absolute direction. If the camera goes around clockwise once every 24 hours and yet the Sun is always in view this means that there is no zig zag going on because the Sun will always appear to go the same direction across the sky.
-
camera always hovers above the same spot on the Earth
Please stop with this animation. It makes you look dumb.
Or make it truthfully with the camera attached to the earth.
-
Please stop with this animation. It makes you look dumb.
Or make it truthfully with the camera attached to the earth.
The camera is parented to the Earth object with no location key frames, meaning that it never moves relative to the Earth. In animation that's as close as you can get to being "attached", even if they are not touching.
-
I need time to think about this. The animation seems to support what you are saying, but it does seem like you have the camera in space. I have been turning a bottle cap around in front of your animation, and visualizing the camera on the cap, and it seems to show an entirely different perspective, than your animation.
-
How can the sun appear to move, and not reverse back to it's original perspective, the moment we spin around back to our starting point?
-
How can the sun appear to move, and not reverse back to it's original perspective, the moment we spin around back to our starting point?
Because, like we have been saying dozens of times, the sun is ~152,000,000 kilometers away. The diameter of Earth is 12,700 kilometers. That is almost a millionth of a fraction of the distance from the Earth to the sun.
Have you ever been driving on the highway, and you see a city off in the distance, and you see it move slowly if at all relative to the trees moving quickly past you? The further things get and the less you move, the less you see parallax. Well that effect is multiplied by several orders of magnitude in the solar system. The sun not moving left and right is what is expected in the round Earth model.
-
... but you are claiming we CAN see the sun move according to our perspective, (because of rotating earth) so all we are saying is that we should also see the Sun reverse back to it's original location. We are basing our argument on your claims, and there is a difference between a ROTATING earth, and driving a car in a STRAIGHT line. Any better arguments?
-
camera always hovers above the same spot on the Earth
Please stop with this animation. It makes you look dumb.
Or make it truthfully with the camera attached to the earth.
Easy, no animation needed there is a nice midnight sun video that lots of Flat Earthers like to use (http://)
Notice how the horizon between you and the sun constantly changes? Almost like the ball you are standing on is spinning and you are focusing on the sun.
-
... but we know it can't be spinning, without any ZIG ZAG.
-
No, not in the since that cik tried to say. The video I posted is from the Arctic circle, it is exactly what you would expect on a ball spinning. Try to imagine you placed a tiny camera on a very large ball that is locked on a light. Make the camera able to spin in place on the ball with the axis of the ball slightly different than the place you put the camera is. As the ball rotates the camera stays pointing at the light. seeing the light just over the horizon of the ball, the horizon seems to spin from the camera's viewpoint with the horizon ever changing in the opposite direction that you are spinning the ball.
It isn't like cik seems to think with the sun rising east to west then stopping and setting west to east. It will appear as though the sun circles around above your head. The sun will always travel in your viewpoint to move in the same direction since the Earth is spinning and round.
-
... but we know it can't be spinning, without any ZIG ZAG.
But my animation shows sinning without zig zag. For my animation the camera being higher off the ground doesn't effect anything because the camera never moves relative to the ground, just imagine that the camera is mounted on top of a ridiculously high tower with an equatorial mount.
-
... but you are claiming we CAN see the sun move according to our perspective, (because of rotating earth) so all we are saying is that we should also see the Sun reverse back to it's original location. We are basing our argument on your claims, and there is a difference between a ROTATING earth, and driving a car in a STRAIGHT line. Any better arguments?
No. I am not claiming that. Clearly you have a very hard time understanding this.
Again, the sun is too far away for parallax to be visible. Refer to my previous post for a more thorough explanation.
-
I really feel like I am living in a matrix, and you are all in dark suits and sun glasses. I don't understand Jet Fission, what parallax has to do with this discussion. Mikeman your animation is deceiving, and Mikey that video is exactly what you would see on a non spinning earth.
Okay guys, walk in a small circle, and focus on an object. (like a mug) Initially the object will move in a straight line one direction (from your perspective) but as you begin to complete the circle, the object will begin to reverse back to it's original location. (from your perspective)
... unless I have the perspective wrong. Where I should be thinking in terms of up, up, and up, instead of sideways. (If you know what I mean?) Do you believe it is the tilt, that gives the perspective?
-
I really feel like I am living in a matrix, and you are all in dark suits and sun glasses. I don't understand Jet Fission, what parallax has to do with this discussion. Mikeman your animation is deceiving, and Mikey that video is exactly what you would see on a non spinning earth.
Okay guys, walk in a small circle, and focus on an object. (like a mug) Initially the object will move in a straight line one direction (from your perspective) but as you begin to complete the circle, the object will begin to reverse back to it's original location. (from your perspective)
... unless I have the perspective wrong. Where I should be thinking in terms of up, up, and up, instead of sideways. (If you know what I mean?)
The part I bolded is literally what parallax is. The apparent movement of an object due to your changing perspective. That is what the ZigZag 'argument' is based on.
So let me clarify in terms of your example. Let's say that you are moving in a circle and looking at that mug, and you're maybe 5 meters away from it. You can clearly see it move from side to side, like in a zig zag. Now move a few more meters away from it. Notice how the zig zag is lessened. As you get further and further away, the movement of the mug from side to side becomes less and less aparrant. Now move 100 trillion meters away (the distance from Earth to sun). There will be no apparent movement. Get my point now?
-
Yes, I understand your point Jet, but the context of our discussion is the 5 meters, not the 100 trillion, since we do clearly see the movement of the midnight Sun, in Mike's video. Would you not agree? - or what am I missing?
-
Yes, I understand your point Jet, but the context of our discussion is the 5 meters, not the 100 trillion, since we do clearly see the movement of the midnight Sun, in Mike's video. Would you not agree? - or what am I missing?
The Sun is around 100 trillion meters away. We are talking about the movement of the sun. How is that not in context?
-
Yes, I understand your point Jet, but the context of our discussion is the 5 meters, not the 100 trillion, since we do clearly see the movement of the midnight Sun, in Mike's video. Would you not agree? - or what am I missing?
In that animation you can actually see the Sun apearong to move side to side a little bit because of parallax, but it's hard to see and also the Sun in my animation is closer then it is in the mainstream model. Parallax is too small to make much of an effect.
-
We see the Sun moving in only one direction. Explain, why we do not see it completely reverse as the earth continues to rotate.
Are you guys sidestepping?
Do you feel the tilt of the earth, explains your position?
thanks
-
We see the Sun moving in only one direction. Explain, why we do not see it completely reverse as the earth continues to rotate.
Are you guys sidestepping?
Do you feel the tilt of the earth, explains your position?
thanks
What does this have to do with the zig zag argument?
-
We see the Sun moving in only one direction. Explain, why we do not see it completely reverse as the earth continues to rotate.
Are you guys sidestepping?
Do you feel the tilt of the earth, explains your position?
thanks
If you rotate counter clockwise (like the Earth) then things (like the Sun) will apear to go around you clockwise. It's not rocket science.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
It.. doesn't. You're probably focusing to much on your surroundings. There's a reason why there is a common metaphor for how the moon and the sun always seem to follow you around.
If the sun moved around because you did, then you would literally see the sun pass you while you look at it while driving. This obviously does not happen.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
It.. doesn't. You're probably focusing to much on your surroundings. There's a reason why there is a common metaphor for how the moon and the sun always seem to follow you around.
If the sun moved around because you did, then you would literally see the sun pass you while you look at it while driving. This obviously does not happen.
Eh, I was just outside looking up at the sun taking 4 steps in a circle and the sun moved side to side.
I think you need to stop playing computer and get outside for a reality check.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
It.. doesn't. You're probably focusing to much on your surroundings. There's a reason why there is a common metaphor for how the moon and the sun always seem to follow you around.
If the sun moved around because you did, then you would literally see the sun pass you while you look at it while driving. This obviously does not happen.
Eh, I was just outside looking up at the sun taking 4 steps in a circle and the sun moved side to side.
I think you need to stop playing computer and get outside for a reality check.
You do realize that that is literally impossible, even if the Earth was flat right? Either you're trolling, or I'm misunderstanding you.
-
Maybe, to understand your perspective, I need to think of the mug as dangling from a string from the ceiling, and then when I walk in a circle, I keep rotating my body towards the cup. This is why I was asking about the tilt. When I would previously walk the circle I would turn by walking backwards, while your perspective is to keep walking the circle forwards, with the sun above you? So from your perspective you are rotating around the sun, while my perspective I was rotating to the side of it. I am trying to understand the curvature expect.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
It.. doesn't. You're probably focusing to much on your surroundings. There's a reason why there is a common metaphor for how the moon and the sun always seem to follow you around.
If the sun moved around because you did, then you would literally see the sun pass you while you look at it while driving. This obviously does not happen.
Eh, I was just outside looking up at the sun taking 4 steps in a circle and the sun moved side to side.
I think you need to stop playing computer and get outside for a reality check.
You do realize that that is literally impossible, even if the Earth was flat right? Either you're trolling, or I'm misunderstanding you.
Yeh, just did it again with a welding helmet on and got the same result.
Sun still went side to side.
-
There is no sidestepping going on. The sun would not zig zag. The Earth is rotating, therefore the line from you to the sun would move in a circle following the horizon all the way around during a midnight sun in the Arctic or Antarctic circle. The Earth is very large compared to you, The sun is very very far away compared to you, the perspective would be exactly what the video shows. Think about if you maintained your direction of view. Does it not seem like if you are rotating around that something outside of that rotation would move around you?
I am not sure how to explain this anymore. The zig zag argument is a complete lack of intuition.
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
It.. doesn't. You're probably focusing to much on your surroundings. There's a reason why there is a common metaphor for how the moon and the sun always seem to follow you around.
If the sun moved around because you did, then you would literally see the sun pass you while you look at it while driving. This obviously does not happen.
Eh, I was just outside looking up at the sun taking 4 steps in a circle and the sun moved side to side.
I think you need to stop playing computer and get outside for a reality check.
You do realize that that is literally impossible, even if the Earth was flat right? Either you're trolling, or I'm misunderstanding you.
Yeh, just did it again with a welding helmet on and got the same result.
Sun still went side to side.
I'm going to have to say you're lying. Not only has nobody here experienced this, but it's mathematically impossible.
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it. Put it on a flat field, and point the camera at the sun. Then, without changing the orientation of the tripod, move it a few meters to the right or left. The sun will stay in the viewfinder. If it doesn't, then you've just proved that that sun is literally 10 meters away from everybody at the same time.
How far do you think the sun is from you right now?
-
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it.
Or you can do the experiment with a welding helmet on your head and walk in a circle looking at the sun.
That way you see with your own eyes.
-
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it.
Or you can do the experiment with a welding helmet on your head and walk in a circle looking at the sun.
That way you see with your own eyes.
I rather eliminate user error. You're probably moving your head around. I just hope you realize that even flat earthers disagree with what you're saying right now. Try the experiment.
-
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it.
Or you can do the experiment with a welding helmet on your head and walk in a circle looking at the sun.
That way you see with your own eyes.
I rather eliminate user error. You're probably moving your head around. I just hope you realize that even flat earthers disagree with what you're saying right now. Try the experiment.
The camera is the user error.
Fell for that in the past.
And even flat earthers disagreeing. Who cares?
-
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it.
Or you can do the experiment with a welding helmet on your head and walk in a circle looking at the sun.
That way you see with your own eyes.
I rather eliminate user error. You're probably moving your head around. I just hope you realize that even flat earthers disagree with what you're saying right now. Try the experiment.
The camera is the user error.
Fell for that in the past.
And even flat earthers disagreeing. Who cares?
Yep, you've fell for logic and basic spatial reasoning. If you're not willing to try the simple experiment, or listening to basic logic, then I'm done with you. Have fun getting picked apart tomorrow.
-
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it.
Or you can do the experiment with a welding helmet on your head and walk in a circle looking at the sun.
That way you see with your own eyes.
I rather eliminate user error. You're probably moving your head around. I just hope you realize that even flat earthers disagree with what you're saying right now. Try the experiment.
The camera is the user error.
Fell for that in the past.
And even flat earthers disagreeing. Who cares?
Yep, you've fell for logic and basic spatial reasoning. If you're not willing to try the simple experiment, or listening to basic logic, then I'm done with you. Have fun getting picked apart tomorrow.
And if you think the camera tells the truth I am done with you.
The only thing that will be picked apart tomorrow will be my bait, I will be fishing. Cant play computer every day otherwise nothing gets done.
-
You can experiment it by getting a tripod and mounting a camera on it.
Or you can do the experiment with a welding helmet on your head and walk in a circle looking at the sun.
That way you see with your own eyes.
I rather eliminate user error. You're probably moving your head around. I just hope you realize that even flat earthers disagree with what you're saying right now. Try the experiment.
The camera is the user error.
Fell for that in the past.
And even flat earthers disagreeing. Who cares?
Yep, you've fell for logic and basic spatial reasoning. If you're not willing to try the simple experiment, or listening to basic logic, then I'm done with you. Have fun getting picked apart tomorrow.
And if you think the camera tells the truth I am done with you.
The only thing that will be picked apart tomorrow will be my bait, I will be fishing. Cant play computer every day otherwise nothing gets done.
It's almost like that is a metaphor for trolling. Presenting bait for people to catch on to.
Since there is no possible way the the camera can interfere with results, then I'm going to stick with removing user error. You can continue in the dark ages. From my experience, and everyone else here, the sun doesn't move from side to side as you move. You can prove this with trigonometry by measuring the distance to the sun and the distance you move.
In reality though, you most likely sucked at geometry. Because this is so incredibly basic to grasp, even an elementary schooler could.
-
Since there is no possible way the the camera can interfere with results,
Is that a fact?
Why don't you get ausGeoff to show you his famous photo from "Curve Beach". It has a very nice left to right earth curvature.
Hey! I even put a video on this forum of a flying boat once. Now boats don't fly do they?
-
If you can observe (let's say within Arctic circle during one Polar Night) how circumpolar stars make PERFECT circles in the sky (daily parallax), then during one Polar Day you should also be able to observe how the Sun makes PERFECT circle in the sky (it's daily parallax).
How in the world you can justify Parallax of the Stars which happens during the Polar Night, if in the same time you are not willing to admit that the same phenomena should be observable (on the same geometrical basis) while watching the Sun during one Polar Day?
This thing is perfectly clear and beyond any dispute, only totally insane people can keep going with questioning such a simple and obvious concept!
We have put this ZIGZAG (parallax) concept through paces, and we proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this concept is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth.
As soon as there is no rotation of the Earth, everything falls to pieces!
P.S. Have you ever asked yourself this question:
How come that you can see daily parallax of the stars in the sky, but you are not able to see annual stellar parallax in the sky???
On top of that:
One daily parallax (which we CAN observe) allegedly happens within few thousands miles wide circle.
One annual parallax (which we CAN'T observe) allegedly happens within 188 000 000 miles wide circle.
This is my video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
This is Rory's video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
-
If you can observe (let's say within Arctic circle during one Polar Night) how circumpolar stars make PERFECT circles in the sky (daily parallax), then during one Polar Day you should also be able to observe how the Sun makes PERFECT circle in the sky (it's daily parallax).
That's not parallax, that's rotation. They're different.
How in the world you can justify Parallax of the Stars which happens during the Polar Night, if in the same time you are not willing to admit that the same phenomena should be observable (on the same geometrical basis) while watching the Sun during one Polar Day?
Since what you're describing is not parallax, the question is moot.
This thing is perfectly clear and beyond any dispute,
Yes.
only totally insane people can keep going with questioning such a simple and obvious concept!
Yes, but you're the one that appears not to grasp the obvious and keeps arguing from a position not supported by any evidence. Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
We have put this ZIGZAG (parallax) concept through paces,
And it utterly failed. It's time to move on.
and we proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this concept is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth.
Where? The claims presented as "proof" are simply misconceptions.
As soon as there is no rotation of the Earth, everything falls to pieces!
As soon as there is no rotation of the Earth, we'd notice immediately. And, yes, everything would fall to pieces because a change like that would make any climate change we're experiencing now completely insignificant in comparison. But why would this happen?
P.S. Have you ever asked yourself this question:
How come that you can see daily parallax of the stars in the sky, but you are not able to see annual stellar parallax in the sky???
No. It never occurred to me to ask that question, because there's no reason to. You cannot see daily parallax of the stars. With good instruments and careful measurement, you can see annual parallax in nearby stars. You are confusing rotation with parallax. They're not the same.
On top of that:
One daily parallax (which we CAN observe) allegedly happens within few thousands miles wide circle.
Nope. See above. Parallax ≠ Rotation. [Please comment if the "not equal to" symbol between 'Parallax' and 'Rotation' doesn't show up correctly. This is an experiment]
One annual parallax (which we CAN'T observe) allegedly happens within 188 000 000 miles wide circle.
The annual parallax of the Sun is easily observed. That's what makes the sun appear to change positions against the distant stars as the year progresses. Because we're orbiting the Sun, it makes a full circle around the ecliptic in a year. As already noted, nearby stars show small but measurable parallax vs. more distant ones.
This is my video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : <link to amateurish error-filled video>
This is Rory's video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : <link to another error-filled video with better production quality>
Both chock full'o'errors.
-
Okay guys, walk in a small circle, and focus on an object. (like a mug) Initially the object will move in a straight line one direction (from your perspective) but as you begin to complete the circle, the object will begin to reverse back to it's original location. (from your perspective)
... unless I have the perspective wrong. Where I should be thinking in terms of up, up, and up, instead of sideways. (If you know what I mean?) Do you believe it is the tilt, that gives the perspective?
Within the arctic (or antarctic) circle, but not at the pole, the horizon or distant hills, etc, are outside the circumference of whatever latitude you would be standing at. While you slowly turn and track the sun for that 24 hour period, the horizon is what moves in relation to the sun (which obviously appears to move the other way).
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/mgr_zps6w7ree4t.jpg)
Find a desktop globe, put your finger just within the arctic circle, orientate your finger on something distant (hundreds of meters, a mile, the further the better), now turn the globe. The horizon on the globe in respect to your fingertip will move a constant direction, not zigzag.
-
This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.
The key part is in italics. The rest of us know the sun isn't zigzagging, however the ground directly around you appears to be zigzagging from your perspective while staying orientated toward the sun.
-
CLK
You do realise that the Earth actually is round?
So its like impossible to prove it is formed in any other way?
-
I have been thinking about this problem today, and took a plate and held it up to a ceiling light, with the perspective of the light close to the plate. I then slowly spun around with the plate, but kept both the light and plate in view, and could see the light bobbing back and forth, towards the plate. I do admit I didn't see any ZIG ZAG. I will re-study what cik has to say on the matter. I want to make sure I fully understand this problem. When my back was towards the light, my perspective caused the light (sun) to move away from the plate. I didn't see the light do any kind of reverse.
-
1. @ Alpha2Omega,
So, when you have to explain daily stellar parallax then you just use magical word "rotation" (which is not a parallax, but a parallax is (would be if it (Earth's rotation) existed) a consequence of that "magical word" which is indeed a magical word and nothing else, nothing that really exists in reality) instead of word "parallax"!
Changing words explains nothing!
And when you have to explain away lack of Sun's parallax in the sky then your explanation is that the Sun is so far away that we cannot notice it (Sun's parallax).
In that name we are going to repeat the words of truth:
If you can observe (let's say within Arctic circle during one Polar Night) how circumpolar stars make PERFECT circles in the sky (daily parallax), then during one Polar Day you should also be able to observe how the Sun makes PERFECT circle in the sky (it's daily parallax).
How in the world you can justify Parallax of the Stars which happens during the Polar Night, if in the same time you are not willing to admit that the same phenomena should be observable (on the same geometrical basis) while watching the Sun during one Polar Day?
This thing is perfectly clear and beyond any dispute, only totally insane people can keep going with questioning such a simple and obvious concept!
We have put this ZIGZAG (parallax) concept through it's paces, and we proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this concept is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth.
As soon as there is no rotation of the Earth everything falls to pieces!
P.S. Have you ever asked yourself this question:
How come that you can see daily parallax of the stars in the sky, but you are not able to see annual stellar parallax in the sky???
On top of that:
One daily parallax (which we CAN observe) allegedly happens within few thousands miles wide circle.
One annual parallax (which we CAN'T observe) allegedly happens within 188 000 000 miles wide circle.
This is my video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
This is Rory's video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
2.
@ Earth is a stage, you should see how i demonstrated my ZIGZAG argument in this video:
(http://)
3.
@ Sevenhills,
A) The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10° 30´ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53° 30´ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43°, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360°. Hence if 43° are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360° will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.
Another and a very beautiful and accurate way of ascertaining the earth's circumference is the following:--
The difference of longitude between Heart's Content Station, Newfoundland, and that at Valencia or, in other words, between the extreme points of the Atlantic) Cable--has been ascertained by Mr. Gould, coast surveyor to the United States Government, to be 2 hours, 51 minutes, 56.5 seconds." 1
The sun passes over the earth and returns to the same point in 24 hours. If in 2 hours, 51 minutes, and 56.5 seconds, it passes from the meridian of the Valencia end of the cable to that of its termination at Heart's Content, a distance of 1942 statute miles, how far will it travel in 24 hours? On making the calculation the answer is, 16,265 statute miles. This result is only three miles greater distance than that obtained by the first process.
Again in the Boston Post, for Oct. 30th, 1856, Lieut. Maury gives the following as the correct distances, in geographical miles, across the Atlantic by the various routes (circle sailing).
If we take the distance (given in the above table) between Liverpool and New York as 3360 statute miles, and calculate as in the last case, we find a nearly similar result, making allowance for the detour round the south or north of Ireland.
"The difference of time between London and New York which the use of the electric cable makes a matter of some consequence, has latterly been ascertained afresh. It is 4 hours, 55 minutes, 18.95 seconds." 1
The results of these several methods are so nearly alike that the distance 16,262 statute miles may safely be taken as the approximate circumference of the earth at the latitude of Valencia.
Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places:
Tokio (35 degrees N) - Los Angeles (34 degrees N) = 5471 Mi (8804 km)
Los Angeles - New York (40 degrees N) = 2448 Mi (3940 km)
New York - Istanbul (41 degrees N) = 5009 Mi (8062 km)
Istanbul - Tokio = 5556 Mi (8942 km)
All together (full circumference of the Earth at latitude 34-41 N) = 18484 Mi (29748 km)
B) If the distance from Valencia to the Cape of Good Hope, or to Cape Horn, had ever been actually measured, not calculated, the circumference of the earth at these points could, of course, be readily ascertained. We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false. We must therefore take known distances between places far south of Valencia, where latitude and longitude have also been carefully observed. In the Australian Almanack for 1871, page 126 2, the distance from Auckland (New Zealand), to Sydney, is given as 1315 miles, nautical measure, which is equal to 1534 statute miles. At page 118 of the Australian Almanack for 1859, Captain Stokes, H.M.S. Acheron, communicates the latitude of Auckland as 36° 50´ 05″, S., and longitude 174° 50´ 40″, E.; latitude of Sydney, 33° 51´ 45″, S., and longitude 151° 16´ 15″, E. The difference in longitude, or time distance, is 23° 34´ 25″, calculating as in the case of Valencia to Newfoundland, we find that as 23° 34´ 25″ represents 1534 statute miles, 360° will give 23,400 statute miles as the circumference of the earth at the latitude of Sydney, Auckland, and the Cape of Good Hope. Hence the radius or distance from the centre of the north to the above places is, in round numbers, 3720 statute miles. Calculating in the same way, we find that from Sydney to the Cape of Good Hope is fully 8600 statute miles.
The above calculations receive marked corroboration from the practical experience of mariners. The author has many times been told by captains of vessels navigating the southern region, that from Cape Town to Port Jackson in Australia, the distance is not less than 9000 miles; and from Port Jackson to Cape Horn, 9500 miles; but as many are not willing to give credit to such statements, the following quotation will be useful, and will constitute sufficient evidence of the truth of the foregoing calculations:--
"The Great Britain steamer has arrived, having made one of the best voyages homeward that has yet been effected, viz., 86 days; 72 only of which were employed in steaming; and the remaining 14 days being accounted for by detentions. She left Melbourne on January 6th, and arrived in Simon's Bay on February 10th, or 35 days. She then went round to Cape Town, whence she sailed on the 20th of February; and was afterwards detained for four days at St. Michael's and Vigo. The distance she steamed per log was 14,688 miles; which for the 72 days, gives an average of 204 miles a day."
If we multiply the average rate of sailing by the thirty-five days occupied in running between Melbourne and St. Simon's Bay (near Cape of Good Hope), we find that the distance is 7140 nautical miles, From Melbourne to Sydney is 6 degrees of longitude further east, or about S40 nautical miles. Hence 7140 added to 340 give 7480 nautical miles, equal to 8726 statute miles; which is 126 miles in excess of the distance given at page 94.
The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--
"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers."
A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.
In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--
"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."
From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.
From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles. Should it ever be shown by actual direct measurement to be more than this distance, then the distance from Cape Town to Sydney must be more than 8600 statute miles.
Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places :
Sydney -- Cape Town = 2445 Mi (3935 km) TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO FAR OFF FROM REALITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sydney -- Terra del Fuego (Argentina) = 5924 Mi (9534 km) -- STILL VERY FAR OFF FROM REALITY
Cape Town - Terra del Fuego = 4216 Mi (6785 km) -- Much, much closer to reality!!!!
-
Ok lets try your merry go round example again. If you are on the merry go round and there is a light source outside it. As it spins, lets try to think of the edge of the merry go round. In the line from you to the light source you have the edge of the merry go round. As it spins around you experience every point along the edge of the merry go round being between you and the light source after one rotation. This edge is your horizon.
Do you agree that this itself happens?
-
1. @ Alpha2Omega,
So, when you have to explain daily stellar parallax then you just use magical word "rotation" (which is not a parallax, but a parallax is (would be if it (Earth's rotation) existed) a consequence of that "magical word" which is indeed a magical word and nothing else, nothing that really exists in reality) instead of word "parallax"!
Changing words explains nothing!
Yes, and worse, it confuses things, so please stop doing it.
You use the word parallax, which has a specific meaning, when you mean rotation, which has a completely different meaning. This is really confusing you (maybe others, too).
And when you have to explain away lack of Sun's parallax in the sky then your explanation is that the Sun is so far away that we cannot notice it (Sun's parallax).
In that name we are going to repeat the words of truth:
Please try to grasp that repeating incorrect things does not make them true. When you keep doing this it makes you look dumb.
If you can observe (let's say within Arctic circle during one Polar Night) how circumpolar stars make PERFECT circles in the sky (daily parallax rotation), then during one Polar Day you should also be able to observe how the Sun makes PERFECT circle in the sky (it's daily parallax rotation).
I corrected the above for you. After correction, that describes what happens.
Since you're talking about the "perfect circles" circumpolar stars trace through the sky (which, although you don't mention it, are also concentric) you're demonstrating rotationThe [nb]Earth rotating under fixed stars or the stars rotating over a fixed earth would produce the same pattern, but something is rotating; we have to use other tests to determine which model is correct.[/nb]. If any discernible parallax were present in addition to the rotation, the circles wouldn't be perfect. If the stars were nearby and the circles were due only to parallax, they wouldn't be concentric. As it is, there is rotation but no discernible amount of parallax, so they do appear perfectly circular and concentric.
See how easy this becomes if you use the right term. What you describe is rotation, not parallax. They're different. Do you know what parallax is? It seems like you don't.
How in the world you can justify Parallax rotation of the Stars which happens during the Polar Night, if in the same time you are not willing to admit that the same phenomena phenomenon should be observable (on the same geometrical basis) while watching the Sun during one Polar Day?
Your question as originally stated is meaningless. No one I know of claims stellar parallax due to daily rotation can be detected, so the question is moot. As corrected by substituting 'rotation' (which is what we're talking about) for 'parallax' (which is a different phenomenon), no one denies the second phenomenon is observable.
This thing is perfectly clear and beyond any dispute, only totally insane people can keep going with questioning such a simple and obvious concept!
Yet you keep at it... is there a message here?
<more repeated crap as if to prove the above>
2.
<yet more crap>
-
Alpha, it is a lost cause. He will not ever understand that he has no concept of what things that you can see may or may not prove. He is much like the ones he likes to parrot. You have to throw out almost all accepted science and much of your common sense to be that closed minded. Yet he will post after this about think for yourself, that he thinks that I am an idiot, maybe call me a liar, or that we can't understand his vast intelligence, etc. So I await the schoolyard kiddie tactics of name calling since I am throwing out that he is silly.
-
You NASA shills are a lost causes!!!
If the Earth rotated (instead of stars and other heavenly luminaries), then all the stars that make a full circles above us (within the arctic circle) would be "circumpolar" stars, better to say: if the earth rotated all these stars (that make a full circles above us, within the arctic circle (during one polar night)) would be ZIGZAG-parallax-stars.
If the Earth rotated the whole heaven would be full of relatively small circles (parallaxes) of different stars, there would be nothing like what we (an observer within arctic circle) are able to observe in our reality. What an observer within arctic circle is able to see during one polar night?
1. Motionless Polaris
2. Small circles (parallax) that make stars which are placed near Polaris
3. Larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are farther from Polaris
4. Even more larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are even more farther away from Polaris etc...
If the Earth rotated you should forget about Long-Exposure photographs of the stars as we know them from our reality, it would be something quite different than what you can see in these Long Exposure photographs of the stars which circulate on the internet...
ZIGZAG argument is very much applicable argument to the star case, not only to the midnight Sun or to the noon Moon!
Abandon lie!!!
-
"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?
-
With a latitude of about 0.5 degrees south or beyond, Polaris never rises.
-
"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?
Where did he say this? Have you searched for this yourself to determine if it is a fact?
-
"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?
Many things singlehandedly destroy all globular arguments!
As for Polaris that can be seen up to 23,5 degrees South, read this :
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/zqumw2ph80a6jojd60y.jpg)
-
Which "pole" star are they referring? And why are you posting a letter to the editor of a newspaper from the 1800's anyway?
I tell you what, I will write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper about how you lost a bet and couldn't prove the Earth wasn't rotating or tilted and acted like a big baby. Then we will scan the printed article in and post it as proof that you are wrong... does that make it proof? I didn't think so.
-
I doubt these Captains had any need to be dishonest. Man alive!
-
"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?
Many things singlehandedly destroy all globular arguments!
As for Polaris that can be seen up to 23,5 degrees South, read this :
No, try again. That article says latitude 23.53, but it does not say 'south'.
It is however, possible to see both polaris and the southern cross from 23.53 north.
-
Let's see if this gets my point across:
Stand in one spot and spin around, but other then that don't move. You will see that everything appears to rotate around 2 points, one below you and one above you. This is exactly what the stars do in the real world.
-
The context points to the 23.5 degrees as being south, since the article records "in the event of this being considered as an error" Thanks Mikeman, I will keep trying to get the perspective. I was walking around town today with an orange in my hand, directing it at objects in the distance!
-
The context points to the 23.5 degrees as being south, since the article records "in the event of this being considered as an error"
So Cpt. Wilkins witnessed it at 23.53 degrees, with no specification as to whether it was north or south. Cpt. Gillett witnessed it at 12.xx degrees south. This does not confirm Cpt. Wilkins was at S 23.53. The writer of the letter is simply taking two different accounts by two different people, one of which does not specify north or south, and trying to use the other to imply both were in southern latitudes. It seems rather desperate to me.
Can anyone find any other credible source with some proof of people witnessing Polaris from 23.5 degrees south other than an old letter to an editor that mentions of an even older issue of a newspaper with a vague report?
-
This is Rory's video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : (http://)
The Sun is not above the north pole during the midnight Sun thing, it's still way off to the side. The midnight Sun also happens near the South Pole during the summer months in the southern hemisphere (winter in the northern hemisphere). How does FET explain this?
-
Alpha, it is a lost cause. He will not ever understand that he has no concept of what things that you can see may or may not prove. He is much like the ones he likes to parrot. You have to throw out almost all accepted science and much of your common sense to be that closed minded. Yet he will post after this about think for yourself, that he thinks that I am an idiot, maybe call me a liar, or that we can't understand his vast intelligence, etc. So I await the schoolyard kiddie tactics of name calling since I am throwing out that he is silly.
Yeah... i know that he may be a lost cause. But even if he's a lost cause and is wrong at every level of actual observation doesn't mean his wrong ideas shouldn't be challenged.
-
I am learning from him. Here is a very interesting statement.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
You don't need to kill a horse twice. I can't validate the statement, but maybe you guys can help validate it?
-
I am learning from him. Here is a very interesting statement.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
You don't need to kill a horse twice. I can't validate the statement, but maybe you guys can help validate it?
I just speant 5 seconds doing a Google search and found this:
http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm (http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm)
Only under very special circumstances can both object be visible when they are opposite to each other. At this time for example both touch the horizon at the same time. One rises when the other sets. Then comes our atmosphere. Refraction apparently lifts objects a bit higher. The more the closer the object is to the horizon. At the time of sunset the solar disk is lifted about 30arc minutes (about it's own diameter). Also if one observes from a very high mountain the apparent horizon is somewhat lower as we observe a bit around the curvature of the earth.
Now how do you think this would work in FET?
-
Maybe we should say something here about the Moon-case :
Firstly,
(http://i.imgur.com/Bs2DmsN.jpg)
It rotates on it's axis ONES in the SAME time it takes to orbit us once despite it's (Moon's) significantly eccentric orbit! Tell this fairy tale to someone else!!!
"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall
What is interesting here to notice is that heliocentrists had been used the same paradigm/mechanics (perfectly synchronized rotation of the Moon) even before they decided that the Moon circles around the Earth once per month instead of once per day!!!
They just DRAMATICALLY changed the alleged speed of rotation and orbital speed of the Moon as well as alleged distances between celestial "bodies"!!!
Within first (old) hypothesis the Moon revolves around the Earth daily with the speed of 17,280 km/hour, so it takes 24 hours for Moon to cross 414 720 km. It is obviously much less than 2 386 400 km which is allegedly lenght of the Moon's orbit within today's (new) HC hypothesis.
So, 414 720 / 2 / 3,14 = 60 988 = distance between the Earth and the Moon (old hypothesis)
Mr. Gillespie talks from the OLD (Moon theory - MUCH SMALLER ALLEGED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND MOON) STANDPOINT:
Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' page 89, comes to the rescue and says
" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmosphere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the moon's disc. Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot therefore be inhabited.''
“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/58895023636888751082.jpg)
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/86923764958291777071.jpg)
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/49021941612880661507.jpg)
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/09327310722225621955.jpg)
Secondly,
How about the "EOT" problem regarding the Moon?
The speed of the Moon = 0,0041 degrees per second
The speed of the Sun = 0,00000039 degrees per second
Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?
Thirdly,
During a central eclipse, the Moon's umbra (or antumbra, in the case of an annular eclipse) moves rapidly from west to east across the Earth. The Earth is also rotating from west to east, at about 28 km/min at the Equator, but as the Moon is moving in the same direction as the Earth's spin at about 61 km/min, the umbra almost always appears to move in a roughly west-east direction across a map of the Earth at the speed of the Moon's orbital velocity minus the Earth's rotational velocity.
--3660 km/h (alleged speed of the Moon) - 1660 (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator) = 2000 km/h (the speed of umbra/antumbra)
--3660 km/h - 850 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at Oslo) = 2810 km/h
--3660 km/h - 0 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole) = 3660 km/h
Is this in accordance with reality???
20 March 2015 — Total Solar Eclipse
It's a Total Solar Eclipse in Svalbard (Norway) and the Faroe Islands, and a Partial Solar Eclipse in Europe, northern and eastern Asia and northern and western Africa The eclipse starts at 7:41am UTC. The maximum point (totality) begins at 09:45am UTC and will last for 2 minutes and 47 seconds.
21 August 2017 — Total Solar Eclipse
The total solar eclipse will be visible from most locations in the United States and Canada.
This eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse visible from contiguous United States since 1979. The total phase of the eclipse will be visible from locations spanning from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States. The last time this happened was during the June 8, 1918 total solar eclipse.
Parts of Western Europe and northern and western South America will experience a partial solar eclipse.
The eclipse will begin at 03:47 p.m. (15:47) UTC. The maximum point of the eclipse will take place near Hopkinsville, Kentucky at 06:22 p.m. (18:22) UTC. Totality will last for 2 mins 40 secs.
Fourthly,
The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.
The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.
So, why do we NEVER see the Darkside of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?
Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :
(http://i.imgur.com/2MmMpPi.jpg)
Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :
(http://i.imgur.com/UrkLkmK.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DofXr24F2Qk/TlxAIVDiZgI/AAAAAAAAEzM/vl75CRlGvw8/s1600/a17besttracklessrover.jpg)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9ib972HglXI/UQZaZaszWlI/AAAAAAAAA0E/fkGU2IIc6JU/s1600/1.gif)
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8_eb9_USTDU/UQx5y2vqHGI/AAAAAAAAA2A/sYewgE0U8hw/s1600/y.gif)
(http://i.imgflip.com/iocf.gif)(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9m26uFbJp5E/UQyzD-n2KyI/AAAAAAAAA2U/bhA1Pnq8OuI/s1600/pack.gif)
2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!
Oh, i forgot this :
FLAT EARTH Clues Part 10 - Hiding GOD : (http://)
Thank you Mark!!!
-
*Facepalm
(http://)
-
Maybe we should say something here about the Moon-case :
Firstly,
<repost>
This appears to be a re-post of http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671103#msg1671103 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671103#msg1671103)
Reported. Can we keep the ongoing discussion of this in the other thread please?
-
Maybe we should say something here about the Moon-case :
Firstly,
<repost>
This appears to be a re-post of http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671103#msg1671103 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671103#msg1671103)
Reported. Can we keep the ongoing discussion of this in the other thread please?
cikljamas does this frequently. The vast majority of other forums prohibit cross-posting as it's considered spamming and breaches forum rules. As it should here. But then cikljamas is a flat earther after all, and they enjoy a special dispensation from adhering to the rules of this site.
Personally, I don't even bother wasting any time reading through the reams of the same old copypasta he posts here day after day. I must've seen these silly Moon/Mars images of his a hundred times now LOL. And his distorted interpretations are still just as much imaginative fairy stories.
-
Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this
Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?
is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.
-
Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this
Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?
is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.
Moon landings weren't faked.
-
Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this
Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?
is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.
Tell that to the professional astronomer (Alpha2Omega).
Here is his (Alpha2Omega's) opinion on this:
It's not. The Moon moves more slowly across the sky than the Sun does, and the Sun moves across the sky more slowly than the stars. The Moon transits a meridian approximately 50 minutes later each day, so its average transit-transit time is about 24h50m. Recall that the Sun takes exactly 24h on average, and the stars 23h56m. Which is slowest? This is exactly as cikljamas expects, but, for some reason, doesn't realize actually happens; maybe if he spent more time looking at real data instead of tracking down ludicrous ideas posited by charlatans he wouldn't make mistakes like this. We can hope - probably in vain. It certainly would save all of us time. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671243#msg1671243 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671243#msg1671243)
Here is the truth:
According to one anonymous source:
The Sun makes a complete transit around the Earth in ~24.25 hours, or 360
degrees in 87,300 seconds (.0041 degrees/sec).
The Moon makes complete transit around the Earth in ~29 days or 360 degrees in 2,531,700 seconds (.00000039 degrees/sec).
According to my own calculation:
The speed of the Moon:
29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec
27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec
The speed of the Sun:
360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec
It is true that the Moon moves fastest against the background sky (GHA) but it is also true that because of the Moon's alleged orbital motion in a direction W - E and because of the rotation of the Earth (in the same direction) the algebraic addition of both movements should result in slower local motion (LHA) than that of the Sun or stars.
It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm (http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm)
Secondly,
As the Moon approaches perigee its angular speed among the stars will appear to increase by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its lesser distance, and half being due to an actual increase in speed; and as it approaches apogee, its angular speed among the stars will appear to decrease by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its greater distance, and half being due to an actual decrease in speed. Since 12% of 13.2 degrees per day is 1.6 degrees per day, the daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6 degrees per day near apogee to as much as 14.8 degrees per day near perigee.
So, why do we NEVER see the Farther/Another side of the Moon if it rotates on ax like NASA says?
-
If I remember correctly from school, angular velocity (measured in degrees) is not the same as linear velocity (in metres per second). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity)
-
If I remember correctly from school, angular velocity (measured in degrees) is not the same as linear velocity (in metres per second). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity)
We have been trying to tell him that for a long time...
-
Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this
Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?
is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.
Tell that to the professional astronomer (Alpha2Omega).
I'm not a professional astronomer. My dad was. I'm a long-time amateur astronomer.
Here is his (Alpha2Omega's) opinion on this:
It's not. The Moon moves more slowly across the sky than the Sun does, and the Sun moves across the sky more slowly than the stars. The Moon transits a meridian approximately 50 minutes later each day, so its average transit-transit time is about 24h50m. Recall that the Sun takes exactly 24h on average, and the stars 23h56m. Which is slowest? This is exactly as cikljamas expects, but, for some reason, doesn't realize actually happens; maybe if he spent more time looking at real data instead of tracking down ludicrous ideas posited by charlatans he wouldn't make mistakes like this. We can hope - probably in vain. It certainly would save all of us time. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671243#msg1671243 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671243#msg1671243)
Here is the truth:
According to one anonymous source:
The Sun makes a complete transit around the Earth in ~24.25 hours, or 360
degrees in 87,300 seconds (.0041 degrees/sec).
The Moon makes complete transit around the Earth in ~29 days or 360 degrees in 2,531,700 seconds (.00000039 degrees/sec).
Why use an anonymous source? His (her?) information is wrong. Even you should know this. The length of the mean solar day is 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds (you use this number in your calculations below, so WTF?) The apparent solar day varies by a few seconds each way depending on the time of year.
Way to compare the (incorrect) rotation period of the Earth relative to the Sun and the period of revolution of the Moon. What are you trying to show? That you have no clue what you're doing? If so, great job! Or are you just bashing numbers together to see if you come to some revelation? If so, good luck.
According to my own calculation:
The speed of the Moon:
29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec
27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec
The speed of the Sun:
360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec
Why not your anonymous source's 87,300 seconds? What was the point of even bringing that up if you're not going to use it?
It is true that the Moon moves fastest against the background sky (GHA) [?] but it is also true that because of the Moon's alleged orbital motion in a direction W - E and because of the rotation of the Earth (in the same direction) the algebraic addition of both movements should result in slower local motion (LHA) than that of the Sun or stars.
It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm (http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm)
I'm not sure what you mean by "GHA" (Greenwich Hour Angle?) and its significance in this context. If "LHA" is Local Hour Angle, then that does apply. This is still a pretty good synopsis. See what you can learn when you use more reliable sources for your information. I do note that Dr. Seligman (your reference) says "The Moon moves around the Earth in an approximately circular orbit". I hope this means you now recognize that the Moon's orbit is not "significantly eccentric".
Secondly,
As the Moon approaches perigee its angular speed among the stars will appear to increase by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its lesser distance, and half being due to an actual increase in speed; and as it approaches apogee, its angular speed among the stars will appear to decrease by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its greater distance, and half being due to an actual decrease in speed. Since 12% of 13.2 degrees per day is 1.6 degrees per day, the daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6 degrees per day near apogee to as much as 14.8 degrees per day near perigee.
So, why do we NEVER see the Farther/Another side of the Moon if it rotates on ax like NASA says?
We do see farther around one side or the other as the orbital speed changes. Have you never looked at the information on libration that was provided to you?
-
According to my own calculation:
The speed of the Moon:
29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec
27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec
The speed of the Sun:
360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec
What this means?
This means that the retrograde motion of the Moon (with respect to the Stars) is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun (with respect to the Stars)!!!
So, it is really odd that whenever you come across the various articles on internet about this issue, you always see this type (see above) of reckoning / comparing the speeds of the Moon and the Sun.
So, is this deliberate or accidental misinterpretation?
What is actually wrong here?
If we presumed that the Moon and the Sun have exactly the same orbits, then we would have to conclude that because retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars) of the Moon is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun, apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Sun is faster than the apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Moon.
I would say that this is the logic that Alpha2Omega rely on.
So, everything depends on the real shape (width, eccentricity) of an actual orbits of the Moon and of the Sun.
When Dr. Seligman says this:
It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm (http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm)
...what Dr. Seligman actually means by these words?
Does he talk about forward motion of the Moon and the Sun or he talks about retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars : direction West - East) of the Moon and the Sun?
Now the question is this:
Is it possible that the Moon moves much faster (than the Sun) forwardly (East - West) and retrogradely (with respect to the Stars : West - East) in the same time?
It is, and it must be so, because it is measurable and from my own experience (observations) i can tell you that this is the fact: The Moon moves much faster than the Sun forwardly (East - West)!!!
One interesting testimony:
My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.
When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.
My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldn't it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?
Any thoughts or ideas?
One another discussion on the same topic which shows how people are terribly confused about this issue:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816 (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816)
-
According to my own calculation:
The speed of the Moon:
29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec
27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec
The speed of the Sun:
360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec
What this means?
This means that the retrograde motion of the Moon (with respect to the Stars) is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun (with respect to the Stars)!!!
So, it is really odd that whenever you come across the various articles on internet about this issue, you always see this type (see above) of reckoning / comparing the speeds of the Moon and the Sun.
So, is this deliberate or accidental misinterpretation?
What is actually wrong here?
If we presumed that the Moon and the Sun have exactly the same orbits, then we would have to conclude that because retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars) of the Moon is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun, apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Sun is faster than the apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Moon.
I would say that this is the logic that Alpha2Omega rely on.
So, everything depends on the real shape (width, eccentricity) of an actual orbits of the Moon and of the Sun.
When Dr. Seligman says this:
It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm (http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm)
...what Dr. Seligman actually means by these words?
Does he talk about forward motion of the Moon and the Sun or he talks about retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars : direction West - East) of the Moon and the Sun?
Now the question is this:
Is it possible that the Moon moves much faster (than the Sun) forwardly (East - West) and retrogradely (with respect to the Stars : West - East) in the same time?
It is, and it must be so, because it is measurable and from my own experience (observations) i can tell you that this is the fact: The Moon moves much faster than the Sun forwardly (East - West)!!!
One interesting testimony:
My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.
When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.
My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldn't it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?
Any thoughts or ideas?
One another discussion on the same topic which shows how people are terribly confused about this issue:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816 (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816)
I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.
-
According to my own calculation:
The speed of the Moon:
29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec
27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec
The speed of the Sun:
360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec
What this means?
This means that the retrograde motion of the Moon (with respect to the Stars) is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun (with respect to the Stars)!!!
That's prograde motion against the stars. Retrograde motion is East to West.
So, it is really odd that whenever you come across the various articles on internet about this issue, you always see this type (see above) of reckoning / comparing the speeds of the Moon and the Sun.
I only see that here, by you.
So, is this deliberate or accidental misinterpretation?
You tell us. You're the one calculating diurnal motion for the Sun due to earth's rotation but and synodic and sidereal motion due to the Moon's orbit, ignoring diurnal motion, and then comparing them. Why are you doing this? Do you really not see the difference, or are you deliberately trying to BS?
What is actually wrong here?
You don't know what you are talking about but keep posting.
If we presumed that the Moon and the Sun have exactly the same orbits,
Why would we do that? They're nowhere near the same.
then we would have to conclude that because retrograde prograde motion (with respect to the Stars) of the Moon is faster than the retrograde prograde motion of the Sun, apparent forward diurnal (East - West) motion of the Sun is faster than the apparent forward diurnal (East - West) motion of the Moon.
If the orbits were the same (they're obviously not), then why would you conclude that? If the orbits were the same, the average motion would be the same.
I would say that this is the logic that Alpha2Omega rely on.
I resent that. What you are saying is just plain wrong. I don't agree with it at all.
So, everything depends on the real shape (width, eccentricity) of an actual orbits of the Moon and of the Sun.
That and the rotation of the Earth, yes.
When Dr. Seligman says this:
It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm (http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm)
...what Dr. Seligman actually means by these words?
Does he talk about forward diurnal motion of the Moon and the Sun or he talks about retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars : direction West - East) of the Moon and the Sun?
The latter. It's quite easy to track the Sun across the daytime sky. It's hard to see the Sun move relative to the stars because you can't see stars near the Sun, but quite easy to see the Moon move relative to them. The Sun follows the ecliptic through the stars; the Moon stays within a few degrees of the ecliptic, so these paths are similar.
Now the question is this:
Is it possible that the Moon moves much faster (than the Sun) forwardly (East - West) and retrogradely (with respect to the Stars : West - East) in the same time?
No, since these are opposite directions, the Moon can't do both.
It is, and it must be so, because it is measurable and from my own experience (observations) i can tell you that this is the fact: The Moon moves much faster than the Sun forwardly (East - West)!!!
How much faster? How did you determine this? You may want to repeat your experiment and measure more carefully next time. Take notes.
One interesting testimony:
My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.
When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.
My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldn't it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?
Any thoughts or ideas?
A good rule of thumb is the Moon moves across the sky by its own apparent diameter in slightly more than two minutes. The setting time for the Moon depends on its phase; a thin crescent would be expected to set a couple to a few hours after the Sun. It sets at the same time as the Sun when new, and roughly 50 minutes later each day, on average. A first-quarter (half) moon sets roughly at midnight (depending on where you are in your time zone and whether or not DST is in effect, how far you and the moon are from the equator, topography, etc.).
One another discussion on the same topic which shows how people are terribly confused about this issue:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816 (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816)
His experiment apparently includes noticeable parallax in addition to the rotation. You can see the same thing using two fingers held up, one behind the other.
If it were pure rotation, then distance doesn't matter. His eye(s) isn't (aren't) fixed - they move laterally a significant distance compared to the distance to the pens. This is not a good experiment because the distances involved aren't realistically replicated.
-
I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.
Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:
1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?
If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:
2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Do you agree with me?
Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!
-
Cikljamas, you would be right if you were standing on the North Pole watching an eclipse, but most solar eclipses are observed from other places and sense up, down, left, and right are relative you are wrong in most scenarios.
-
Cikljamas, you would be right if you were standing on the North Pole watching an eclipse, but most solar eclipses are observed from other places and sense up, down, left, and right are relative you are wrong in most scenarios.
Don't be stupid, just answer the question. Generally right or generally left? It doesn't matter if the Sun appears in Upper-Left or Lower-Right (or vice versa) corner...
-
Cikljamas, you would be right if you were standing on the North Pole watching an eclipse, but most solar eclipses are observed from other places and sense up, down, left, and right are relative you are wrong in most scenarios.
Don't be stupid, just answer the question. Generally right or generally left? It doesn't matter if the Sun appears in Upper-Left or Lower-Right (or vice versa) corner...
Please specify a frame of reference.
-
Cik, he is asking for a frame of reference. So the best way to get an answer to your question is to give a place that you are at experiencing this total eclipse, then the direction you are looking towards. Example, you are in the USA and the total eclipse is happening in the afternoon, so you are generally looking west, with north to your right side. Try to reformat your question in these terms, otherwise it looks like you are trying to illicit a response based upon incomplete information and then you could prove him false because he had to make assumptions on what you were asking. This would lead into the probably 4 or 5 pages of argument about the question and not the topic.
-
I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.
Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:
1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?
If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:
2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Do you agree with me?
Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!
If the Earth rotated all these scenarios would be reversed:
NORTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Eclipse total de Sol - 11 de agosto de 1999, Balatonlelle (Hungría) : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Mexico 2006 : (http://)
SOUTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Total Solar Eclipse delights Australians 2012 : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Australia 2014 : (http://)
-
I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.
Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:
1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?
If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:
2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Do you agree with me?
Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!
If the Earth rotated all these scenarios would be reversed:
NORTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Eclipse total de Sol - 11 de agosto de 1999, Balatonlelle (Hungría) : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Mexico 2006 : (http://)
SOUTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Total Solar Eclipse delights Australians 2012 : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Australia 2014 : (http://)
Yeah, I know. I think the heliocentric model is a joke too. It is enough to take a look at the night and day map where you can see the supposed position of the Sun and the Moon for any given day. It is funny if the Moon is 285000 km away and the Sun is 150 million km how come they can be located above a certain region of the Earth. In addition, in northern latitudes even when the Sun is above the horizon the sun's intensity is noticeably smaller which suggests increased distance?!? How can it be farther away from the pole if it is distance to the Earth is 150 million km? It should be the same distance to any part of the Earth if the HC model was correct, and then we would observe nothing of what we do now. Also, during the midnight sun period with the sun being above the horizon it is still a bit dark which never happens in lower latitudes. It only gets dark when the Sun is below the horizon not when it is still above it! I am guessing it is darker near the pole because it is far away from the Sun literally, which is impossible if the Sun was 150 million km away. It wouldn't make a difference where on Earth you're located, you would experience sun's intensity the same way.
(http://i.imgur.com/y00Uaqq.jpg]http://i.imgur.com/y00Uaqq.jpg)
-
Are you really so ignorant you can't understand simple concepts? Distance doesn't matter, the sun can still be above a certain place on the earth. The earth is a 3D object, why would every point on the earth be the same distance to the sun?
-
Are you really so ignorant you can't understand simple concepts? Distance doesn't matter, the sun can still be above a certain place on the earth. The earth is a 3D object, why would every point on the earth be the same distance to the sun?
Yeah, right. Explain to me then why when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Germany it is still daytime, but when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard during the summer when we experience the midnight Sun, it is not really daytime and it is more like twilight. Explain that please. It makes no sense.The reason why it gets dark supposedly is because the Sun sets, well it doesn't set there at all for few months, but it still gets darker. Tell me why! It is pretty clear to me that the Sun literally goes farther away from the pole, and that is why it gets darker but it is still above the horizon during the midnight sun period.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/y00Uaqq.jpg]http://i.imgur.com/y00Uaqq.jpg)
The map of the world can never look like this. On the posted picture of the map Greenland is larger than Australia! When Australia is actually 3.5 times bigger!
Here is a good quick site that shows how out of proportion presented maps are to make all the continents fit on a flat paper http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography)
The world being round means that there is always going to be one side closer to the sun than the other side. The poles are not colder because they are further from the sun, but because the sun either reaches the atmosphere and surface at acute angles in summer, and hardly at all during winter.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/y00Uaqq.jpg]http://i.imgur.com/y00Uaqq.jpg)
The map of the world can never look like this. On the posted picture of the map Greenland is larger than Australia! When Australia is actually 3.5 times bigger!
Here is a good quick site that shows how out of proportion presented maps are to make all the continents fit on a flat paper http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography)
The world being round means that there is always going to be one side closer to the sun than the other side. The poles are not colder because they are further from the sun, but because the sun either reaches the atmosphere and surface at acute angles in summer, and hardly at all during winter.
OMG, what you wrote is total nonsense. I am not talking about why the poles are colder, I just told you that closer to the north pole it is darker even though the Sun is above the horizon compared with more southern latitudes. Do you still not get it? Tell me how this makes sense. Two identical scenarios - the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard and in Germany. In Svalbard it is darker. Explain why. The angle of the Sun is absolutely the same, but it is darker. Please note, I am comparing 15 degrees above the horizon in Germany before sunset with 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard during the midnight sun period in the summer. That is when the Sun is farther away. During the day it is close and it is brighter, but later it gets darker even though it is still above the horizon. It is just farther away, but still visible.
Here is a photo:(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/36520009.jpg)
Please take a photo with the Sun so much above the horizon from any southern latitude and let's see if it will be that dark.
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
-
Actually the atmosphere has little to do with it, the ground is dimmer because of the angle of the sunlight which causes the sunlight to be more spread out if that makes sense.
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?
-
Actually the atmosphere has little to do with it, the ground is dimmer because of the angle of the sunlight which causes the sunlight to be more spread out if that makes sense.
OK, let's say this is true. Then why when the Sun is about to set in more southern latitudes it is not so dark? I intentionally mentioned that hypothetical scenario - 15 degrees above the horizon in two different locations. The angle of sunlight if the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon is exactly the same in both places. However, in Svalbard if it's during the midnight sun it is darker than, let's say, in Germany in winter when the Sun could be 15 degrees above the horizon too. Same angle of the Sun! Generally, it shouldn't be different. Do you see what I am saying?
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?
You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole. The angle is the same in both place.
-
This thread seems to have devolved into utter chaos. ::)
OMG, what you wrote is total nonsense. I am not talking about why the poles are colder, I just told you that closer to the north pole it is darker even though the Sun is above the horizon compared with more southern latitudes. Do you still not get it? Tell me how this makes sense. Two identical scenarios - the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard and in Germany. In Svalbard it is darker. Explain why. The angle of the Sun is absolutely the same, but it is darker. Please note, I am comparing 15 degrees above the horizon in Germany before sunset with 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard during the midnight sun period in the summer.
Citation needed. Why do you think it's darker in Svalbard in those conditions? Do you have any data to support this, or are you simply making "facts" up to support your idea?
That is when the Sun is farther away. During the day it is close and it is brighter, but later it gets darker even though it is still above the horizon. It is just farther away, but still visible.
Wouldn't the Sun be the same distance from any point on the Earth when seen at a given elevation angle, regardless of whether earth is flat or spherical? Why would this affect polar regions more than temperate or tropical ones?
Here is a photo:(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/36520009.jpg)
You find a photo with an underexposed foreground and say "see how dark it is!" Is that your reason? You're just funnin' us, right?
Please take a photo with the Sun so much above the horizon from any southern latitude and let's see if it will be that dark.
If it's similarly underexposed, why wouldn't it be?
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?
You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole. The angle is the same in both place.
Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...
I sympathize with you!!! :'(
Do you sympathize with me?
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?
You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole. The angle is the same in both place.
Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...
I sympathize with you!!! :'(
Do you sympathize with me?
Did you deliberately decide to ignore Alpha2Omega's post on how Saros' claims are not accurate? Why do you enjoy making yourself look bad?
I suggest you actually read our responses before posting the same argument again, or supporting somebody else's flawed argument.
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?
You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole. The angle is the same in both place.
Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...
I sympathize with you!!! :'(
Do you sympathize with me?
Did you deliberately decide to ignore Alpha2Omega's post on how Saros' claims are not accurate? Why do you enjoy making yourself look bad?
I suggest you actually read our responses before posting the same argument again, or supporting somebody else's flawed argument.
Look, Alpha2Omega obviously lies. it is true the photo is not any proof, but you can find plenty of photos like that. Are they all underexposed? Go to Svalbard and see for yourself midnight sun and tell me it is the same as daytime. It is definitely much darker even though the Sun is above the horizon. Prove me wrong! I am personally going to Svalbard this summer.
-
Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?
Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.
What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?
You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole. The angle is the same in both place.
Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...
I sympathize with you!!! :'(
Do you sympathize with me?
Did you deliberately decide to ignore Alpha2Omega's post on how Saros' claims are not accurate? Why do you enjoy making yourself look bad?
I suggest you actually read our responses before posting the same argument again, or supporting somebody else's flawed argument.
Look, Alpha2Omega obviously lies. it is true the photo is not any proof, but you can find plenty of photos like that. Are they all underexposed? Go to Svalbard and see for yourself midnight sun and tell me it is the same as daytime. It is definitely much darker even though the Sun is above the horizon. Prove me wrong! I am personally going to Svalbard this summer.
Your claim that the luminance of the sun is greater when the sun is 15 degrees above the horizon on anywhere besides in the far north, where it is supposedly dark, has no evidence. Until you can provide such evidence, we will continue to not take you seriously.
Besides, there are hundreds of photos and videos of an obviously round Earth, yet you deny it. Of course we aren't going to accept your photos as evidence. Have fun taking your own medicine.
Do not call people liars unless you have evidence to support such a claim. Disgusting.
-
1.
The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.
2.
Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...
Man this isn't very fair is it?
Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?
If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
3.
(http://i.imgur.com/Gau8cPf.jpg)
So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...
But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?
Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!
-
1.
The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.
2.
Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...
Man this isn't very fair is it?
Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?
If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
3.
(http://i.imgur.com/Gau8cPf.jpg)
So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...
But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?
Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!
It never has been about distances. People have destroyed this argument before, how about you read that through again? Oh right, you're going to act like nobody said anything like you usually do.
Ignored.
-
It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun.
No. No it's not. It's caused by Earth's axle tilt, Earth's distance from the Sun is small and doesn't effect much. In fact: in the northern hemisphere Earth is closest to the Sun in winter and furthest in the summer, that's how little effect the small distance change has.
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/seasons/images/fig2.jpg)
When the Sun's rays are more direct then you get more sunlight per swuare foot of ground which makes the ground heat up more. They teach this in elementary school, how did you not learn it?
-
Seriously? Wrong Cik. Seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth. When, in the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun it is summer in the north. More sunlight covers that hemisphere, therefore longer days and shorter nights. Actually if you really wanted to know, the more recent trend in the revolution of the Earth has the southern hemisphere closer to the sun during its summer than the northern hemisphere is, but only very slightly. So we are actually closer to the sun during the winter here in the northern hemisphere than we are during the summer.
-
1.
The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.
2.
Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...
Man this isn't very fair is it?
Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?
If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
3.
(http://i.imgur.com/Gau8cPf.jpg)
So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...
But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?
Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!
It never has been about distances. People have destroyed this argument before, how about you read that through again? Oh right, you're going to act like nobody said anything like you usually do.
Ignored.
Hahaha, the argument hasn't been destroyed. You think it was destroyed. There is a difference. You guys don't care about the truth. The fact is the round Earth model is nonsense and totally made up to fool the sheeple around the world. 23.5 degrees tilt, hilarious!!!! There is no need to provide evidence that the Earth is not a globe. Only a totally naive person can seriously believe it is a globe. I just can't stop laughing when I see how brainwashed people are. They don't have any personal experience whatsoever, but still believe in some dogma with no basis on reality. Oceans curve, planets fly in space etc fairy tales... As for the midnight sun, go and ask anyone who lives in those latitudes. Ask them whether it is the same as when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon during the day. Just compare....
-
1.
The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.
2.
Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...
Man this isn't very fair is it?
Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?
If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
3.
(http://i.imgur.com/Gau8cPf.jpg)
So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...
But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?
Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!
It never has been about distances. People have destroyed this argument before, how about you read that through again? Oh right, you're going to act like nobody said anything like you usually do.
Ignored.
Hahaha, the argument hasn't been destroyed. You think it was destroyed. There is a difference. You guys don't care about the truth. The fact is the round Earth model is nonsense and totally made up to fool the sheeple around the world. 23.5 degrees tilt, hilarious!!!! There is no need to provide evidence that the Earth is not a globe. Only a totally naive person can seriously believe it is a globe. I just can't stop laughing when I see how brainwashed people are. They don't have any personal experience whatsoever, but still believe in some dogma with no basis on reality. Oceans curve, planets fly in space etc fairy tales... As for the midnight sun, go and ask anyone who lives in those latitudes. Ask them whether it is the same as when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon during the day. Just compare....
Please read the posts just made by Mike and Mikey. It's also amusing how you ignored my previous post, just as ciklajamas would have done. Sheep do as the herder does I guess.
-
Well I have seen the (northern) midnight sun and have also seen the sun at low elevation angle at lower latitudes, I can't really see any difference between the light levels in those two scenarios when the sun is at the same angle. Only difference that comes to mind is that closer to the equator the sun sets quicker, while at a higher latitude the sun makes a sweeping arc towards the horizon from noon to midnight.
-
1.
The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.
Why are your arguments regressing? Uncritical reading of your posts will make someone dumber. Maybe writing them also does this?
You routinely toss out "impossible" when discussing the simple and commonplace. Axial tilt is what causes the seasons. You already know this, so why play dumb?
2.
Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...
Man this isn't very fair is it?
Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?
If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
Check two posts later (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639501#msg1639501) for a thorough refutation. Why do you keep bringing this tired old crap up?
3.
(http://i.imgur.com/Gau8cPf.jpg)
So, what could be a possible solution here?
Solution for what? WTH are those drawings supposed to represent? Neither one of them make any sense.
I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...
A spherical Earth orbiting the distant Sun makes all the problems and complications (like directionally-regulated sunlight, among numerous other things) of your model simply disappear. That seems like an excellent solution.
But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun,
Yes. Quite easily and convincingly.
or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?
That will be quite a bit more difficult (even if it weren't wrong). How do you propose to "prove" that?
Do you remember this picture? It was originally posted by you here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1661813#msg1661813).
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/d4a3ooweayrf7h2y3970.jpg)
Why do you think the surface of Lake Michigan is blocking the view of the lower parts of the Chicago skyscrapers?
Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!
It's actually about the angle of the Sun's rays.
-
Look, Alpha2Omega obviously lies.
Any examples (obvious or otherwise)?
it is true the photo is not any proof, but you can find plenty of photos like that. Are they all underexposed?
If they're like that underexposed photo, then, yes, they're underexposed. Duh!
Go to Svalbard and see for yourself midnight sun and tell me it is the same as daytime. It is definitely much darker even though the Sun is above the horizon. Prove me wrong!
Woah, hold on a second! Not long ago you were arguing it's darker in Svalbard when the Sun is 15° above the horizon than it is elsewhere when the Sun is 15° above the horizon. Now you're changing the argument to "it's darker in Svalbard when the midnight Sun is 15° above the horizon than it is when the Sun is higher in the sky". That's not at all the same argument, and I don't see why anyone would dispute that. I don't see the point of the new argument, either. Is it to deflect attention from the earlier one?
I am personally going to Svalbard this summer.
Cool! Could be an interesting trip. Work or pleasure?
-
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/d4a3ooweayrf7h2y3970.jpg)
That actually should ruin FEI, but somehow it doesn't.
-
I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.
Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:
1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?
If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:
2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Do you agree with me?
Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!
If the Earth rotated all these scenarios would be reversed:
NORTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Eclipse total de Sol - 11 de agosto de 1999, Balatonlelle (Hungría) : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Mexico 2006 : (http://)
SOUTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Total Solar Eclipse delights Australians 2012 : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Australia 2014 : (http://)
Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :
(http://i.imgur.com/31SQhK3.jpg)
General direction of motion of the Sun and Moon is always the same looking from northern hemiplain (the Moon goes from RIGHT TO LEFT), but if the Earth rotated then the general direction of motion of the Moon would be from LEFT to RIGHT!!!!
-
I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.
Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:
1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?
If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:
2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Do you agree with me?
Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!
If the Earth rotated all these scenarios would be reversed:
NORTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Eclipse total de Sol - 11 de agosto de 1999, Balatonlelle (Hungría) : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Mexico 2006 : (http://)
SOUTHERN HEMIPLAIN :
Total Solar Eclipse delights Australians 2012 : (http://)
Total Solar Eclipse Australia 2014 : (http://)
Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :
(http://i.imgur.com/31SQhK3.jpg)
General direction of motion of the Sun and Moon is always the same looking from northern hemiplain (the Moon goes from RIGHT TO LEFT), but if the Earth rotated then the general direction of motion of the Moon would be from LEFT to RIGHT!!!!
Why? Earth goes from west to east. I see no problem. By the way - how will you explain the Foucalt pendulum?
-
You see no problem? Ask Alpha2Omega if he sees any problem!
As for Foucault pendulum : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881)
-
Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :
(http://i.imgur.com/31SQhK3.jpg)
General direction of motion of the Sun and Moon is always the same looking from northern hemiplain (the Moon goes from RIGHT TO LEFT), but if the Earth rotated then the general direction of motion of the Moon would be from LEFT to RIGHT!!!!
The Sun and Moon both move across the sky from east to west (left to right when viewing from the north) due to the rotation of the Earth. There is no reference in your photos to recognize that - all you see is the bright Sun and silhouetted Moon centered in each frame. Nonetheless, I bet the Sun rose due east of you this morning and will move from left to right (as you're facing south) all day and set due west. Right?
What your pictures do show is the Moon moving eastward (right to left since they're south of you) relative to the Sun. This is exactly what is expected since the Moon makes a west-to-east circuit of the ecliptic about 12 times faster than the Sun does.
Those aren't bad pictures for a first try. #2 is somewhat overexposed but still quite nice; the others are more overexposed and maybe slightly out of focus, but still show what's going on quite well. If your camera allows manual exposure adjustment, setting it for something like -2 f-stops would probably help, but experiment. Thanks for posting them!
-
Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?
When you say that both celestial "bodies" (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the alleged rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main (false) argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your insane theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial "bodies" (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!
As for photographs : You welcome!
-
Did you say what you think actually causes the eclipse?
-
Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?
When you say that both celestial "bodies" (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the alleged rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main (false) argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your insane theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial "bodies" (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!
As for photographs : You welcome!
Because of the Earth's rotation the Sun appears to be moving across the sky like the Moon, but when the eclipse was being photographed the photographer tracked the Sun and Moon so the Earth's rotation doesn't have an effect on the apparent position of the Sun and Moon, so the only factor that effects their relative position is where the Moon is in it's orbit and that agrees with reality.
-
Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :
(http://i.imgur.com/31SQhK3.jpg)
These images have obviously been Photoshopped, and therefore offer no proof of anything, let alone the direction of travel of the moon. I could change its "direction" by simply mirroring the images LOL.
At any rate, given an LED flashlight, a cardboard disc, and a bit of exposed photographic negative film, I could duplicate this exactly.
So I'm betting that cikljamas won't be able to prove that the images are genuine, and simply expects us to take his word for it? I don't think so. ;D
-
Ya, that Foucault's pendulum example annoys me. Funny, how people consider this experiment as absolute 100% evidence, but then sweep Airey's failure experiment under the carpet. Clearly a double standard, and only wanting to see what you want to see. Minds already made up, from about the age of 9.
-
[quote authhttp://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Themes/tintagel_fes/images/bbc/url.gifor=earth is a stage link=topic=62346.msg1672255#msg1672255 date=1426869722]
Ya, that Foucault's pendulum example annoys me. Funny, how people consider this experiment as absolute 100% evidence, but then sweep Airey's failure experiment under the carpet. Clearly a double standard, and only wanting to see what you want to see. Minds already made up, from about the age of 9.
[/quote]
What the heck is Airey's failure?
Speaking of FET, here is a video that proves it wrong:
(http://)
-
The whole world would have known about Airey's experiment, if it had been considered a success. It is called a failure because instead of the experiment proving that the earth is moving, it unexpectedly seemed to show it was the stars that are moving. This experiment would have probably been taught to you at a very young age, and been considered absolute 100% conclusive evidence for a moving earth. Instead of an unknown experiment, it would have been one of the most famous. You could make this experiment your summer project Mike. It involves a telescope.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html (http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html)
-
1. Airy's failure experiment - a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
2. Other crucial experiments and significant statements (an honest admissions) of a famous astronomers about the fraudulent heliocentric theory : http://www.energeticforum.com/262538-post223.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/262538-post223.html)
3. Even if you watch our Universe from the heliocentric point of view this is how it really looks like if you think reasonably : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62293.msg1639407#msg1639407 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62293.msg1639407#msg1639407)
-
The whole world would have known about Airey's experiment, if it had been considered a success. It is called a failure because instead of the experiment proving that the earth is moving, it unexpectedly showed it was the stars that are moving. This experiment would have probably been taught to you at a very young age, and been considered absolute 100% conclusive evidence for a moving earth. Instead of an unknown experiment, it would have been one of the most famous. You could make this experiment your summer project Mike. It involves a telescope.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html (http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html)
Walter van der Kamp was yet another scientifically-illiterate young-earth creationist and god-botherer who relied solely on centuries-old pseudoscience in order to earn a few dollars by selling dodgy books—just like one of his earlier peers, Samuel Rowbotham LOL. Check out this site: Cretinism or Evilution? (http://bit.ly/1xGuDsZ) for a bit more about this whack-job and his idiotic "theories".
::)
-
Was Airey a whack job? I don't care about politics or religion. (in this context) I reason from the general to the particular. If the Earth is stationary the earth is stationary. Nothing else matters.
-
The whole world would have known about Airey's experiment, if it had been considered a success. It is called a failure because instead of the experiment proving that the earth is moving, it unexpectedly seemed to show it was the stars that are moving. This experiment would have probably been taught to you at a very young age, and been considered absolute 100% conclusive evidence for a moving earth. Instead of an unknown experiment, it would have been one of the most famous. You could make this experiment your summer project Mike. It involves a telescope.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html (http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html)
Do you know how small stellar parallax is? It's very hard to detect. Modern day astronomers have detected it though.
Imagine you were trying to prove that atoms existed and so you looked into a microscope. You won't see atoms because microscopes are not powerful enough, does that mean that atoms don't exist? That experiment was simply not precise enough to detect stellar parallax..
-
You should attempt the experiment. All I know is a very qualified scientist, expected he would have to re-adjust the telescope, after filling it with water, and he never did. Surely such a simple experiment, is repeatable. So let the scientific establishment do the experiment again, if they think it was done improperly.
-
You should attempt the experiment. All I know is a very qualified scientist, expected he would have to re-adjust the telescope, after filling it with water, and he never did. Surely such a simple experiment, is repeatable. So let the scientific establishment do the experiment again, if they think it was done improperly.
I think that the experiment is not precise enough and therefore fundementaly flawed. Have you watched this video (http://) yet?
-
How is it fundementally flawed? Not precise enough, for what? lol
-
How is it fundamentally flawed? Not precise enough, for what? lol
This type of scenario is often suggested by flat earthers—that modern scientists revisit and repeat scientific experiments that were carried out hundreds—sometimes thousands!—of years previously to either prove or disprove their results.
For obvious reasons, this is a total waste of everybody's time, and won't prove anything one way or the other. At any rate, if it does happen that an ancient experiment is repeated with modern instruments, it invariably confirms that the instruments and known science of the period were grossly imprecise and/or impracticable for the experiment, and therefore its results. One only has to look at Rowbotham's primitive 1838 Bedford Level experiment and its erroneous conclusion to realise that.
-
How is it fundementally flawed? Not precise enough, for what? lol
Watch the video please.
-
Mike, just put the video link in your signature line. I am thinking about doing the same.
-
I suspect you all know there was nothing wrong with the experiment. You are uncomfortable with the results of the experiment. It would be SO EASY for the scientific establishment to do this experiment again. Heck, if they need to re-adjust the telescope, then they have evidence for a moving earth. Game over. It is clear you all are side stepping!
-
Was Airey a whack job? I don't care about politics or religion. (in this context) I reason from the general to the particular. If the Earth is stationary the earth is stationary. Nothing else matters.
It's not that simple. Stationary relative to what?
-
... relative to the moving stars.
-
Very nice video : FLAT EARTH THEORY : (http://)
Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : (http://)
Where is the evidence for evolution:
University of California Berkeley Professor Jonathan Wells Evolution Exposed : (http://)
INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong : http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/ (http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/)
James Tour-evolution: #t=52m2s (http://#t=52m2s)
DAWKINS - BEN STEIN interview : #t=3m26s (http://#t=3m26s)
On top of that : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647606#msg1647606 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647606#msg1647606)
Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?
Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"
His great contemporary Henri Poincare confessed:
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."
Lincoln Barnett agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”
Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:
“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”
In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage.”
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.
-
Very nice video : FLAT EARTH THEORY : <url>
Can you describe any new ideas presented in the video that haven't already been discussed and found wanting? In other words, is there any reason to watch it?
Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : <url>
Where is the evidence for evolution:
<bunch of links to videos>
If you really can't find evidence for evolution, it suggests you're looking in the wrong places. Your best bet would be to look at modern scientific texts.
Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?
Because they have no reason to. The heliocentric model explains and predicts what we see very reliably and accurately; it beats every other model by 1.61 km. It certainly beats yours, which can't even explain daily phenomena like sunsets.
Some scientists admit the truth in their own words.
<several quotes taken out of context>
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment.
Your calling the heliocentric model of the solar system dogma doesn't mean it is. The meaning of 'dogma' in the pejorative way you apply it is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma) This clearly doesn't apply because there are very adequate grounds in the form of centuries of carefully-made and recorded observations and accurate predictions, including interplanetary spacecraft trajectories. A scientist who proposes using another model would be expected to demonstrate how this other model fits the things we already see, measure, and accurately predict (things like retrograde apparent motion of the planets, orientation of the rings of Saturn, stellar parallax, etc.) better or more simply. If the answer is "I just know", then his "cred" in the scientific community would, justifiably, suffer.
As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.
If textbooks say something that is clearly at odds with what can be seen and experienced it will be noticed by enough people to be questioned. "The masses", by which you obviously mean "everybody who does not agree (perhaps secretly) with me", are not as universally stupid as you think they are.
-
How come that you have skipped this challenge :
Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?
When you say that both celestial "bodies" (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the alleged rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main (false) argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your insane theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial "bodies" (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!
Do you know by chance the right answers to these questions:
1. When the Earth rotates 1 degree to the left, what would be the exact mathematical consequence of this?
A) How much degrees we should expect that the Moon moves to the right as a result of 1 degree displacement of the Earth to the left, having in mind that the Moon is allegedly 385 000 km away from the Earth?
I would say:that this math is quite inaccurate 15 - 0,5 = 14,5 degrees (in favor of my argument)
B) How much degrees we should expect that the Sun moves to the right as a result of 1 degree displacement of the Earth to the left, having in mind that the Sun is allegedly 150 000 000 km away from the Earth?
2. When the Earth-Moon system moves 108 000 km (per hour) to the right, how much degrees of displacement of the Earth-Moon system (with respect to the stationary Sun) we should expect as a consequence of this 108 000 km? Shouldn't we expect additional 15 degrees difference between the Moon and Sun, since 108 000 / 3500 = 30 / 0,5 = 15
Are you so brave to provide for us evidence against your own theoretical position?
-
How come that you have skipped this challenge :
Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?
When you say that both celestial "bodies" (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the alleged rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main (false) argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your insane theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial "bodies" (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!
Do you know by chance the right answers to these questions:
1. When the Earth rotates 1 degree to the left, what would be the exact mathematical consequence of this?
A) How much degrees we should expect that the Moon moves to the right as a result of 1 degree displacement of the Earth to the left, having in mind that the Moon is allegedly 385 000 km away from the Earth?
I would say:that this math is quite inaccurate 15 - 0,5 = 14,5 degrees (in favor of my argument)
B) How much degrees we should expect that the Sun moves to the right as a result of 1 degree displacement of the Earth to the left, having in mind that the Sun is allegedly 150 000 000 km away from the Earth?
2. When the Earth-Moon system moves 108 000 km (per hour) to the right, how much degrees of displacement of the Earth-Moon system (with respect to the stationary Sun) we should expect as a consequence of this 108 000 km? Shouldn't we expect additional 15 degrees difference between the Moon and Sun, since 108 000 / 3500 = 30 / 0,5 = 15
Are you so brave to provide for us evidence against your own theoretical position?
I'll hazard an answer.
A) As a result of 1 degree rotation of earth, moon's position relative to you will change by 1 degree (regardless of it's distance).
B) As a result of 1 degree rotation of earth, Sun's position relative to you will change by 1 degree (regardless of it's distance).
2) I don't understand your numbers on this, could you elaborate on what they represent? Earth orbits the Sun once per year by definition, so change of Earth's position on it's orbit around Sun changes Sun's position relative to you (360 degrees / (365 days * 24 hours)) = 0.04 degrees per hour.
In one hour Earth will have rotated 15 degrees, so you end up adding that 0.04 degrees to it. Moon orbits the earth once per month (27.3 days), which gives us 0.55 degrees; as a result, in one hour the Sun will have moved across the sky by 15.04 degrees, and the Moon will have moved 15.55 degrees. Which is why we saw the recent eclipse to last very close to two hours from beginning of the event to it's end.
Did I make any mistakes?
-
Moon's diameter = 3500 km = 0,5 degree
Moon's orbit = 2 418 000 km (385 000 km * 2 * 3,14)
1 degree at the Equator means that we have moved 1666 km to the East
1 degree of displacement of the Moon means that Moon has moved 7000 km to the East (diameter of the Moon * 2)
The Moon travels to the left (towards East) (because we are facing South) = 15 degrees - 0,55 degrees = 14,45 degress = The Moon has moved 14,45 degrees to the right (towards West).
Regardless of distances??? I wouldn't say that it makes no difference!!! Do you remember discussion on ZIGZAG argument? Alpha2Omega's main argument was that the diameter of the Earth is too small, and the distance to the Sun is so big that as a consequence of this we wouldn't be able to notice Sun's parallax in the sky. Apply this logic to this argument.
So, if the Sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon, it's displacement in the sky should be lesser than the Moon's displacement! Only the question is: how much lesser? 400 times = 40 000 %...We would be content with just 100 % (instead of 40 000 %)... 100 % = 1 degree (0,5 * 2)
15 - 1 = 14
15- 0,55 = 14,45
14,45 > 14
So, although the Moon has moved 0,5 degrees to the left, we should see it as though it goes to the right with respect to the Sun.
But what about 108 000 km that Earth-Moon system has moved to the right?
How much degrees is that?
108 000 / 3500 (diameter of the Moon) = 30 / 0,5 degree = 15 degrees (motion of Earth-Moon system to the right with respect to the Sun)
-
Yea sorry I did not read about the zig zag.
1 AU is ~150000000 kilometers and the earth's diameter is ~12600 kilometers, change in observed position of the sun that was due to parallax would seem to be about 0.0004 degrees per hour. I don't see a problem. But I'll leave it to Alpha2Omega if he's already familiar with this.
-
Moon's diameter = 3500 km = 0,5 degree
Moon's orbit = 2 418 000 km (385 000 km * 2 * 3,14)
1 degree at the Equator means that we have moved 1666 km to the East
1 degree of displacement of the Moon means that Moon has moved 7000 km to the East (diameter of the Moon * 2)
The Moon travels to the left (towards East) (because we are facing South) = 15 degrees - 0,55 degrees = 14,45 degress = The Moon has moved 14,45 degrees to the right (towards West).
Regardless of distances??? I wouldn't say that it makes no difference!!! Do you remember discussion on ZIGZAG argument? Alpha2Omega's main argument was that the diameter of the Earth is too small, and the distance to the Sun is so big that as a consequence of this we wouldn't be able to notice Sun's parallax in the sky. Apply this logic to this argument.
So, if the Sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon, it's displacement in the sky should be lesser than the Moon's displacement! Only the question is: how much lesser? 400 times = 40 000 %...We would be content with just 100 % (instead of 40 000 %)... 100 % = 1 degree (0,5 * 2)
15 - 1 = 14
15- 0,55 = 14,45
14,45 > 14
So, although the Moon has moved 0,5 degrees to the left, we should see it as though it goes to the right with respect to the Sun.
But what about 108 000 km that Earth-Moon system has moved to the right?
How much degrees is that?
108 000 / 3500 (diameter of the Moon) = 30 / 0,5 degree = 15 degrees (motion of Earth-Moon system to the right with respect to the Sun)
The Earth's rotation doesn't matter here, all that matters is the Moon's apparent motion relative to the Sun's apparent motion from Earth.
-
There have been several posts on this subject since I started to reply, but since my life doesn't revolve around replying immediately to cikljamas' inquiries, I didn't finish before something else more important wanted attention. neimoka answers a lot of the basics. cikljamas seems to be bringing up some (mostly irrelevant on a quick read) additional points. mikeman7918 has a follow-up. Meanwhile, this is in answer to the post cited, but nothing since. i'll get to those later, maybe.
How come that you have skipped this challenge :
I thought I had answered it. In the future, would you please link back to the post where the quote is from (the easiest way is to use the 'Quote' button and simply edit the quoted text to keep the part you want, but there are other ways, too). If you did this, readers can easily see the original and any replies in-thread. If you had done so, I would link to the post where I answered (if I did), or admit that I missed it (if I did), but I'm not going to chase this down among your myriad of posts. Feel free to post a link if you feel it really wasn't answered at all or the answer was inadequate.
Let's look at it here since I either missed the original question or the answer was unclear to you:
Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?
No. 15° is not less than 0.5°. Can you show where you think I said that, or is this a rhetorical question?
The Moon revolves about the Earth about 0.5°/hour, and at the same time the Earth is rotating at about 15°/hour in the same direction. Is that any clearer?
When you say that both celestial bodies (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial bodies (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!
[Obnoxiously-expressed opinions edited out. Please refer to the initial quote for the original text if concerned that the meaning is changed.]
The Sun and Moon appear to move from left to right across the sky if you're standing on earth's surface and facing them from the north. This is due entirely to the Earth's rotation. Distance to the Sun does not matter, so, no, the Sun is not stationary; it moves across our sky at about 15°/hour (from left to right, in the situation described). There is no "zigzag" either expected nor observed as cikljamas proposes. Diurnal motion completely overcomes - by several orders of magnitude - the very small parallax (what he calls "zigzag" but isn't) that does exist.
Do you know by chance the right answers to these questions:
1. When the Earth rotates 1 degree to the left, what would be the exact mathematical consequence of this?
A) How much degrees we should expect that the Moon moves to the right as a result of 1 degree displacement rotation of the Earth to the left, having in mind that the Moon is allegedly 385 000 km away from the Earth?
[Note the clarification.]
The Earth rotates 1° in 4 minutes (close enough). Assuming the Moon travels 0.5°/hour in its orbit, it travels 0.033° (1/30 of 1°) in 4 minutes in the same direction. Ignoring parallax, which would depend on a couple of unspecified parameters involving the observer's location, but is very small even in the worst case, and assuming the Moon is on the celestial equator, the Moon would move approximately 1° less 0.033°, or 0.967° (less, because the Earth's rotation is "chasing" the Moon) westward in four minutes.
The Sun, on the other hand, would move across the sky much closer to 1° under those circumstances in the same time.
I would say:that this math is quite inaccurate 15 - 0,5 = 14,5 degrees (in favor of my argument)
That math is quite inaccurate as an answer to the question asked. It's a reasonable approximation for an hour's worth of rotation (15°) instead of 1°. What is your point? Are you conflating one hour of rotation with one degree of rotation? Are you suggesting one of anything is the same as one of anything else?
B) How much degrees we should expect that the Sun moves to the right as a result of 1 degree displacement rotation of the Earth to the left, having in mind that the Sun is allegedly 150 000 000 km away from the Earth?
Again, neglecting parallax, which, while insignificant with the much nearer Moon, is vastly less significant here, and assuming the Sun is near the equator, the Sun will indeed move very close to 1° across the sky in four minutes.
2. When the Earth-Moon system moves 108 000 km (per hour) to the right, how much degrees of displacement of the Earth-Moon system (with respect to the stationary Sun) we should expect as a consequence of this 108 000 km? Shouldn't we expect additional 15 degrees difference between the Moon and Sun, since 108 000 / 3500 = 30 / 0,5 = 15
108000/3500 = 30.86, not 30/0.5. And 30 / 0.5 = 60, not 15. What are you trying to say here? Your statement can be proven to make no sense.
Are you so brave to provide for us evidence against your own theoretical position?
I have no such evidence. The real question is, do you (or anyone else) have any evidence against my position?
-
How come that you have skipped this challenge :
And why have you skipped this challenge:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660230#msg1660230 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660230#msg1660230)
-
Why is this thread still around? Why are you guys feeding cik anymore, he obviously just wants to argue, he doesn't care about what.
-
Why is this thread still around? Why are you guys feeding cik anymore, he obviously just wants to argue, he doesn't care about what.
Yeah, I know, but I like to argue, too; it's my failing. Most of what he says is pretty elementary, but sometimes he makes me dive into the details about what it is I "know". Nothing he has proposed yet has has been convincing at all, but I've learned some things (like the details of why the Analemma has the shape it does), so it's not all bad (for me... too bad for the rest of you! :) )
Sorry if it bores others. It does often get tedious, especially when he posts the same already-answered crap stuff again and again. Every now and then is a new question, occasionally quite good, and usually posited as a (misconstrued) revelation "destroying - yet again!!!" the well-understood model of the solar system.
-
Alpha2Omega, you know what happens when you blatantly lie? I make the experiment(s) and all your lies come out to the light!!! Haven't you learned that lesson by now?
(http://i.imgur.com/KKOBS8Y.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/uk43suv.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/DxNEO9g.jpg)
When the Sun moves 1,5 degree to the right, the Moon moves 2 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 3 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 4 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 6 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 8 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 12 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 16 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 20 degrees to the right
So, if it's true that after the Globe rotates 15 degrees to the left, the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, then the Moon moves 19,45 degrees to the right (20 - 0,55) at least!!!
Why "at least" 19,45 degrees?
Because our Sun (50 m distant antenna) should have been 600 m away from my camera, since our Moon (black dot on the glass) has been 1,5 m away from my camera.
1,5 * 400 = 600
SO FAR SO BAD FOR HC theory!!!
And we haven't even touched this issue:
2. When the Earth-Moon system moves 108 000 km (per hour) to the right, how much degrees of displacement of the Earth-Moon system (with respect to the stationary Sun) we should expect as a consequence of this 108 000 km? Shouldn't we expect additional 15 degrees difference between the Moon and Sun, since 108 000 / 3500 = 30 / 0,5 = 15
108000/3500 = 30.86, not 30/0.5. And 30 / 0.5 = 60, not 15. What are you trying to say here? Your statement can be proven to make no sense.
Thanks for your objection!
I meant 30 * 0,5 = 15
What am i trying to say here?
You play dumb ass again?
The whole system (Earth-Moon) has moved 15 additional degrees to the right in one hour of time!!! What is exactly that you don't understand here? Don't you know in which direction Earth orbits the Sun according to your insane theory?
-
So much fail.
Do you even understand orbital mechanics in any way?
The sun, moon and distant stars all move in different ways due to the arrangement of the Sun, Earth and Moon system.
If you can tell the the correct different elements of these movements then we can discuss further.
I'll even give you a hint:
The stars have one element
The sun has two elements
The moon has two elements
They all share one element
For the moment we'll ignore stellar parallax as it is insignificant in this exercise.
-
Alpha2Omega, you know what happens when you blatantly lie? I make the experiment(s) and all your lies come out to the light!!! Haven't you learned that lesson by now?
So would you cut the gratuitous commentary, already? It's tedious and adds nothing to your argument. Instead it makes you look obnoxious.
http://i.imgur.com/KKOBS8Y.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/KKOBS8Y.jpg) <this image tag changed to url and images below shrunk to save screen space>
(http://i.imgur.com/uk43suv.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/DxNEO9g.jpg)
When the Sun moves 1,5 degree to the right, the Moon moves 2 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 3 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 4 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 6 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 8 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 12 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 16 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 20 degrees to the right
So, if it's true that after the Globe rotates 15 degrees to the left, the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, then the Moon moves 19,45 degrees to the right (20 - 0,55) at least!!!
It looks like you have discovered parallax. Apparent movement of the nearby object (dot on window) is more [Edit: oops... got that backwards initially] than the distant object (antenna) after lateral movement.
I don't see any globe in your setup, it looks like the triple tube isn't being rotated, and the three tubes look parallel. If this is right, then what does the 1.5° refer to? 1.5° at the distance from your sun (50m) amounts to more than 1m; 1.5° at the distance to your moon (1.5m) is about 4 cm (roughly the diameter of each of the tubes?)
Trying to understand your setup, it looks like you've introduced about 1.5° of parallax with your nearby "moon" relative to distant objects assuming 4 cm lateral displacement and 1.5m distance. I don't see where the "Sun" moving 1.5°, or the "Moon" moving 2° fits in. The rest of that table looks like those values are simply being scaled, which might work approximately for small angles, but rapidly drops in accuracy once you exceed about 10°
As it is, you have a significant amount of parallax, which you seem to be conflating with rotation. This is an error.
Why "at least" 19,45 degrees?
Because our Sun (50 m distant antenna) should have been 600 m away from my camera, since our Moon (black dot on the glass) has been 1,5 m away from my camera.
1,5 * 400 = 600
SO FAR SO BAD FOR HC theory!!!
I'm glad you're trying experiments. Very few others here will do so; they probably already know what will happen, so prefer to stay in the realm of hypothesizing without any constraint by reality. For the data collected from an experiment to be useful, however, the experiment must actually measure what you think it's measuring.
And we haven't even touched this issue:
2. When the Earth-Moon system moves 108 000 km (per hour) to the right, how much degrees of displacement of the Earth-Moon system (with respect to the stationary Sun) we should expect as a consequence of this 108 000 km? Shouldn't we expect additional 15 degrees difference between the Moon and Sun, since 108 000 / 3500 = 30 / 0,5 = 15
108000/3500 = 30.86, not 30/0.5. And 30 / 0.5 = 60, not 15. What are you trying to say here? Your statement can be proven to make no sense.
Thanks for your objection!
I meant 30 * 0,5 = 15
What am i trying to say here?
You play dumb ass again?
The whole system (Earth-Moon) has moved 15 additional degrees to the right in one hour of time!!! What is exactly that you don't understand here? Don't you know in which direction Earth orbits the Sun according to your insane theory?
How do you get that? If the Earth-Moon Barycenter has an orbital velocity of 108 000 km/hr, then it moves 108 000 km in one hour. If we call the radius of the orbit 150 000 000 km, then it has moved 108000/150000000 radians = 0.00072 radians, or 0.041° around its orbit in an hour, not 15°. Given that the Earth is known to move about 1° around its orbit in 24 hours, this looks about right.
So, no, no additional 15°; you get only about 1/24 of 1° here.
What does the 3500 in your math above represent? And why are you halving the quotient, which is still 30.86, not 30? What does that 30.86 (or the 30 you claim it is) represent? It seems like you're trying to convert the ratio of two distances into an angle in degrees. It doesn't work that way; you can divide arc length by radius to calculate angles in radians, and then convert that to degrees by multiplying by 180/pi (see above), but that doesn't seem to be what you're doing here. Then you throw in a fudge factor to come up with the 15° you seem to want. What gives?
[Edit] Correct oops...
-
As for the first part of my experiment everything is clear. When you stand on something that rotates (when you are on merry go round-for example) you move laterally in the same time (with respect to certain celestial light), don't you? Usage of a lateral movement is quite appropriate for our particular purpose (especially when we use example in which we don't analyze more than 15 degrees of rotation)!
1,5 degrees = 3 times diameter of our Sun (50 m distant antenna)
So, when we moved 1,5 degrees to the left, our Sun has moved 1,5 degrees to the right, and our Moon has moved 2 degrees (4 diameters of the Sun)!
There is no error here!
As for the second part of my argument (15 additional degrees):
3500 = 3500 km = alleged diameter of the Moon
108 000 km = 30 diameters of the Moon
2 420 000 km (length of Moon's orbit) / 108 000 = 22,4
360 degrees / 22,4 = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit
108 000 km = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit
108 000 km = 0,041 degrees of Earth's orbit
So, you can neglect this 0,041 degrees, which means that you can imagine that the Earth is at rest as well as the Sun. The only object that moves 108 000 km to the right (which is 16 degrees of it's own orbit (around the Earth)) is the Moon.
-
3500 = 3500 km = alleged diameter of the Moon
108 000 km = 30 diameters of the Moon
2 420 000 km (length of Moon's orbit) / 108 000 = 22,4
360 degrees / 22,4 = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit
108 000 km = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit
108 000 km = 0,041 degrees of Earth's orbit
Moon's orbital velocity around earth is not 108000kph. It's about 3600kph. Huge difference.
-
Was about to say that lol.
Orbital velocity of the moon is
1.03 Km/s
or
61.8 Km/m
or
3708 Km/h
or
88992 Km/d multiply this by 27.32166 (orbital period)
Giving you a distance of orbit of about 2431409.2 Km
Most of this is a moot point though, lets just recalculate ciks numbers
3476 Km = diameter of the moon at its equator
3708 Km/h = 1.07 diameters of the moon per hour
2431409.2 / 3708 = 655.7
360 / 655.7 = 0.55 degrees of moons orbit
There I fixed it, you do what you want with the new numbers.
with ciks numbers we would have an orbital period of the moon as once every 22.4 hours
-
OMG, what are you talking about?
108 000 km/h is alleged speed of the Earth-Moon system!
These 108 000 km has nothing to do actually (directly) with Moon's orbit, that is why i said:
So, you can neglect this 0,041 degrees, which means that you can imagine that the Earth is at rest as well as the Sun. The only object that moves 108 000 km to the right (which is 16 degrees of it's own orbit (around the Earth)) is the Moon.
108 000 km = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit, but it doesn't mean that we talk here about Moon's motion in it's orbit around the Earth, we talk about Moon's motion in orbit around the Sun in which Moon participates also, as a part of the Earth-Moon system.
108 000 km that Moon (as part of the Earth-Moon system) moves to the right in one hour of time is equal to 16 degrees of Moon's orbit around the Earth, that is why i use this comparison so that you can easier figure out the true meaning of this number of km (108 000) regarding the essence of this (additional/second) part of my argument.
The effect of these 108 000 km which Moon moves to the right (as a consequence of Moon's orbital motion around the Sun) for the observer on the Earth would be the same as though the Moon has moved 16 degrees to the right in it's orbit around the Earth.
I hope it is clear now what was the point of the second part of my argument...
-
The Moon orbits around the Earth, if we want to say the Earth and Sun are stationary for this calculation then the only movement of note is the Moons orbit around the Earth.
The Earth moon system would remain together, if you say the Earth and Sun are at rest for this, the Moon doesn't go zooming away. You are incorrectly substituting the wrong velocities for the transit of the moon across the sun from our point of view. If we say the Earth-Moon systems orbit around the Sun is not a factor we want to include dues to its very minimal impact on the event then there are only two sets of motion we should consider, orbit velocity of the moon and rotational speed of the Earth. Also since the Moon and the Sun both transit across the sky due to the rotation of the Earth at relatively the same speed, minus the orbital velocity of the moon, we could simplify it further and just take the moon's orbital velocity in to account. Therefore by saying it moves roughly 1 diameter per hour, a solar eclipse could last almost 3 hours, depending on when you want to start and stop the clock.
The second part of your argument is wrong. Ill repeat it again, the moon orbits the Earth, from our perspective the only motions that matter with the moon is its orbital speed and Earths rotational speed.
-
As for the first part of my experiment everything is clear.
No, it's not clear to me at all. In the second photo you are sighting through the center tube of your apparatus. In the third, you're sighting through the left tube. I presume, but can't tell for sure, which is why I'm asking, the three attached tubes are not moved between these photos. You're just switching from the center tube to the one to its left, without moving the tubes themselves. Is that correct?
When you stand on something that rotates (when you are on merry go round-for example) you move laterally in the same time (with respect to certain celestial light), don't you? Usage of a lateral movement is quite appropriate for our particular purpose (especially when we use example in which we don't analyze more than 15 degrees of rotation)!
1,5 degrees = 3 times diameter of our Sun (50 m distant antenna)
So, when we moved 1,5 degrees to the left, our Sun has moved 1,5 degrees to the right, and our Moon has moved 2 degrees (4 diameters of the Sun)!
There is no error here!
I beg to differ.
To move 1.5° relative to an object 50 meters away, you'd have to move about 1.3m laterally. Your pictures don't appear to show that. It looks like you moved by about the diameter of one of your tubes. To move 1.5° relative to an object 1.5 meters away, you would have to move only about 4 cm laterally, which is what the photos seem to show when you changed from the center tube to the left one, without moving the tubes. Is this correct?
For your carousel example to be meaningful, the proportions of the model must be at least approximately right. If you're standing at the rim of a carousel with a diameter of 10m representing a person standing on the equator of the Earth, your model of the Moon would have to be about 300m distant to be to scale, and you'd see about 0.4° parallax, maximum, in 15° of carousel rotation.
Unless you can explain it better, the only conclusion is that your experiment is flawed.
As for the second part of my argument (15 additional degrees):
3500 = 3500 km = alleged diameter of the Moon
108 000 km = 30 diameters of the Moon
2 420 000 km (length of Moon's orbit) / 108 000 = 22,4
360 degrees / 22,4 = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit
108 000 km = 16 degrees of Moon's orbit
108 000 km = 0,041 degrees of Earth's orbit
So, you can neglect this 0,041 degrees, which means that you can imagine that the Earth is at rest as well as the Sun. The only object that moves 108 000 km to the right (which is 16 degrees of it's own orbit (around the Earth)) is the Moon.
The Earth and Moon travel together around the Sun 108000 km in one hour, so this has no effect on the Moon's apparent motion in our sky the same way that, when towing a trailer at 90 km/h, after an hour, you've moved 90 km further down the road but the trailer is still right behind you (you hope!). The only things that matter are the Moon's orbital motion around the Earth (roughly 0.5°/hour west to east) and the rotation of the Earth (making the Moon appear to move 15°/hour east to west).
The rest of your analysis is just nonsense.
-
A thought occured to me today. If we live on a rotating round earth, how would it be possible to see polaris and the circling stars? Wouldn't sunlight be moving over the northern part of our globe? (every hour of the day) When we rotate away from the Sun, wouldn't it be dark only on the surface of our earth, and a slice of the heavens? Sunlight would still separate our earth from the Northern stars. -or am I wrong?
-
No, sun would be on roughly half of the Earth at a time, the sun sends out light in all directions from it in the spherical model. The reason you cannot see stars during the daytime is due to the brightness of the sun and the way the atmosphere scatters light. Polaris is close to a direct line from the axis of rotation, so the stars in the northern hemisphere would appear to circle that star at night. The star that is considered the pole star in the south isn't really observable with the naked eye, its very dim, but the stars there appear to rotate around that point. At the equator you should be able to see Polaris just above the Northern horizon and the pole star area just above the Southern horizon.
This is on the spherical Earth model and by no means accepted as factual by some on this forum.
The flat Earth model has many differing ways to explain the movements of the stars and the sun and by no means accepted as fact by most on this forum.
-
I understand Sun would be roughly on half the earth, but wouldn't the brightness of the Sun be passing over our Earth, preventing us from even seeing Polaris? (Not sure if you understood my question.) Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you responding.
-
I understand Sun would be roughly on half the earth, but wouldn't the brightness of the Sun be passing over our Earth, preventing us from even seeing Polaris? (Not sure if you understood my question.) Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you responding.
You're underestimating the relative brightness (magnitude) of stars and overestimating the brightness of the sun as seen from earth. If you travel to the bottom of a deep vertical mineshaft, you'll actually be able to see the brighter stars, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and the moon at midday—weather conditions and terrestrial orientation permitting.
In fact Venus can be so bright that under certain scenarios, it can actually throw a shadow on the earth's surface (although the flat earthers are bound to refute this.)
-
Well that is an interesting point, about the deep mineshaft.
-
Learned yet another new thing today myself. I always thought the atmospheric scattering would still be enough to obscure stars. Go figure, now I must look into that.
Yeah, I'm bored here at work.
-
I understand Sun would be roughly on half the earth, but wouldn't the brightness of the Sun be passing over our Earth, preventing us from even seeing Polaris? (Not sure if you understood my question.) Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you responding.
You're underestimating the relative brightness (magnitude) of stars and overestimating the brightness of the sun as seen from earth. If you travel to the bottom of a deep vertical mineshaft, you'll actually be able to see the brighter stars, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and the moon at midday—weather conditions and terrestrial orientation permitting.
In fact Venus can be so bright that under certain scenarios, it can actually throw a shadow on the earth's surface (although the flat earthers are bound to refute this.)
ausGeoff, perhaps you should do some research before posting your myths and old wives tales. Please read this. (http://www.snopes.com/science/well.asp)
-
I understand Sun would be roughly on half the earth, but wouldn't the brightness of the Sun be passing over our Earth, preventing us from even seeing Polaris? (Not sure if you understood my question.) Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you responding.
You are correct, the sun's brightness does scatter through the atmosphere preventing us from seeing stars (as it does throughout the day of course). There is a reason why you still cannot see the stars clearly even after the sun has set completely, and why stargazing is even better further into the night. Once the sun has fallen low enough around the Earth, its rays no longer hit the part of the atmosphere visible to you, and more and more stars appear. Eventually you would see all the stars you can see in the night sky.
This is exactly what happens in reality, and humorously is evidence for a round Earth.
Remember, it isn't the suns rays themselves blocking out the stars, it is the way the atmosphere scatters them. Atmospheric scattering is the primary reason why we cannot see the stars when the sun is out. This is also why telescopes in space are much more powerful, because even if the sun is in sight, as long as the sun is not directly in the field of view of the scope, it can take perfect exposures. There is nothing to scatter the suns rays to obscure the exposure.
-
Thanks guys. It can be a head scratcher. I have been thinking of trying out an experiment, whereby I attach a camera to a rotating ball (globe) and see if it creates circular star trails. I was going to dangle glow in the dark stars, but then when I got thinking about setting up a light for the sun, I realized I couldn't contain the light to just half the room.
-
Thanks guys. It can be a head scratcher. I have been thinking of trying out an experiment, whereby I attach a camera to a rotating ball (globe) and see if it creates circular star trails. I was going to dangle glow in the dark stars, but then when I got thinking about setting up a light for the sun, I realized I couldn't contain the light to just half the room.
How about you use the real stars. Just go outside at night and spin a camera around.
-
Thanks guys. It can be a head scratcher. I have been thinking of trying out an experiment, whereby I attach a camera to a rotating ball (globe) and see if it creates circular star trails. I was going to dangle glow in the dark stars, but then when I got thinking about setting up a light for the sun, I realized I couldn't contain the light to just half the room.
Uh, how could a rotating sphere not create circular star trails at its poles?
-
Need to see it before I believe it. In practicality it is only half a rotation , and am thinking the result might not adequately explain what we see in the night sky. Somewhere I read from a FE, that he did the experiment and it failed to show the circular star trails. He was quite adamant,
-
Need to see it before I believe it. In practicality it is only half a rotation , and am thinking the result might not adequately explain what we see in the night sky. Somewhere I read from a FE, that he did the experiment and it failed to show the circular star trails. He was quite adamant,
The fact that a spherical earth would produce circular star trails is a pretty obvious phenomenon. It's also accepted that it happens in reality by.... Everyone, including flat Eathers.
Trust me, lol, you will get circular star trails. Have fun.
-
No, it's not clear to me at all. In the second photo you are sighting through the center tube of your apparatus. In the third, you're sighting through the left tube. I presume, but can't tell for sure, which is why I'm asking, the three attached tubes are not moved between these photos. You're just switching from the center tube to the one to its left, without moving the tubes themselves. Is that correct?
Yes!
To move 1.5° relative to an object 50 meters away, you'd have to move about 1.3m laterally. Your pictures don't appear to show that. It looks like you moved by about the diameter of one of your tubes. To move 1.5° relative to an object 1.5 meters away, you would have to move only about 4 cm laterally, which is what the photos seem to show when you changed from the center tube to the left one, without moving the tubes. Is this correct?
What are you talking about? What 1,3m laterally, is everything O.K. with you?
I moved my camera just a few cm to the left (as much as it takes to move focus of my camera from the center tube to the one to it's left), and as a consequence of this displacement of my camera we have this result: Our Sun (50 m distant antenna) has moved 3 diameters of our Sun to the right, and our Moon (black dot on the window) has moved 4 diameters of our Sun/Moon to the right.
That is the essence of my argument! Is this how you are trying to distract attention of a gullible readers from the main point of my experiment? It wouldn't be the first time, your whole mission at this forum is to blur the murky waters, we know that very well.
The sizes of our Sun (antenna) and our Moon (black dot) are almost exactly the same as apparent sizes of our real Sun and Moon. This is the only (and the best) way how you can perform meaningful and feasible experiment of that type. Now, the only thing that we have to take care of is to set up adequate proportions of the distances between our camera and the Moon and between our Moon and our Sun. As i already have said, it would have been much more appropriate (scaled down according to reality) if the distance between our antenna and my camera had been 600 m, instead of just 50 meters. But this discrepancy doesn't go in favor of my argument. How big is this discrepancy? 600 / 50 = 12
The Earth and Moon travel together around the Sun 108000 km in one hour, so this has no effect on the Moon's apparent motion in our sky the same way that, when towing a trailer at 90 km/h, after an hour, you've moved 90 km further down the road but the trailer is still right behind you (you hope!). The only things that matter are the Moon's orbital motion around the Earth (roughly 0.5°/hour west to east) and the rotation of the Earth (making the Moon appear to move 15°/hour east to west)
Let's see what is the real deal here:
Imagine again total solar eclipse. The Moon (black dot on my window) totally eclipsed the Sun (our 50 m distant antenna). What is the main characteristic of this geometrical set up/model? The main characteristic of this geometrical model is a straight line that connects focus of my camera, the Moon (black dot on my window) and the Sun (antenna).
Here i would like to remind us to my argument No 1:
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
Phenomena No 1 doesn't exist, because the Sun is not so far away, because the Sun is not so big, and because the Sun is not a nuclear furnace.
Now, let's go back to the main characteristic of our geometrical model which is a straight line that connects focus of my camera, the Moon (black dot on my window) and the Sun (antenna).
First, for the sake of our experiment , we are going to stop the orbital motion of the Moon (around the Earth), the only thing that we shall think of (from now on) will be the orbital motion of the Earth-Moon system around the Sun.
We stand on Earth, the Sun is 150 000 000 km away from us. Right? So, we have to have some reference point to be able to see what is going on here. What is going to be our reference point?
Our reference point is going to be our black dot on my window (the Moon).
In 12 hours the Earth-Moon system is going to move 1 296 000 km from left to right with respect to the Sun which is roughly alleged diameter of the real Sun.
In order to keep up the straightness of our straight line (which connects my camera, the Moon and the Sun), we should shrink the dot on my window 384 times. Why 384 times? 12 hours * 32 diameters of the Moon (16 degrees) = 384
But we can't do that, can we?
So, if we refuse to do that (because it is absurd), we must do something else (which is not absurd), we must apply the diameter of the Moon (black dot on my window) 32 times to the right (108 000 km/h).
What does it mean? It means that we can't maintain the straightness of our straight line (just for the sake of HC bullshit theory), and it means that if the Earth-Moon system really hurtled 108 000 km/h around the Sun, not only that none of us would survive 1 minute of such an absurde voyage, but geometry of celestial bodies would work in quite different manner from what we know in our reality.
@ Earth is a stage, you were right in both cases:
-If HC utter bullshit theory were right Polaris would be invisible due to the impact of Sun's rays...
-If the Earth rotated there would be nothing like what we (an observer within arctic circle) are able to observe in our reality. What an observer within arctic circle is able to see during one polar night?
1. Motionless Polaris
2. Small circles (parallax) that make stars which are placed near Polaris
3. Larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are farther from Polaris
4. Even more larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are even more farther away from Polaris etc...
If the Earth rotated you should forget about Long-Exposure photographs of the stars as we know them from our reality, it would be something quite different than what you can see in these Long Exposure photographs of the stars which circulate on the internet...
They say that we wouldn't be able to notice ZIGZAG of the Sun during one Polar day, because the Sun is too far away, but how about the ZIGZAG of the Moon during one Polar night?
-
Need to see it before I believe it. In practicality it is only half a rotation , and am thinking the result might not adequately explain what we see in the night sky. Somewhere I read from a FE, that he did the experiment and it failed to show the circular star trails. He was quite adamant,
Yes, if you look closely at the long exposure photos or videos on the internet from below the Arctic circle, the star paths are near half circles at best. The reason they look like circles is because there are stars all over the sky, If we use Polaris as a point, there are basically just as many stars to the left as to the right that are visible. This can sometimes intersect the previous star trail form the other side but if you look closely enough you will see its either 2 different star trails , either by the path itself, the color of the star, or from luminosity differences.
Also the stars are blocked from view during the day because of how much the atmosphere scatters the sunlight, so no, Polaris would not be obscured do to sun's rays.
-
No, it's not clear to me at all. In the second photo you are sighting through the center tube of your apparatus. In the third, you're sighting through the left tube. I presume, but can't tell for sure, which is why I'm asking, the three attached tubes are not moved between these photos. You're just switching from the center tube to the one to its left, without moving the tubes themselves. Is that correct?
Yes!
Thanks for the clarification.
To move 1.5° relative to an object 50 meters away, you'd have to move about 1.3m laterally. Your pictures don't appear to show that. It looks like you moved by about the diameter of one of your tubes. To move 1.5° relative to an object 1.5 meters away, you would have to move only about 4 cm laterally, which is what the photos seem to show when you changed from the center tube to the left one, without moving the tubes. Is this correct?
What are you talking about? What 1,3m laterally, is everything O.K. with you?
Yeah, that's about what I expected. Stand by...
I moved my camera just a few cm to the left (as much as it takes to move focus of my camera from the center tube to the one to it's left), and as a consequence of this displacement of my camera we have this result: Our Sun (50 m distant antenna) has moved 3 diameters of our Sun to the right,
Hold it! The "Sun" (your antenna) is still in about the same place relative to center of the left tube as it is in the center tube. It hasn't moved 3 of its diameters to the right; it has barely moved, if at all.
What's the diameter of that antenna dish? 45 cm or so? In order to get it to move three of its diameters to the right in your photo, you could move the antenna three times its diameter to the right while leaving the camera stationary (it should be easy to visualize why). Or, you could leave the antenna stationary and, keeping its optical axis parallel to the original direction, move the camera three antenna diameters to the left. Three times 45 cm is 1.35m. Or, leaving the antenna stationary, you could rotate the camera 1.5° (assuming your numbers are correct) to the left without otherwise moving it.
and our Moon (black dot on the window) has moved 4 diameters of our Sun/Moon to the right.
It looks like it has moved about its own diameter, not four times its diameter. In the center-tube picture it obscures the more distant antenna almost exactly and is left of center in the tube. In the left-tube photo, your moon is just touching the right edge of your sun, which is still in the same place, left of center, in the parallel tube.
That is the essence of my argument! Is this how you are trying to distract attention of a gullible readers from the main point of my experiment? It wouldn't be the first time, your whole mission at this forum is to blur the murky waters, we know that very well.
Blah, blah, blah, blah... ::)
Your interpretation of what you see is, simply, wrong. You're seeing parallax, not rotation.
The sizes of our Sun (antenna) and our Moon (black dot) are almost exactly the same as apparent sizes of our real Sun and Moon. This is the only (and the best) way how you can perform meaningful and feasible experiment of that type. Now, the only thing that we have to take care of is to set up adequate proportions of the distances between our camera and the Moon and between our Moon and our Sun. As i already have said, it would have been much more appropriate (scaled down according to reality) if the distance between our antenna and my camera had been 600 m, instead of just 50 meters. But this discrepancy doesn't go in favor of my argument. How big is this discrepancy? 600 / 50 = 12
The scale of your model is probably OK for what you want to show, but your experiment is invalid because you aren't measuring what you think you are. If you got rid of the tubes, set up the "eclipsed" scene again and simply rotated the camera by 1.5° you'd see both the nearby moon-spot and more distant sun-antenna move in unison. Ideally, you'd want to rotate the camera about a vertical axis that passes through the optical axis of the lens somewhere inside it (probably near the front surface), otherwise you'll get some parallax as the front of the lens shifts laterally. Realistically, just using a tripod with pan head would be good enough if the near object is 1.5m away, as you say, and the offset between the actual axis of rotation and front of the lens are no more than a few cm apart.
Let's deal with the rest in another post. This is already too long.
-
The Earth and Moon travel together around the Sun 108000 km in one hour, so this has no effect on the Moon's apparent motion in our sky the same way that, when towing a trailer at 90 km/h, after an hour, you've moved 90 km further down the road but the trailer is still right behind you (you hope!). The only things that matter are the Moon's orbital motion around the Earth (roughly 0.5°/hour west to east) and the rotation of the Earth (making the Moon appear to move 15°/hour east to west)
Let's see what is the real deal here:
Imagine again total solar eclipse. The Moon (black dot on my window) totally eclipsed the Sun (our 50 m distant antenna). What is the main characteristic of this geometrical set up/model? The main characteristic of this geometrical model is a straight line that connects focus of my camera, the Moon (black dot on my window) and the Sun (antenna).
Here i would like to remind us to my argument No 1:
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
Who is hosted on 72.52.145.132? Is it energeticforum.com? They turn up as a likely candidate on a google search on that IP address. If you're going to use a raw IP address as a URL, kindly say where it is you're directing us. Thanks.
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
Phenomena No 1 doesn't exist, because the Sun is not so far away, because the Sun is not so big, and because the Sun is not a nuclear furnace.
Phenomenon No 1 doesn't exist. Not for the reasons you give, but because it's only a figment of your imagination that has no basis in reality.
Now, let's go back to the main characteristic of our geometrical model which is a straight line that connects focus of my camera, the Moon (black dot on my window) and the Sun (antenna).
First, for the sake of our experiment , we are going to stop the orbital motion of the Moon (around the Earth), the only thing that we shall think of (from now on) will be the orbital motion of the Earth-Moon system around the Sun.
OK, but this begs a question we'll see later.
We stand on Earth, the Sun is 150 000 000 km away from us. Right? So, we have to have some reference point to be able to see what is going on here. What is going to be our reference point?
Our reference point is going to be our black dot on my window (the Moon).
Sure, why not?
In 12 hours the Earth-Moon system is going to move 1 296 000 km from left to right with respect to the Sun which is roughly alleged diameter of the real Sun.
OK.
In order to keep up the straightness of our straight line (which connects my camera, the Moon and the Sun), we should shrink the dot on my window 384 times. Why 384 times? 12 hours * 32 diameters of the Moon (16 degrees) = 384
What?
But we can't do that, can we?
Why should we?
So, if we refuse to do that (because it is absurd), we must do something else (which is not absurd), we must apply the diameter of the Moon (black dot on my window) 32 times to the right (108 000 km/h).
That was my question. When you say "stop the orbital motion of the Moon (around the Earth)" did you mean the Moon stays exactly in a straight line between the Earth and Sun, or the Moon stays exactly in a straight line between the Earth and some distant star? This ambiguity is what you're running into now.
If it's the former, using your model, you would be leaving the suntenna (I just made that up!) stationary, and moved your house 1/730 of the way around it (half a day's worth), while rotating the house so the camera, moondot (!) on the window and suntenna remain in a straight line. In the latter case, you drag the house the same distance, but don't rotate it. The moondot no longer lines up with the suntenna from the camera's position.
If you want to maintain the Sun-Moon-Earth alignment, then the Moon-Earth-star alignment changes; if you want to maintain the Moon-Earth-star alignment, then the Sun-Moon-Earth alignment must change. For your thought experiment you have to pick one or the other; you can't have both.
What does it mean? It means that we can't maintain the straightness of our straight line (just for the sake of HC bullshit theory), and it means that if the Earth-Moon system really hurtled 108 000 km/h around the Sun, not only that none of us would survive 1 minute of such an absurde voyage [Citation needed.], but geometry of celestial bodies would work in quite different manner from what we know in our reality.
@ Earth is a stage, you were right in both cases:
-If HC utter bullshit theory were right Polaris would be invisible due to the impact of Sun's rays...
OK, you're really losing it now...
-If the Earth rotated there would be nothing like what we (an observer within arctic circle) are able to observe in our reality. What an observer within arctic circle is able to see during one polar night?
1. Motionless Polaris
2. Small circles (parallax) that make stars which are placed near Polaris
3. Larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are farther from Polaris
4. Even more larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are even more farther away from Polaris etc...
If the Earth rotated you should forget about Long-Exposure photographs of the stars as we know them from our reality, it would be something quite different than what you can see in these Long Exposure photographs of the stars which circulate on the internet...
They say that we wouldn't be able to notice ZIGZAG of the Sun during one Polar day, because the Sun is too far away, but how about the ZIGZAG of the Moon during one Polar night?
Nope. Sorry. We've been over this several times before and you're still wrong. Conflating parallax and rotation is your downfall in this particular case.
-
Nicely done Alpha, but in ciks eyes you are still lying. His viewpoints are what everyone should be seeing, in his way, not reality. He is becoming a little more active on Dubay's site now so he will feel right at home. No questioning of ideas are allowed there. Even Vauxhall tried in a very respectful way to ask if aether was part of their model and if not, what simulated gravity, but he was immediately attacked and aceni demanded his immediate banning. I have to give Vauxhall credit for somewhat maintaining his cool under the circumstances, he did bite back very slightly at the end.
There is no hope for cik, he cannot handle being wrong about anything so he ignores any discussion questioning his ideas. He is extremely closed minded. Even JRowe, who thinks air doesn't exist, will at least listen and change his model to combat discrepancies. I am in no way trying to spotlight JRowe right now, he is just one of the FE supporters with some fringe ideas.
-
Nicely done Alpha, but in ciks eyes you are still lying. His viewpoints are what everyone should be seeing, in his way, not reality. He is becoming a little more active on Dubay's site now so he will feel right at home. No questioning of ideas are allowed there. Even Vauxhall tried in a very respectful way to ask if aether was part of their model and if not, what simulated gravity, but he was immediately attacked and aceni demanded his immediate banning. I have to give Vauxhall credit for somewhat maintaining his cool under the circumstances, he did bite back very slightly at the end.
There is no hope for cik, he cannot handle being wrong about anything so he ignores any discussion questioning his ideas. He is extremely closed minded. Even JRowe, who thinks air doesn't exist, will at least listen and change his model to combat discrepancies. I am in no way trying to spotlight JRowe right now, he is just one of the FE supporters with some fringe ideas.
I have since been banned from Dubay's forum for pretty much no reason other than being a "government agent", but I appreciate the support.
Do you have an account over there now or what? If so, you might not want to tell me the username in public as acenci (or another Dubay spy) will tell on you immediately and get you banned.
-
Nah, I'm just hanging out in guestville reading posts. The minute I say something Ill probably get the same or worse treatment lol.
-
Nicely done Alpha, but in ciks eyes you are still lying. His viewpoints are what everyone should be seeing, in his way, not reality. He is becoming a little more active on Dubay's site now so he will feel right at home. No questioning of ideas are allowed there. Even Vauxhall tried in a very respectful way to ask if aether was part of their model and if not, what simulated gravity, but he was immediately attacked and aceni demanded his immediate banning. I have to give Vauxhall credit for somewhat maintaining his cool under the circumstances, he did bite back very slightly at the end.
There is no hope for cik, he cannot handle being wrong about anything so he ignores any discussion questioning his ideas. He is extremely closed minded. Even JRowe, who thinks air doesn't exist, will at least listen and change his model to combat discrepancies. I am in no way trying to spotlight JRowe right now, he is just one of the FE supporters with some fringe ideas.
I have since been banned from Dubay's forum for pretty much no reason other than being a "government agent", but I appreciate the support.
Do you have an account over there now or what? If so, you might not want to tell me the username in public as acenci (or another Dubay spy) will tell on you immediately and get you banned.
Maybe he should tell you he's <some user he doesn't like>.
-
Anyway, it is funny when people don't admit they are wrong or at least that they might be wrong. This also applies to RE'ers. They should also admit that it is possible they might be wrong about stuff.
You mean just like the flat earthers so often admit that they may be wrong about a lot of things? :P
-
What's the diameter of that antenna dish? 45 cm or so? In order to get it to move three of its diameters to the right in your photo, you could move the antenna three times its diameter to the right while leaving the camera stationary (it should be easy to visualize why). Or, you could leave the antenna stationary and, keeping its optical axis parallel to the original direction, move the camera three antenna diameters to the left. Three times 45 cm is 1.35m.
(http://i.imgur.com/y3HO1JA.jpg)
The scale of your model is probably OK for what you want to show, but your experiment is invalid because you aren't measuring what you think you are. If you got rid of the tubes, set up the "eclipsed" scene again and simply rotated the camera by 1.5° you'd see both the nearby moon-spot and more distant sun-antenna move in unison.
People are not fixed statues on the Earth, so, if we presumed that the Earth rotated 1,5° to the left, it doesn't mean that our eyes (camera) on the Earth would rotated 1,5° to the left, also, instead of following the object of our observation by turning (adjusting the direction of our sighting) our head to the right (towards the object of our observation).
That was my question. When you say "stop the orbital motion of the Moon (around the Earth)" did you mean the Moon stays exactly in a straight line between the Earth and Sun, or the Moon stays exactly in a straight line between the Earth and some distant star? This ambiguity is what you're running into now.
If it's the former, using your model, you would be leaving the suntenna (I just made that up!) stationary, and moved your house 1/730 of the way around it (half a day's worth), while rotating the house so the camera, moondot (!) on the window and suntenna remain in a straight line. In the latter case, you drag the house the same distance, but don't rotate it. The moondot no longer lines up with the suntenna from the camera's position.
If you want to maintain the Sun-Moon-Earth alignment, then the Moon-Earth-star alignment changes; if you want to maintain the Moon-Earth-star alignment, then the Sun-Moon-Earth alignment must change. For your thought experiment you have to pick one or the other; you can't have both.
I forgot to tell you that we have stopped the rotation of the Earth, also! ;)
Do you remember your insane calculation for the heliocentric midnight-polar-Sun parallax:
The parallax angle would be
a = 2 tan-1(6378.1 km / 147098290 km)
= 2 tan-1(4.3359 X 10-5)
= 2 * 0.0024843°
= 0.0049686°
= 17.887 seconds of arc. After 12 hours.
Why wouldn't you do for us (just for fun) the same kind of insane calculation so to acquaint us with the heliocentric value for the noon-polar-Moon parallax?
-
Well, we did it for you Alpha,
Do you remember your insane calculation for the heliocentric midnight-polar-Sun parallax:
The parallax angle would be
a = 2 tan-1(6378.1 km / 147098290 km)
= 2 tan-1(4.3359 X 10-5)
= 2 * 0.0024843°
= 0.0049686°
= 17.887 seconds of arc. After 12 hours.
Why wouldn't you do for us (just for fun) the same kind of insane calculation so to acquaint us with the heliocentric value for the noon-polar-Moon parallax?
The parallax angle would be
a = 2 tan-1(6378,1 km / 385000 km)
= 2 * 0,94910°
= 1,8982°
= 1° 53' 54'' After 12 hours
Now, 1,8982 / 0,0049686 = 382
Shall we here recall us to this post of mine:
Moon's diameter = 3500 km = 0,5 degree
Moon's orbit = 2 418 000 km (385 000 km * 2 * 3,14)
1 degree at the Equator means that we have moved 1666 km to the East
1 degree of displacement of the Moon means that Moon has moved 7000 km to the East (diameter of the Moon * 2)
The Moon travels to the left (towards East) (because we are facing South) = 15 degrees - 0,55 degrees = 14,45 degress = The Moon has moved 14,45 degrees to the right (towards West).
Regardless of distances??? I wouldn't say that it makes no difference!!! Do you remember discussion on ZIGZAG argument? Alpha2Omega's main argument was that the diameter of the Earth is too small, and the distance to the Sun is so big that as a consequence of this we wouldn't be able to notice Sun's parallax in the sky. Apply this logic to this argument.
So, if the Sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon, it's displacement in the sky should be lesser than the Moon's displacement! Only the question is: how much lesser? 400 times = 40 000 %...We would be content with just 100 % (instead of 40 000 %)... 100 % = 1 degree (0,5 * 2)
15 - 1 = 14
15- 0,55 = 14,45
14,45 > 14
So, although the Moon has moved 0,5 degrees to the left, we should see it as though it goes to the right with respect to the Sun.
But what about 108 000 km that Earth-Moon system has moved to the right?
How much degrees is that?
108 000 / 3500 (diameter of the Moon) = 30 * 0,5 degree = 15 degrees (motion of Earth-Moon system to the right with respect to the Sun)
When the Sun moves 1,5 degree to the right, the Moon moves 2 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 3 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 4 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 6 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 8 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 12 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 16 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 20 degrees to the right
So, if it's true that after the Globe rotates 15 degrees to the left, the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, then the Moon moves 19,45 degrees to the right (20 - 0,55) at least!!!
Why "at least" 19,45 degrees?
Because our Sun (50 m distant antenna) should have been 600 m away from my camera, since our Moon (black dot on the glass) has been 1,5 m away from my camera.
1,5 * 400 = 600
SO FAR SO BAD FOR HC theory!!!
Since the Moon's parallax is exactly so much smaller (than the Sun's parallax), for how much the Moon is closer to the Earth (than the Sun is), and since our experiment corroborates our logic, we can stress here with absolute certainty that if the Earth rotated on it's axis and if the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from Earth, and if the Moon were 385 000 km away from the Earth, then even if the Moon traveled from West to East (in it's orbit around the Earth), the apparent motion of the Moon would be always faster (to the right) than the apparent motion of the Sun.
In reality it is not so!
P.S. As for "1° 53' 54'' (After 12 hours)" would we be able to notice this ZIGZAG parallax even if the Moon were so absurdly (as HC theory claims) far away from us?
-
Cikljamas, I am about to debunk your eclipse argument.
The Earth rotates countrclockwise and the Moon orbits around it countrclockwise, the motion of the Earth and Moon relative to the Sun is negligible in this instance. This means that the Moon
Spears to track across the sky slightly slower then the Sun, because it's orbital motion is in the same direction as Earth's rotation. During an eclipse the Sun and Moon both apear to be going left to right but the Sun passes the Moon because it appears to move faster then the Moon and so if you are tracking the event with your eyes or a camera then it would look like the Moon is moving right to left across the Sun.
I could make an animation of this if you still don't get it.
-
What's the diameter of that antenna dish? 45 cm or so? In order to get it to move three of its diameters to the right in your photo, you could move the antenna three times its diameter to the right while leaving the camera stationary (it should be easy to visualize why). Or, you could leave the antenna stationary and, keeping its optical axis parallel to the original direction, move the camera three antenna diameters to the left. Three times 45 cm is 1.35m.
You never answered the question. What's the diameter of that antenna dish?
http://i.imgur.com/y3HO1JA.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/y3HO1JA.jpg)
Since you pasted three copies of the satellite dish from the image side by side, then if the diameter of the dish is 0.45m, then, yes, that is 1.35m across three of them at the distance of the dish. Why wouldn't it be? Pasting these next to smaller items that are much closer is a clever touch. Were you hoping to confuse people, or are you just confused into thinking that pasting them elsewhere on the picture changes what they represent?
The scale of your model is probably OK for what you want to show, but your experiment is invalid because you aren't measuring what you think you are. If you got rid of the tubes, set up the "eclipsed" scene again and simply rotated the camera by 1.5° you'd see both the nearby moon-spot and more distant sun-antenna move in unison.
People are not fixed statues on the Earth, so, if we presumed that the Earth rotated 1,5° to the left, it doesn't mean that our eyes (camera) on the Earth would rotated 1,5° to the left, also, instead of following the object of our observation by turning (adjusting the direction of our sighting) our head to the right (towards the object of our observation).
You're dodging the topic. Cameras and instruments can certainly be fixed on the earth. Since rotating the optical axis 1.5° is the whole point of the exercise, why would we turn to counter the rotation?
That was my question. When you say "stop the orbital motion of the Moon (around the Earth)" did you mean the Moon stays exactly in a straight line between the Earth and Sun, or the Moon stays exactly in a straight line between the Earth and some distant star? This ambiguity is what you're running into now.
If it's the former, using your model, you would be leaving the suntenna (I just made that up!) stationary, and moved your house 1/730 of the way around it (half a day's worth), while rotating the house so the camera, moondot (!) on the window and suntenna remain in a straight line. In the latter case, you drag the house the same distance, but don't rotate it. The moondot no longer lines up with the suntenna from the camera's position.
If you want to maintain the Sun-Moon-Earth alignment, then the Moon-Earth-star alignment changes; if you want to maintain the Moon-Earth-star alignment, then the Sun-Moon-Earth alignment must change. For your thought experiment you have to pick one or the other; you can't have both.
I forgot to tell you that we have stopped the rotation of the Earth, also! ;)
You specified that when you made the (stopped) Moon our reference, but that doesn't matter at all anyway. Which of the two alignments described did you have in mind? You didn't say. Quit stalling.
-
Well, we did it for you Alpha,
Thanks. It looks about right, too.
Do you remember your insane calculation for the heliocentric midnight-polar-Sun parallax:
The parallax angle would be
a = 2 tan-1(6378.1 km / 147098290 km)
= 2 tan-1(4.3359 X 10-5)
= 2 * 0.0024843°
= 0.0049686°
= 17.887 seconds of arc. After 12 hours.
Why wouldn't you do for us (just for fun) the same kind of insane calculation so to acquaint us with the heliocentric value for the noon-polar-Moon parallax?
The parallax angle would be
a = 2 tan-1(6378,1 km / 385000 km)
= 2 * 0,94910°
= 1,8982°
= 1° 53' 54'' After 12 hours
Excellent work!
Now, 1,8982 / 0,0049686 = 382
Since the Sun is about 390 times as far from earth as the Moon is, this looks reasonable.
Shall we here recall us to this post of mine:
Moon's diameter = 3500 km = 0,5 degree
Moon's orbit = 2 418 000 km (385 000 km * 2 * 3,14)
1 degree at the Equator means that we have moved 1666 km to the East
[ ??? 1° at the equator is 60 nautical miles, or about 111 km, not 1660 km.]
1 degree of displacement of the Moon means that Moon has moved 7000 km to the East (diameter of the Moon * 2)
[OK, but so what?]
The Moon travels to the left (towards East) (because we are facing South) = 15 degrees - 0,55 degrees = 14,45 degress = The Moon has moved 14,45 degrees to the right (towards West).
Regardless of distances??? I wouldn't say that it makes no difference!!!
You'd be wrong then. That 15° is due to the rotation of the Earth in one hour, less the (roughly) half degree the Moon has traveled around its orbit in that hour, giving the net apparent motion of 14.45°.
There's no parallax here, just rotation angles, so the distance doesn't matter.
Do you remember discussion on ZIGZAG argument?
Unfortunately, yes. You were wrong then, too.
Alpha2Omega's main argument was that the diameter of the Earth is too small, and the distance to the Sun is so big that as a consequence of this we wouldn't be able to notice Sun's parallax in the sky.
You just said above it's 1/382 as much as the Moon's parallax, which your calculation gave as just under 2°, so it's about 1/200°. This is pretty small to detect with no background reference!
Apply this logic to this argument.
So, if the Sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon, it's displacement in the sky should be lesser than the Moon's displacement! Only the question is: how much lesser? 400 times = 40 000 %...We would be content with just 100 % (instead of 40 000 %)... 100 % = 1 degree (0,5 * 2)
Hmmm... this is kinda sloppy. Let's see if we can unravel what you're trying to do.
400 times less = 1/400 times as much.
1/400 times as much = 0.0025 as much.
0.0025 as much = 0.25% as much.
So the Sun's displacement due to parallax is 0.25% of the Moon's parallax. This is roughly the same as we calculated before.
You were confusing yourself with the 40000%, so you swept that under the rug and just tossed in 100% in its place it because it was preposterously wrong and made no sense. Nice try.
In your somewhat incoherent muddle above, you refer to "the Moon's displacement" and then apparently assign 1° to this "displacement" (I think). The Moon's displacement due to parallax over half a rotation of the Earth is just under 2°, so let's just call it 2°. You calculated this, remember? The Sun's displacement due to parallax is 0.25% (not 40000%) of this, or 0.005° (this is close to the 0.0049° I originally calculated, so all looks hunky-dory).
The next quote block is mostly meaningless gibberish, so let's continue here.
In the 12 hours it takes for the Earth to rotate halfway around:
The Sun moved 180° across the sky plus another 0.005° due to parallax.
The Moon moved 180° across the sky plus another 2° due to parallax less about 6° due to its orbital motion.
The Sun moved 180.005° in 12 hours.
The Moon moved 176° in 12 hours.
Which is moving faster? (hint: 180 > 176) Do you think parallax was a big contributor here?
15 - 1 = 14 [What does the 1 represent?]
15- 0,55 = 14,45
14,45 > 14 [OK. Since the 14 looks like a number you just pulled from somewhere, so what?]
So, although the Moon has moved 0,5 degrees to the left, we should see it as though it goes to the right with respect to the Sun.
No. The Moon is moving left with respect to the Sun, so we see it as though it goes left with respect to the Sun. Why would you think otherwise?
But what about 108 000 km that Earth-Moon system has moved to the right?
How much degrees is that?
Since the Earth and Moon are both moving "to the right" at this rate, it's zero degrees with respect to each other.
It's roughly 1/24 of 1° with respect to the Sun.
108 000 / 3500 (diameter of the Moon) = 30 * 0,5 degree = 15 degrees (motion of Earth-Moon system to the right with respect to the Sun)
Nope. It's 0°.
When the Sun moves 1,5 degree to the right, the Moon moves 2 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 3 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 4 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 6 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 8 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 12 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 16 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 20 degrees to the right
Nope. This table is simply wrong.
When the Sun moves 1.5° to the right (about 6 minutes), the Moon moves about 1.45° to the right. The difference is the Moon's orbital motion (~0.5° in an hour, so 0.05° in 6 minutes) toward the left.
So, if it's true that after the Globe rotates 15 degrees to the left, the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, then the Moon moves 19,45 14.45 degrees to the right (20 - 0,55 15° - 0.05°) at least!!!.
Why "at least" 19,45 degrees?
Because our Sun (50 m distant antenna) should have been 600 m away from my camera, since our Moon (black dot on the glass) has been 1,5 m away from my camera.
1,5 * 400 = 600
SO FAR SO BAD FOR HC theory!!!
Since the Moon's parallax is exactly so much smaller larger (you calculated it, remember) (than the Sun's parallax), for how much the Moon is closer to the Earth (than the Sun is), and since our experiment corroborates our logic, we can stress here with absolute certainty that if the Earth rotated on it's axis and if the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from Earth, and if the Moon were 385 000 km away from the Earth, then even if the Moon traveled from West to East (in it's orbit around the Earth), the apparent motion of the Moon would be always faster slower (to the right) than the apparent motion of the Sun.
In reality it is not so!
P.S. As for "1° 53' 54'' (After 12 hours)" would we be able to notice this ZIGZAG parallax even if the Moon were so absurdly (as HC theory claims) far away from us?
It is hard to notice, since in that same 12 hours it otherwise moved about 174°. Since the parallax is so much smaller than the diurnal motion, it won't zig-zag; rather, it is a very slight speeding up of the apparent motion until it crosses the meridian, then it begins to slow until it returns to nominal at moonset. If we could see it through the Earth, it would continue to slow ever so slightly until it reaches minimum crossing the antimeridian, then speeding up again until returning to nominal at moonrise. Precision work does take this into account, and observations match predictions, so it can be detected, but it's not obvious, and never comes close to changing directions like you suggest by labeling it "zig-zag".
-
You should translate the difference between the values of Sun's parallax and Moon's parallax (which is the same as the difference in the distances between Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon) into an exact coefficient (vector) according which (due to alleged rotation of the Earth) we get certain differences in apparent displacement (to the right) of the Moon and of the Sun that are shown in my experiment.
If you know such formula, let me know...
Since i don't know for the existence of such a formula, i made the experiment:
(http://i.imgur.com/KKOBS8Y.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/uk43suv.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/DxNEO9g.jpg)
When the Sun moves 1,5 degree to the right, the Moon moves 2 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 3 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 4 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 6 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 8 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 12 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 16 degrees to the right
When the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, the Moon moves 20 degrees to the right
So, if it's true that after the Globe rotates 15 degrees to the left, the Sun moves 15 degrees to the right, then the Moon moves 19,45 degrees to the right (20 - 0,55) at least!!!
Why "at least" 19,45 degrees?
Because our Sun (50 m distant antenna) should have been 600 m away from my camera, since our Moon (black dot on the glass) has been 1,5 m away from my camera.
1,5 * 400 = 600
When you say this...
...The Sun moved 180.005° in 12 hours.
The Moon moved 176° in 12 hours....
...When the Sun moves 1.5° to the right (about 6 minutes), the Moon moves about 1.45° to the right. The difference is the Moon's orbital motion (~0.5° in an hour, so 0.05° in 6 minutes) toward the left.
...you wrongly presume that this is so because HC assumptions are right. No, HC assumptions are absolutely wrong and preposterous. These differences exist as such, only because the motion of the Sun is faster than the motion of the Moon. Both motions go in direction East - West.
Of course that you are absolutely wrong on all other points (especially regarding ZIGZAG argument)...
And the main tool (which is preposterous nonsense) with which you try to refute trueness of ZIGZAG argument (which is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth), now becomes my tool against your utterly wrong explanation for the mechanics of solar eclipses.
What kind of a tool is it?
An absurd alleged HC distances between Earth and the Sun and between Earth and Moon!
Absurd distances generate absurd velocities, absurd distances and absurd velocities generate absurd geometrical impossibilities!
This is how your idiotic HC theory has been exposed as an utter bullshit, the most idiotic theory in the history of human kind, and the ultimate insult for sanity and dignity of any living man.
-
Cikljamas, here is an animation that I made of an eclipse:
(http://i.imgur.com/ajaqKSf.gif)
The white circle is the Sun and the grey circle is the Moon. Note how they are both moving left to right yet the Moon goes across the Sun right to left. The reason that the Moon appears to move slower in the sky then the Sun is because the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates, so it's orbital velocity is subtracted from it's apparent velocity.
Yet another one of your "proofs" debunked.
-
Cikljamas, here is an animation that I made of an eclipse:
(http://i.imgur.com/ajaqKSf.gif)
The white circle is the Sun and the grey circle is the Moon. Note how they are both moving left to right yet the Moon goes across the Sun right to left. The reason that the Moon appears to move slower in the sky then the Sun is because the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates, so it's orbital velocity is subtracted from it's apparent velocity.
Yet another one of your "proofs" debunked.
This reminds me of the opening of a Bond movie.
-
Ok I had to go back through and reread this latest of ciks arguments.
So he is still proclaiming the zigzag argument and saying that Alpha is using absurd heliocentric distances to disprove it. What i see is that Alpha is using correct math to disprove an utterly false presumption. When it is explained to him where his mistakes were, he tries to be creative with taking completely incorrect values for things. Like the speed of the moons transit across the sky by using the speed of the orbit of the entire Earth moon system. Then trying to pawn off that closer things move slower than farther things as you pass by them. Also do not forget that he tried to claim that it was absurd to think that putting three 0.45 m dishes side by side would measure out to be 3 * that 0.45 m width to equal roughly 1.35 m. He constantly ignores anyone who tries to reason with him about his absurd zigzag argument when it has been completely disproved as a failure of reasoning skill.
So why is it when someone cannot argue against the math are the variables declared absurd?
-
You should translate the difference between the values of Sun's parallax and Moon's parallax (which is the same as the difference in the distances between Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon) into an exact coefficient (vector) according which (due to alleged rotation of the Earth) we get certain differences in apparent displacement (to the right) of the Moon and of the Sun that are shown in my experiment.
If you know such formula, let me know...
Since i don't know for the existence of such a formula, i made the experiment:
http://i.imgur.com/KKOBS8Y.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/KKOBS8Y.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/uk43suv.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/uk43suv.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/DxNEO9g.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/DxNEO9g.jpg)
...
You never did answer the questions I asked, you just go on, bluster more, and sling crap.
What's the diameter of that antenna dish?
Why do you say it has moved three diameters to the right when it doesn't appear to have moved at all?
Which of the two alignments described [in the fixed-moon thought experiment (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1674315#msg1674315)] did you have in mind?
If you don't know the answer to the first, but can hazard a guess, then say so. If you don't understand that second question, then say so, but please answer before trying to scuttle on to your next topic and new round of insults.
If you ever followed through with discussions about your arguments you might learn something. Are you afraid of learning something that challenges your beliefs? That appears to be the case, and these beliefs appear to be backed by little more than wishful thinking.
-
What's the diameter of that antenna dish?
1m.
Which of the two alignments described [in the fixed-moon thought experiment] did you have in mind?
First one.
Why do you say it has moved three diameters to the right when it doesn't appear to have moved at all?
Well, what is very interesting, even before i saw your question, I've noticed this fact a few moments ago when I analyzed the results (photographs) of a new experiment which i done this morning.
So, yes, you are right, our sun didn't move at all.
But it seems that this very fact totally destroys your theory, because even if we practicaly didn't move at all (we just skipped focus of my camera from the center tube to the one to it's left), as a consequence of this negligible movement we got the displacement of our Moon for at least a half degree (to the right with respect to our Sun).
Now i would like to recall us to this words of mine:
Regardless of distances??? I wouldn't say that it makes no difference!!! Do you remember discussion on ZIGZAG argument? Alpha2Omega's main argument was that the diameter of the Earth is too small, and the distance to the Sun is so big that as a consequence of this we wouldn't be able to notice Sun's parallax in the sky. Apply this logic to this argument.
So, if the Sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon, it's displacement in the sky should be lesser than the Moon's displacement! Only the question is: how much lesser? 400 times = 40 000 %...We would be content with just 100 % (instead of 40 000 %)... 100 % = 1 degree (0,5 * 2)
...and to this words of mine:
You should translate the difference between the values of Sun's parallax and Moon's parallax (which is the same as the difference in the distances between Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon) into an exact coefficient (vector) according which (due to alleged rotation of the Earth) we get certain differences in apparent displacement (to the right) of the Moon and of the Sun that are shown in my experiment.
If you know such formula, let me know...
What if this mysterious formula is not mysterious at all, what if this mysterious formula means this:
Values of the difference between Sun's parallax and Moon's parallax = Values of the difference in the distances between Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon = Values of the difference in the displacements of Sun and Moon (to the right) due to alleged Earth's rotation?
Now, see my pictures of a new experiment:
(http://i.imgur.com/fUjBg7Q.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/eYEQ91m.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dooSr0F.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/LECFRdp.jpg)
White building is about 400 meters away from us.
Upper part of the building represents our Sun.
Our Moon (black dot on the window) is 220 cm away from us.
I had to use certain amount of zoom so to be able to take pictures while focusing objects through the tubes of my aparatus, i am saying this in order to stress the fact that all pictures (not just those which are taken while focusing objects through the tubes) are taken with the same amount of zoom.
So, we should align my aparatus with a red square (which is placed above the left corner of the white building) which would represent our position after 9 degrees displacement due to the rotation of the Earth to the left.
Where would be our Moon (with respect to the Sun) after such enormous motion to the left. God only knows...
-
Congratulations cikljamas, you just discovered why solar eclipses don't happen everywhere at the same time. Now can you address my point?
Cikljamas, here is an animation that I made of an eclipse:
(http://i.imgur.com/ajaqKSf.gif)
The white circle is the Sun and the grey circle is the Moon. Note how they are both moving left to right yet the Moon goes across the Sun right to left. The reason that the Moon appears to move slower in the sky then the Sun is because the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates, so it's orbital velocity is subtracted from it's apparent velocity.
Yet another one of your "proofs" debunked.
-
What's the diameter of that antenna dish?
1m.
Which of the two alignments described [in the fixed-moon thought experiment] did you have in mind?
First one.
Thanks. If your 50m distance is right, then the 1m antenna subtends 1/50 radian, or just over 1° in your FOV, not 0.5° like I had thought. One radian is 180/pi degrees, or about 57.3°.
This discrepancy doesn't really matter for the experiment, but is a factor in understanding the apparent angles involved.
For the fixed-moon model chosen, the entire earth-moon system must rotate as a unit once per orbit as the earth-moon system moves around the Sun in order to maintain the specified alignment. No way around it. That's the source of your error; you seem to be visualizing the Moon fixed wrt the stars and insisting that it must move laterally (rather than circumferentially while maintaining the same distance) to continue to cover the Sun. This is incorrect.
Why do you say it has moved three diameters to the right when it doesn't appear to have moved at all?
Well, what is very interesting, even before i saw your question, I've noticed this fact a few moments ago when I analyzed the results (photographs) of a new experiment which i done this morning.
So, yes, you are right, our sun didn't move at all.
OK, good. Now that that is established, we can proceed.
But it seems that this very fact totally destroys your theory, because even if we practicaly didn't move at all (we just skipped focus of my camera from the center tube to the one to it's left), as a consequence of this negligible movement we got the displacement of our Moon for at least a half degree (to the right with respect to our Sun).
[You might want to consider omitting the "destroys your theory" editorializing in favor of something more neutral. It's more dignified for you when shown where your error is, but that's your problem.]
You see this because that lateral distance wasn't negligible compared to the distance to the nearby moonspot on the window. If you shift the camera to the left by one diameter of the painted spot, it will appear to shift to the right in your photo by its own diameter if you don't rotate the camera at all. The distant suntenna is also shifted to the right by the same amount, one diameter of the moonspot, but since that is very small compared to the suntenna's physical size it is hard to notice.
You have discovered what parallax does.
Now i would like to recall us to this words of mine:
Regardless of distances??? I wouldn't say that it makes no difference!!! Do you remember discussion on ZIGZAG argument? Alpha2Omega's main argument was that the diameter of the Earth is too small, and the distance to the Sun is so big that as a consequence of this we wouldn't be able to notice Sun's parallax in the sky. Apply this logic to this argument.
So, if the Sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon, it's displacement in the sky should be lesser than the Moon's displacement! Only the question is: how much lesser? 400 times = 40 000 %...We would be content with just 100 % (instead of 40 000 %)... 100 % = 1 degree (0,5 * 2)
...and to this words of mine:
You should translate the difference between the values of Sun's parallax and Moon's parallax (which is the same as the difference in the distances between Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon) into an exact coefficient (vector) according which (due to alleged rotation of the Earth) we get certain differences in apparent displacement (to the right) of the Moon and of the Sun that are shown in my experiment.
If you know such formula, let me know...
What if this mysterious formula is not mysterious at all, what if this mysterious formula means this:
Values of the difference between Sun's parallax and Moon's parallax = Values of the difference in the distances between Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon = Values of the difference in the displacements of Sun and Moon (to the right) due to alleged Earth's rotation?
It's not particularly mysterious, and you seem to understand the gist of it.
For small angles, it's very simple: for a given lateral displacement, parallax is inversely proportional to distance. "Small angles" would be less than 5° unless you need very high precision, and up to maybe 10° for "back of the envelope" calculations (i.e. rough estimates).
parallax (in degrees) ≈ 57.3° * (lateral displacement)/(Distance) [for lateral displacement < Distance/6 or so]
If you have two values for parallax, the ratio of distances will be the inverse of the ratio of the parallaxes.
D2/D1 ≈ p1/p2 [for p < 10° or so]
The exact formula is:
parallax(in whatever units the tan-1 function returns) = 2 * tan-1((lateral displacement)/(Distance perpendicular to lateral shift)/2).
The simple inverse ratio of parallax to get relative distances breaks down in the realm where this formula is necessary. Its more-exact replacement is more complicated.
Now, see my pictures of a new experiment:
http://i.imgur.com/fUjBg7Q.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/fUjBg7Q.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/eYEQ91m.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/dooSr0F.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/dooSr0F.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/LECFRdp.jpg)
White building is about 400 meters away from us.
Upper part of the building represents our Sun.
Our Moon (black dot on the window) is 220 cm away from us.
I had to use certain amount of zoom so to be able to take pictures while focusing objects through the tubes of my aparatus, i am saying this in order to stress the fact that all pictures (not just those which are taken while focusing objects through the tubes) are taken with the same amount of zoom.
As long as the zoom setting doesn't change, this doesn't matter, but it's good to make clear that this is the case.
So, we should align my aparatus with a red square (which is placed above the left corner of the white building) which would represent our position after 9 degrees displacement due to the rotation of the Earth to the left.
Where would be our Moon (with respect to the Sun) after such enormous motion to the left. God only knows...
See, here's the thing... if you put the camera on a tripod and rotate it 9° (or whatever rotation it takes to center the location where the red mark is) without otherwise moving it, your picture would keep the same relation between the black spot 2m from the camera and the top of the building as before (they would both shift to the right by the same amount) and the location of the red mark would be centered. Try it!
If you insist on centering the red mark by moving the camera while keeping the camera's optical axis parallel to the original, you will have to move it to the left by the length of the distant building, probably many dozen meters. If you do this, then yes, the moonspot will have shifted almost 90° relative to the camera's optical axis because it was originally so close. You'd have to use the second parallax formula above to calculate the angle in this case.
The latter case, however, is not simulating the rotating Earth; the former is. The Earth is rotating, so you rotate your camera to simulate that. Lunar parallax due to our location off the axis of rotation will be small for only 9° of rotation (about 1000 km at the equator, worst case; 57.3° * 1000 km/400000 km ≈ 0.14°). This is all entirely consistent with the heliocentric model of the solar system. No "destruction" of it here.
-
WOW, what a great little video! Seems like a dagger through one of the main arguments of round earth theory.
(http://#ws)
-
I love that guy, he has some of the more looney videos. He believes Antarctica is the center of the universe and it is Atlantis, and McDonalds is trying to get the truth of the flat Earth subliminally because their logo is a representation of the magnetic flux lines coming out of Antarctica. Yep, he is truly fun to watch
-
Earth is a stage: that is called depth of field, not a mirage. The table is simply out of focus, if it was a mirage then the further parts of the table would look like a mirror. If that guy adjusted the focus of the camera then the table would appear nice and flat while the boat would be blurred, and if he put the horizon and the boats at the same distance from the camera (like what you see in real life) then they would both appear all clear. If you don't believe me, here is a screenshot of the video at about 5:08 as the guy is refocusing the camera:
(http://i.imgur.com/1oBNrpL.png)
Note how clear and defined the horizon line is, that's what you would actually see on a flat Earth.
-
Almost reminds me of someone who has been posting stuff in this thread that likes to do obviously faulty experiments, change numbers to match his suppositions, and does not have any spacial reasoning skills.
Yes he should have pushed the table against the wall to simulate the horizon better, but then the camera wouldn't be so out of focus for the surface of the table so he could claim a mirage does it.
-
1. Alpha, let's get back to the beginning of our "Solar Eclipse" argument:
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary (for all practical purposes in our case)
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Our Sun is simply our reference point. Instead of the Sun we could also use some particular star (only there is no star which perfectly matches the size of the Moon).
So, i put this question once more: WHICH KIND OF MOTION IS DECISIVE, WHICH KIND OF MOTION MAKES THE DIFFERENCE???
A) ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH
B) ALLEGED ORBITAL MOTION (AROUND THE EARTH) OF THE MOON
If we are at the Equator, then the right answer is A, do you agree?
If we are at the North Pole, then the right answer is B, do you agree?
Rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator = 1666 km/h
Rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole = 0 km/h
The question is this: If we are at the North Pole, how come that the Moon is able to travel (apparently) in a direction East - West, at all?
2. Now, let's see something else, look at this picture:
(http://i.imgur.com/zOzMEcf.jpg)
If the Earth rotated between 5am-7am and between 5pm-7pm you would move BACK (5pm-7pm) and FORWARD (5am-7am) with respect to the Sun, and between 11am-1pm, and between 11pm-1am you would move LATERALLY with respect to the Sun, that is to say, you would move LEFT TO RIGHT (11pm-1am), and RIGHT TO LEFT (11am-1pm).
The degrees of Sun's displacement in these periods would be drastically different if the Earth rotated!!!
3. One question on ZIGZAG argument:
Let's suppose that you are astronomer-observer at some observatory which is placed at the edge of Arctic circle, and you observe Midnight-Sun or Noon-Moon.
If the Earth rotated you would have to slightly adjust (every few minutes or so) spatial orientation of your telescope from RIGHT TO LEFT (between 6am-6pm), and from LEFT TO RIGHT (between 6pm-6am). Right?
But it doesn't happen in reality!!!
In reality you adjust spatial orientation of your telescope ALWAYS (24 hours during one Polar Day or one Polar Night) in the SAME direction! Right?
So, what do you have to say in your defense?
Would you dare to put your hand on the Bible and say that HC theory is anything more than a bunch of disgusting lies?
Watch this video (http://) (PLEASE), and then try to answer sincerely to my question (PLEASE)!
-
Ok. Time to go back to basics and educate you cikl.
For our purposes we can assume that the sun is a stationary object, and that all positions of the moon and the sun are from a fixed observer on the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.
To describe the apparent motion of the sun and the moon we have three different factors at work:
1) The rotation of the earth - 360 degrees in 24 hours (ish) giving 15 degrees motion per hour. This will effect both the Sun and Moon and thus both will move 15 degrees to the right across the sky.
2) Orbit of the Earth-Moon system around the sun - 360 degrees in 365.25 days giving 0.986 degrees per day and 0.04 degrees per hour. This will only affect the apparent position of the sun and it will be a movement to the left across the sky, as the earth is orbiting anticlockwise around the sun.
3) Orbit of the moon around the earth - 360 degrees in 27 days giving 13.33 degrees per day and 0.555 degrees per hour. This motion will be to the left across the sky as the moon is orbiting anticlockwise around the earth.
Net results:
Sun apparent motion = +15o right and +0.04 o left = 14.96o right per hour
Moon apparent motion = +15o right and +0.555 o left = 14.44 o right per hour
Apparent motion relative between Sun and Moon = 14.96 - 14.44 = 0.52 degrees per hour.
An eclipse duration is time for the moon disk to cross the sun entirely, which is twice the apparent disk diameter which is 2 x 0.5o = 1 degree. Therefore an eclipse should last around two hours.
Simple.
-
Cikljamas, please read this post:
Cikljamas, here is an animation that I made of an eclipse:
(http://i.imgur.com/ajaqKSf.gif)
The white circle is the Sun and the grey circle is the Moon. Note how they are both moving left to right yet the Moon goes across the Sun right to left. The reason that the Moon appears to move slower in the sky then the Sun is because the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates, so it's orbital velocity is subtracted from it's apparent velocity.
Yet another one of your "proofs" debunked.
I have disproven the zig zag argument a long time ago and I don't really understand your second argument which is no doubt based on your bad spacial reasoning.
-
Thanks Mike, for the info. It makes sense what you are saying.
-
1. Alpha, let's get back to the beginning of our "Solar Eclipse" argument:
Does this mean you are satisfied with the explanation of how you were confusing rotation with parallax in your experiments with the nearby dot covering the more distant object? I presume so.
I commend you for actually setting up experiments and urge you to understand what your experiments are telling you. This forum serves the purpose a peer review would in the academic world, where your setup, data, and interpretation of the data are all subjected to review, and criticism if warranted, by others familiar with the topic.
Thanks, Mainframes, for that very clear explanation of the differing rates of apparent motion. Maybe if cikljamas hears it from someone other than me he'll get it.
I was going to refer to cikljamas to mikeman7918's animation for the answer to the first question in 1., but he beat me to it (short answer: it always emerges from the west (right, in the situation described) side of the Moon - the animation should make that clear). Thanks for putting that together. What software do you use for those animations? I think you've already said once, but it's easier to ask than figure out the appropriate search terms.
You guys already covered these well:
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary (for all practical purposes in our case)
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Our Sun is simply our reference point. Instead of the Sun we could also use some particular star (only there is no star which perfectly matches the size of the Moon).
So, i put this question once more: WHICH KIND OF MOTION IS DECISIVE, WHICH KIND OF MOTION MAKES THE DIFFERENCE???
A) ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH
B) ALLEGED ORBITAL MOTION (AROUND THE EARTH) OF THE MOON
If we are at the Equator, then the right answer is A, do you agree?
If we are at the North Pole, then the right answer is B, do you agree?
No. It's rotation of the Earth that dominates in both cases, by a factor of about 30; see Mainframes' analysis. Being at the equator instead of the pole introduces a small amount of parallax that is smaller than the orbital motion of the Moon, and utterly swamped by earth's rotation.
Rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator = 1666 km/h
Rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole = 0 km/h
The question is this: If we are at the North Pole, how come that the Moon is able to travel (apparently) in a direction East - West, at all?
Because at the pole you're still rotating, that's why. There is no parallax, but parallax ≠ rotation.
2. Now, let's see something else, look at this picture:
(http://i.imgur.com/zOzMEcf.jpg)
If the Earth rotated between 5am-7am and between 5pm-7pm you would move BACK (5pm-7pm) and FORWARD (5am-7am) with respect to the Sun, and between 11am-1pm, and between 11pm-1am you would move LATERALLY with respect to the Sun, that is to say, you would move LEFT TO RIGHT (11pm-1am), and RIGHT TO LEFT (11am-1pm).
By maybe a couple thousand km, tops. The Sun is about 150 thousand thousand km distant. This means the parallax you're describing is truly minuscule. This parallax is several orders of magnitude smaller than the 15°/hr rotation.
The degrees of Sun's displacement in these periods would be drastically different if the Earth rotated!!!
No, it would be imperceptible for anything but the most careful measurements, and maybe not even then.
3. One question on ZIGZAG argument:
Let's suppose that you are astronomer-observer at some observatory which is placed at the edge of Arctic circle, and you observe Midnight-Sun or Noon-Moon.
If the Earth rotated you would have to slightly adjust (every few minutes or so) spatial orientation of your telescope from RIGHT TO LEFT (between 6am-6pm), and from LEFT TO RIGHT (between 6pm-6am). Right?
No. The telescope would need to track in a smooth clockwise direction the whole time. Why do you think you would have to change direction if the Earth is smoothly rotating?
But it doesn't happen in reality!!!
In reality you adjust spatial orientation of your telescope ALWAYS (24 hours during one Polar Day or one Polar Night) in the SAME direction! Right?
Darn tootin'! Nor is this bizarre notion that the Sun should reverse direction expected anywhere outside your imagination.
So, what do you have to say in your defense?
You're wrong, for the reasons stated above.
Is that clear enough?
Would you dare to put your hand on the Bible and say that HC theory is anything more than a bunch of disgusting lies?
Sure. There's always the vanishingly small chance the the HC theory is wrong, but I have no trouble defending it because it's the only workable theory we have, and it works marvelously well. My conscience is clear.
Watch this video (http://) (PLEASE), and then try to answer sincerely to my question (PLEASE)!
Please describe what the video is about, who made it. If it presents any new information or ideas, what are they? If there are no new new information or ideas, why should I watch it? I suspect it's a complete waste of time; only after I'm convinced it's worthwhile will I even consider watching it.
-
Thanks Mike, for the info. It makes sense what you are saying.
My advice would be to ignore all arguments made by cikljamas, they are all so easy to debunk because they are based off of flawed spacial reasoning and he also ignores all proof that he is wrong (which there is a lot of).
-
THIS PLACE IS DISGRACE OF HUMAN RACE!!!
-
Ok I watched his video, its a Mark Sargent film that's talking about the astronauts gone wild film. Something about how the astronauts wouldn't swear on the bible and that they knew about the flat Earth. He supposes the reason they wouldn't swear on a bible is because they knew God was watching and that made it more real for them. I am at about 7:45 in the Astronauts Gone Wild video right now and I have already seen the reason why none of them would give the guy their time. Mark Sargent says not to go watch the hour long film, and let him describe it for you. So that means I HAVE to go watch it because he is known for twisting the truth.
When you gain an interview under false pretenses, then tell a man he is lying to his face, tell him you know he did not do something that the rest of the world thinks he did, what kind of reaction would you think you would get. They talk about a fist fight, but dude got in Buzz Aldrin's face and called him a coward and a liar after he had already been told to leave the property during the interview where he had accused Aldrin of lying. Hell I think Buzz showed extreme restraint, then the old man knocked the shit out of him when he called him a coward.
Ill watch the rest of the film. But it looks to me already that it is a guy who is using really terrible journalism tricks to get interviews then trying to get the astronauts off guard by upsetting them and calling them out. He seems to be trying to illicit a negative response from them so he can make that part of his proof they were lying. Pretty terrible film so far. I already want to beat this dudes ass. You really don't call a former soldier a coward and a liar, the worst kind of human being who should be ashamed of himself, to his face.
-
So you are shown to be wrong, therefore you throw a titty baby fit? Grow up dude.
BTW
ZIG ZAG IS THE STUPIDEST IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD
-
Mike, I like you. You're a good guy.
-
Ok I watched his video, its a Mark Sargent film that's talking about the astronauts gone wild film.
...
I am at about 7:45 in the Astronauts Gone Wild video right now and I have already seen the reason why none of them would give the guy their time. Mark Sargent says not to go watch the hour long film, and let him describe it for you. So that means I HAVE to go watch it because he is known for twisting the truth.
...
Ill watch the rest of the film.
Thanks for taking one for the team.
-
<Big words and colorful language.>
Not a very compelling argument. Sorry.
You might want to take a break from this stuff for a while.
-
WOW, what a great little video! Seems like a dagger through one of the main arguments of round earth theory.
(http://#ws)
LOL... there's just so much wrong with this video and the guy's "explanation" of what we're actually seeing, it's hard to know where to start.
He doesn't understand what a mirage is (which is irrelevant to the issue anyway).
He confuses a limited depth of field or out-of-focus with a mirage!
He "shifts" his false horizon up and/or down arbitrarily and independently of his ship.
He shifts his observation point (the camera) up and down arbitrarily and independently of his false horizon line.
The relativity of his setup's sizes, elevations and distances are way out.
He can't use a digital camera correctly—he's relying on auto everything which doesn't work on tabletop models.
None of his images actually show the lower part of his ships disappearing totally as they do on the ocean.
If he'd used a slightly convex table-top, he would've observed almost similar (and inconclusive) visual effects.
—Although I'm not in the least surprised that earth is a stage thought that the video was "great".
-
THIS PLACE IS DISGRACE OF HUMAN RACE!!!
It will be fine once you leave.....
-
THIS PLACE IS DISGRACE OF HUMAN RACE!!!
It will be fine once you leave.....
Agreed.
-
'This place' being a Flat Earth website, the man has a point.
-
Ok I watched the whole thing. Lovely ambush journalism portrayed here. This dude basically either cornered the astronauts on the street, at public events, or lied to obtain private interviews from some of them. He also did get 3 or 4 of them to swear on the bible. He starts off asking normal questions for the most part in the private interviews, then slowly works in the stuff that will annoy them. After he gets them upset, he then shoves a bible in their face and while constantly asking them to swear on the bible he tells them he knows for a fact they didn't go to the moon. It is clear that all he wanted was the negative responses that he received. If this is the great proof of a conspiracy by Nasa then, there is no conspiracy at all. Only asshats with a camera.
I wish Buzz would have continued beating this guys ass for much longer. He absolutely deserved more than he got. You get into a man's face and say those things about him in an ambush and expect to get away with it? Seriously uncalled for.
Feel free to watch this garbage if you wish.
Here is a link
(http://)
-
Have just watched this hilarious video myself—even with my patience drawn wafer thin many times LOL.
Bart Winfield Sibrel is, to put it mildly, worth less than the sludge in my septic tank. In the now infamous interview, when Buzz Aldrin refused to be goaded by him, Sibrel called him "a coward, and a liar, and a thief". If anybody had the temerity to say that to my face in a public place, then in all likelihood, I'd react in exactly the way Aldrin did. As it turned out, Sibrel was merely trying to manufacture a law suit in order to make big dollars, which typifies his scumbag tactics.
It's of interest that later, in 2009, Sibrel, who works as a Nashville taxicab driver, was charged with vandalism when he jumped up and down on the hood of a car owned by a woman with whom he was having a parking dispute. Court documents show he was arrested after the driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. The arresting officer wrote, "A few moments later the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked." Sibrel "then walked up to the victim's car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times." The report says he caused about US$1,400 worth of damage, after which Sibrel pleaded guilty to vandalism and was placed on probation.
Sibrel was fired from his job as a cameraman (not an investigative reporter as he claims) for a Nashville, Tennessee television station after being arrested for trespassing on Neil Armstrong's property after Armstrong refused to grant him an interview.
Sibrel also claims on his web site that his video contains "never-seen" secret NASA Apollo videotape showing a clip of the Apollo 11 crew faking some footage in the Apollo module. After seeing the film those of you of a certain age, like me, may come to the conclusion that you've seen it before. You have... it was all taped footage from the Apollo 11 CM Westinghouse three-color camera telecasts that were broadcast live on NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC and every other decent network on the planet more than 40 years ago!
The times and dates of those broadcasts have long been a matter of public record and the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11). The video was so blurry and fuzzy that Houston had to prompt the characteristically un-talkative Apollo 11 commander, Neil Armstrong to describe what he was pointing the camera at so that NASA could correlate what he was shooting with what he was describing on later tape playbacks. Colour TV cameras small enough to fit inside tiny spacecraft cabins were brand new and balky technology in 1969. Global communications networks could not even synchronize the audio and video signals coming back to Houston from receiving antennas at Honeysuckle Creek in Australia and Goldstone in California.
Each and every one of the qualifications, accreditations, and claims made by Sibrel on his web site HERE (http://bit.ly/19qcz03) are nothing more than a farrago of lies, fabrications, and misrepresentations.
For further evidence debunking and destroying Sibrel's reputation and credentials, refer to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site HERE (http://bit.ly/1GxtZ8e).
-
I admire that CIK doesn't bow the knee.
-
Well yes that can be an admirable trait, but the problem is when someone is wrong, and shown many different ways why the idea that someone is trying to propose is wrong, that they just ignore that completely and then just go into a silly fit or spew insults. We aren't saying everything he thinks is wrong, just a couple of his suppositions are incorrect. He is trying to figure things out and that's a good thing. Never just take anyone's word for anything. You do need to give the people respect who did the work previously to figure something out though. You don't just dismiss them and expect to be taken seriously. Scientist spend years going through schools, then years gathering evidence to support their original idea. They have to go through the gauntlet of debates to get their theories recognized, why should we just stand by and let someone shortcut to just saying this is what it actually is without any evidence, testing, or verification done.
I normally do try to look what people say here and try not to make assumptions before I can figure out what they are proposing. If it is blatantly wrong, i will say so. If it is something I do not understand, I will ask for clarification. cik really doesn't like questions at all for clarification, he will copy paste the same thing over, sometimes putting things in bold fonts, all while insulting your intelligence. This is a tool of a weak mind, and I hate to say it that way because it sounds like an insult. It isn't really meant to be, just a wake up call for them to stop assuming and think about what responses they are getting.
-
'This place' being a Flat Earth website, the man has a point.
I'd like to think he means the internet as a whole.
-
'This place' being a Flat Earth website, the man has a point.
I'd like to think he means the internet as a whole.
No, the world as a whole.
-
I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?
There are strange things done under the Midnight Sun, by the men that follow fool's gold? The Arctic trails have their secret tales, that would make your myths run cold.
The northern lights have seen queer sights, but the strangest they ever did see, was the night I stood on the 85th, and the Midnight Sun I could see!
-
I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?
Sounds like a problem!
That's simple: Earth has a 23.5 degree axial tilt:
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/06/axial-tilt.jpg)
(http://www2.astro.psu.edu/~mce/A001/lect03_fig2.jpg)
As the Earth orbits the Sun it's axis always points in the exact same direction, this causes seasons and it's why the midnight sun can only bee seen around the time of an equinox:
(http://www.edb.utexas.edu/missiontomars/images/seasons.gif)
Cikljamas has mentioned on many occasions that he hates the idea of Earth having an axial tilt because the round earthers use it to explain things so well, but the reason it explains so much is because it's what's actually happening. Also, unlike the aether (and most of FET), it's well understood and it can be used to make predictions.
Cikljamas' claims are hilariously easy to debunk, and he evidently never reads responses to his posts because he always insists that he has proved FET long after his claims have been thoroughly debunked.
-
I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?
Sounds like a problem!
That's simple: Earth has a 23.5 degree axial tilt:
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/06/axial-tilt.jpg)
(http://www2.astro.psu.edu/~mce/A001/lect03_fig2.jpg)
As the Earth orbits the Sun it's axis always points in the exact same direction, this causes seasons and it's why the midnight sun can only bee seen around the time of an equinox:
(http://www.edb.utexas.edu/missiontomars/images/seasons.gif)
Cikljamas has mentioned on many occasions that he hates the idea of Earth having an axial tilt because the round earthers use it to explain things so well, but the reason it explains so much is because it's what's actually happening. Also, unlike the aether (and most of FET), it's well understood and it can be used to make predictions.
Cikljamas' claims are hilariously easy to debunk, and he evidently never reads responses to his posts because he always insists that he has proved FET long after his claims have been thoroughly debunked.
The same can be said of at least one other flat earther : iWitness.
-
I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?
There are strange things done under the Midnight Sun, by the men that follow fool's gold? The Arctic trails have their secret tales, that would make your myths run cold.
The northern lights have seen queer sights, but the strangest they ever did see, was the night I stood on the 85th, and the Midnight Sun I could see!
Well the Arctic circle starts at 66 degrees and that's where you can see it and up to 90 degrees. The latitude lines start at 0 at the equator and increase to 90 at the poles.
-
Thanks guys. Take the poetry in good stride. I don't consider you to be fool's. I need to think about this tilt proposition. Now, why would Polaris always be straight up, if the earth tilts?
-
No I liked it.
-
Thanks guys. Take the poetry in good stride. I don't consider you to be fool's. I need to think about this tilt proposition. Now, why would Polaris always be straight up, if the earth tilts?
Polaris happens to be near the direction of the axis of earth's rotation. It's only straight up when you're near the north pole. At the equator Polaris stays near - slightly above or slightly below - the horizon.
-
Now, why would Polaris always be straight up, if the earth tilts?
Because Polaris is where Earth's axis points to.
-
If Polaris can be seen down to 23.5 degrees South latitude, then it makes sense to claim our earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees. However, Ursa Major, (close to Polaris) can be seen from the North Pole down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation of Virgo can be seen from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, Orion, 85 degrees North down to 75 degrees South latitude. How is that possible?
-
If Polaris can be seen down to 23.5 degrees South latitude, then it makes sense to claim our earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees. However, Ursa Major, (close to Polaris) can be seen from the North Pole down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation of Virgo can be seen from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, Orion, 85 degrees North down to 75 degrees South latitude. How is that possible?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
-
Do you have a problem with these numbers? If these numbers are correct, do they pose a problem for the globular earth?
Oh, earth, round or not...
Flat art Thou?
My eyes can't see
but stars do tell!
-
Do you have a problem with these numbers? If these numbers are correct, do they pose a problem for the globular earth?
Refraction can cause the stars to appear higher in the sky then they actually are and so they sometimes appear above the horizon when they should be below it.
(http://static.trustedreviews.com/94/6d044b/2fb0/9058-refractionpencil.jpg)
Also, the horizon is below eye level when you are standing on a mountain. I will have to do more research and math to see if these effects describe and predict your numbers.
-
Do you have a problem with these numbers? If these numbers are correct, do they pose a problem for the globular earth?
Refraction can cause the stars to appear higher in the sky then they actually are and so they sometimes appear above the horizon when they should be below it.
(http://static.trustedreviews.com/94/6d044b/2fb0/9058-refractionpencil.jpg)
Also, the horizon is below eye level when you are standing on a mountain. I will have to do more research and math to see if these effects describe and predict your numbers.
What are you describing is actually called Bendy Light Theory, and it proves that the Earth is flat.
Thank you for reinforcing flatness. :)
-
*Notion.
It's a notion.
Not a theory. Stop calling it that. Why does light bend like this for some reason?
-
*Notion.
It's a notion.
Not a theory. Stop calling it that. Why does light bend like this for some reason?
Excuse me? Lighht bends. You can see it easily. Simply put a pencil in a cup of water, like the picture above.
Every definition of 'refraction' I've found states that it is the "bending of light through two mediums". I would post my screeenshots of Encyclopedia Britannica stating this, but I've already done that in response to ausGeoff and he conceded and actually admitted that refraction was simply light bending.
So, uh, before you make up more fancy words like "refraction", maybe figure out a better definition that doesn't involve the thing you're claiming it doesn't do. ::)
-
And what causes air that is generally unpolluted by water vapor, dust, etc. to bend light in such a significant way?
-
And what causes air that is generally unpolluted by water vapor, dust, etc. to bend light in such a significant way?
Air is a medium just like water, so I'm not sure what you're asking.
-
Water is not as good a medium as water to be refracting light to such a degree that you're talking about.
-
Water is not as good a medium as water to be refracting light to such a degree that you're talking about.
???
-
Yeah, fail on my part. Air is not as good as water. Sorry.
-
If Polaris can be seen down to 23.5 degrees South latitude, then it makes sense to claim our earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees. However, Ursa Major, (close to Polaris) can be seen from the North Pole down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation of Virgo can be seen from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, Orion, 85 degrees North down to 75 degrees South latitude. How is that possible?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Eric Dubay interview - TILT (time adjusted) : #t=22m05s (http://#t=22m05s)
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/jCdL6zT.jpg)
-
*Notion.
It's a notion.
Not a theory. Stop calling it that. Why does light bend like this for some reason?
Excuse me? Lighht bends. You can see it easily. Simply put a pencil in a cup of water, like the picture above.
Every definition of 'refraction' I've found states that it is the "bending of light through two mediums". I would post my screeenshots of Encyclopedia Britannica stating this, but I've already done that in response to ausGeoff and he conceded and actually admitted that refraction was simply light bending.
So, uh, before you make up more fancy words like "refraction", maybe figure out a better definition that doesn't involve the thing you're claiming it doesn't do. ::)
Refraction isn't bending light.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water (https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water)
-
Refraction isn't bending light.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water (https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water)
Yes it is.
Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:
(http://i.imgur.com/wMvsFdm.png)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction):
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "
"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media." Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html)
Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.
-
Refraction isn't bending light.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water (https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water)
Yes it is.
Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:
(http://i.imgur.com/wMvsFdm.png)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction):
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "
"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media." Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html)
Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.
Stop using shorthands as an argument, because it's pathetic and childish.
-
Shorthands? Is that your excuse to ignore my points this time?
I'm providing you with the meaning of refraction from multiple valid sources. If you are disputing these scientific definitions, then please provide a valid argument against them.
-
If Polaris can be seen down to 23.5 degrees South latitude, then it makes sense to claim our earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees. However, Ursa Major, (close to Polaris) can be seen from the North Pole down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation of Virgo can be seen from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, Orion, 85 degrees North down to 75 degrees South latitude. How is that possible?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Eric Dubay interview - TILT (time adjusted) : #t=22m05s (http://#t=22m05s)
I'm not going to watch an hour long video to find out what he's saying but if he's saying that you can see Polaris from over 20 degrees southern latitude he's wrong about it. People in Australia would be able to see Polaris if that was the case, and they can't.
-
Eric Dubay interview - TILT (time adjusted) : #t=22m05s (http://#t=22m05s)
Another fool led astray by the treacherous Eric Doobie. Have fun drinking your suicide punch in a few months.
-
If Polaris can be seen down to 23.5 degrees South latitude, then it makes sense to claim our earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees. However, Ursa Major, (close to Polaris) can be seen from the North Pole down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation of Virgo can be seen from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, Orion, 85 degrees North down to 75 degrees South latitude. How is that possible?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Eric Dubay interview - TILT (time adjusted) : #t=22m05s (http://#t=22m05s)
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/jCdL6zT.jpg)
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141127120104/clubpenguin/images/9/96/MEGA_FACEPALM.jpg)
As I have already explained countless times, Solar parallax is so small that it's hard to measure with high tech instruments.
(http://i.imgur.com/Cvb0hvc.gif)
Even in this animation where time is sped up, the Earth is bigger, and the Sun is closer, the parallax is still difficult to see.
In case you are still too stupid to understand that, it means that the Sun wouldn't zig zag back and forth.
-
Shorthands? Is that your excuse to ignore my points this time?
I'm providing you with the meaning of refraction from multiple valid sources. If you are disputing these scientific definitions, then please provide a valid argument against them.
Because you're wrong. Refraction is a change of direction of light caused by a change of velocity of light in different mediums. It has nothing to do with a bendy light, because refraction is a change of light's direction only in specific mediums. For example -
(http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah260/BlueTurkeyS4/ESCI114REFRAC001_zpsl3gxxi4o.gif)
Refracted light doesn't change its direction at last, so light going out of a slower medium is returning to its back direction.
-
cik, you are still wrong about the zig zag thing. You are on a spinning ball. The point of the horizon between you and the sun rotates, meaning the sun will NOT go across the sky and horizon one way, then reverse its direction.
Zig Zag it completely wrong, I have no idea of how to explain to you how much this is a failure. I give up.
-
Shorthands? Is that your excuse to ignore my points this time?
I'm providing you with the meaning of refraction from multiple valid sources. If you are disputing these scientific definitions, then please provide a valid argument against them.
Because you're wrong. Refraction is a change of direction of light caused by a change of velocity of light in different mediums. It has nothing to do with a bendy light, because refraction is a change of light's direction only in specific mediums. For example -
(http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah260/BlueTurkeyS4/ESCI114REFRAC001_zpsl3gxxi4o.gif)
Refracted light doesn't change its direction at last, so light going out of a slower medium is returning to its back direction.
If I'm wrong every dictionary across the Earth is wrong. Think about what you're saying. Refraction is simply bendy light in action. Even RE science agrees with this
-
Refraction happens, yes. We can call it bendy light if that makes everyone feel better. "Bendy light" cannot explain sunsets, as the "bendy light" index isn't high enough in the atmosphere to bend light that far as to make it come from relatively above you to appearing below you. Even water doesn't have enough "bendy light" index to do this and it is much much higher than air.
How "bendy light" works is that light traveling through a medium is traveling slower than not, therefore it appears to follow a different path. It still travels in a straight line except it changes this direction at the termination between mediums. For it to make sunsets happen, it would have to deflect the light path in such a way as it was traveling away from you to the edge of the Earth, then reverse its direction on the edge of the Earth again towards you, so that you see the sun appear to sink below the horizon. Nothing has a "bendy light" index this intense. Once you get this high, you now aren't bending light, you are reflecting it.
-
Ya, I doubt you can see Polaris in Australia. Are any of the figures I gave correct? Will need to research those numbers.
-
Ya, I doubt you can see Polaris in Australia. Are any of the figures I gave correct? Will need to research those numbers.
I am sure AusGeoff can confirm that, he lives in Australia. On a flat Earth you would expect that you could see Polaris from anywhere...
-
Shorthands? Is that your excuse to ignore my points this time?
I'm providing you with the meaning of refraction from multiple valid sources. If you are disputing these scientific definitions, then please provide a valid argument against them.
Because you're wrong. Refraction is a change of direction of light caused by a change of velocity of light in different mediums. It has nothing to do with a bendy light, because refraction is a change of light's direction only in specific mediums. For example -
(http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah260/BlueTurkeyS4/ESCI114REFRAC001_zpsl3gxxi4o.gif)
Refracted light doesn't change its direction at last, so light going out of a slower medium is returning to its back direction.
If I'm wrong every dictionary across the Earth is wrong. Think about what you're saying. Refraction is simply bendy light in action. Even RE science agrees with this
For now you pointed only one encyclopedia which used "bend" which was used as a shorthand. You clearly see in a picture that even if sunsets were explained as refraction, it wouldn't work, because light going off e.g. water is going to its back direction.
-
For now you pointed only one encyclopedia which used "bend" which was used as a shorthand. You clearly see in a picture that even if sunsets were explained as refraction, it wouldn't work, because light going off e.g. water is going to its back direction.
I gave you 3 sources actually.
Refraction isn't bending light.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water (https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water)
Yes it is.
Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:
(http://i.imgur.com/wMvsFdm.png)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction):
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "
"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media." Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html)
Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.
Point still stands.
-
For now you pointed only one encyclopedia which used "bend" which was used as a shorthand. You clearly see in a picture that even if sunsets were explained as refraction, it wouldn't work, because light going off e.g. water is going to its back direction.
I gave you 3 sources actually.
Refraction isn't bending light.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water (https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/reflection-and-refraction/v/refraction-in-water)
Yes it is.
Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:
(http://i.imgur.com/wMvsFdm.png)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction):
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "
"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media." Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html)
Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.
Point still stands.
And you still don't understand that word "bent" is used as a shorthand for "changing direction". You see, bending light should also occur in a vacuum, but it doesn't. And that's why refraction isn't really bending light. And, third of all - how would you explain sunsets using refraction?
-
If Polaris can be seen down to 23.5 degrees South latitude, then it makes sense to claim our earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees. However, Ursa Major, (close to Polaris) can be seen from the North Pole down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation of Virgo can be seen from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, Orion, 85 degrees North down to 75 degrees South latitude. How is that possible?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Eric Dubay interview - TILT (time adjusted) : #t=22m05s (http://#t=22m05s)
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/jCdL6zT.jpg)
As I have already explained countless times, Solar parallax is so small that it's hard to measure with high tech instruments.
(govno od animacije)
Even in this animation where time is sped up, the Earth is bigger, and the Sun is closer, the parallax is still difficult to see.
In case you are still too stupid to understand that, it means that the Sun wouldn't zig zag back and forth.
I am sorry to say this, but now it became quite obvious that unlike Alpha2Omega who is lying (deliberately and consciously) all the time, you are a genuine retard.
-
And you still don't understand that word "bent" is used as a shorthand for "changing direction". You see, bending light should also occur in a vacuum, but it doesn't. And that's why refraction isn't really bending light. And, third of all - how would you explain sunsets using refraction?
That's normally what bend means, yeah. "change in direction".
That's called bendy light. Do you want me to start quoting dictionary definitions of the word "bend" now? Because I will. Warning, it will make you look stupid.
-
you are a genuine retard.
And yet I am the one who makes animations which debunk your points because you have bad spacial reasoning. Earth is a stage seems to agree now that your arguments are just plain stupid. You rarely even respond to my posts, which is strange considering that most of them on this thread are specifically meant for you to respond to. It's almost like you are deliberately ignoring all evidence which proves you wrong, which would explain why you are still a flat earther.
-
you are a genuine retard.
And yet I am the one who makes animations which debunk your points because you have bad spacial reasoning. Earth is a stage seems to agree now that your arguments are just plain stupid. You rarely even respond to my posts, which is strange considering that most of them on this thread are specifically meant for you to respond to. It's almost like you are deliberately ignoring all evidence which proves you wrong, which would explain why you are still a flat earther.
When i don't respond to someone's posts it means that these posts are retarded. Earth is a stage is very confused but honest guy, unlike you who are pure retard.
-
You see, bending light should also occur in a vacuum, but it doesn't. And that's why refraction isn't really bending light. And, third of all - how would you explain sunsets using refraction?
That's normally what bend means, yeah. "change in direction".
That's called bendy light. Do you want me to start quoting dictionary definitions of the word "bend" now? Because I will. Warning, it will make you look stupid.
You see, bending light should also occur in a vacuum, but it doesn't. And that's why refraction isn't really bending light. And, third of all - how would you explain sunsets using refraction?
-
you are a genuine retard.
And yet I am the one who makes animations which debunk your points because you have bad spacial reasoning. Earth is a stage seems to agree now that your arguments are just plain stupid. You rarely even respond to my posts, which is strange considering that most of them on this thread are specifically meant for you to respond to. It's almost like you are deliberately ignoring all evidence which proves you wrong, which would explain why you are still a flat earther.
When i don't respond to someone's posts it means that these posts are retarded. Earth is a stage is very confused but honest guy, but you are pure retard.
Why are they retarded? They just prove that you are a complete idiot.
-
You see, bending light should also occur in a vacuum, but it doesn't. And that's why refraction isn't really bending light. And, third of all - how would you explain sunsets using refraction?
[/quote]
Because aether is a dense medium.
And of course there is no bendy light in a vacuum. How is that even relevant??
-
You see, bending light should also occur in a vacuum, but it doesn't. And that's why refraction isn't really bending light. And, third of all - how would you explain sunsets using refraction?
Because aether is a dense medium.
And of course there is no bendy light in a vacuum. How is that even relevant??
[/quote]
How can aether be dense if it's not material? And - if aether were dense and aether were the substance filling the world up, then refraction wouldn't occur, because there wouldn't be second medium in which light was sent.
-
Why are they retarded? They just prove that you are a complete idiot.
There are lot of queers here, but you are definetely first among equal queers...Don't ever change your avatar, because we are never going to forget the face of a guy (your face) on that picture...
-
Why are they retarded? They just prove that you are a complete idiot.
There are lot of queers here, but you are definetely first among equal queers...Don't ever change your avatar, because we are never going to forget the face of a guy (your face) on that picture...
You have to be then a total idiot, not only an idiot, to don't know that that is a Doctor Evil from Austin Powers.
-
When i don't respond to someone's posts it means that these posts are retarded. Earth is a stage is very confused but honest guy, unlike you who are pure retard.
This is me whenever I read your posts:
(http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Facepalm_b5276d_747692.gif)
If my arguments are so retarded then why do you find it so hard to refute them? Earth is a stage is clearly quite an open minded guy and it wouldn't take much to prove to him that I am wrong if I were actually wrong, so why don't you do it?
So you think that my animation with thoroughly disproves your conjecture that solar eclipses somehow proves that the Earth is not round is retarded?
Cikljamas, here is an animation that I made of an eclipse:
(http://i.imgur.com/ajaqKSf.gif)
The white circle is the Sun and the grey circle is the Moon. Note how they are both moving left to right yet the Moon goes across the Sun right to left. The reason that the Moon appears to move slower in the sky then the Sun is because the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates, so it's orbital velocity is subtracted from it's apparent velocity.
Yet another one of your "proofs" debunked.
I would love to see how you respond to this, because it seems to prove that you don't understand the theory you are attempting to disprove and so straw-man arguments are the best arguments you can produce. It takes me about 2 seconds to come up with proof that you are wrong after I hear one of your "proofs", and yet you think I am the retard.
-
Ya, I doubt you can see Polaris in Australia. Are any of the figures I gave correct? Will need to research those numbers.
Ursa majoris is a big constellation and parts of it reach almost 40 degrees south from polaris. Just download a planetarium software like stellarium to figure out what you can see from where? I use it a lot to plan astrophotos and I find it's very accurate.
-
I will try that (thanks), but I am wondering how 'I' can be certain of its accuracy. Maybe I need to take an astronomy course. I would drive my instructor craxy, I am sure! lol
Here is a question: On a round earth, the distance from point A to point C, should reach the highest latitude at point B (center point of these two distances), but have the same latitude at point A and C. Yet if we make the distance from point A to point B, then they should now have the same latitude. What am I doing wrong here?
Well, I guess they would not have same latitude, but there would always be a higher point at the middle.
-
I will try that (thanks), but I am wondering how 'I' can be certain of its accuracy. Maybe I need to take an astronomy course. I would drive my instructor craxy, I am sure! lol
How about looking to see what the software says you should be able to see on a given clear night and then go outside and look?
-
Maybe I need to take an astronomy course. I would drive my instructor craxy, I am sure! lol
On the contrary, people who don't know a lot about astronomy and ask a lot of interesting questions make an astronomy class interesting. It's people like Cikljamas and Jrowe who would drive them crazy because they do this whenever you try to teach them anything:
(http://www.scorebuddy.co.uk/images/stories/employee-performance-review-not-listening.jpg)
I like you though, you seem like an open minded person without a too strong bias. Regardless of what the truth is, more people will find it if they are more like you.
-
I will try that (thanks), but I am wondering how 'I' can be certain of its accuracy. Maybe I need to take an astronomy course. I would drive my instructor craxy, I am sure! lol
How about looking to see what the software says you should be able to see on a given clear night and then go outside and look?
^ What he said. Type in your location, see what the software says you should see, go out and compare.
Stellarium is free to download and use, and it has many useful features, displaying both azimuthal and equatorial coordinate grids are especially useful if you're trying to figure out how the sky moves during the night (and day). And if you happen to get your mitts on a computerized go-to telescope mount you can hook it up to your computer, tell stellarium to show you a planet or a galaxy and your telescope will automatically point in the right direction for your viewing pleasure :)
-
Here is a question: On a round earth, the distance from point A to point C, should reach the highest latitude at point B (center point of these two distances), but have the same latitude at point A and C. Yet if we make the distance from point A to point B, then they should now have the same latitude. What am I doing wrong here?
I don't think you understand what latitude is. It increases the further north or south you travel.
-
Thanks y'all. Whatever the truth happens to be, it is rarely believed and understood by the majority. We have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the .00001%. -I didn't explain myself clearly about point A to C.
-
Thanks y'all. Whatever the truth happens to be, it is rarely believed and understood by the majority. We have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the .00001%. -I didn't explain myself clearly about point A to C.
When I said that if more people were like you then more people would know the truth I didn't mean that all people like you know the truth. Also, if we are being controlled by the 0.00001% then how do they keep people quiet like the hundreds of thousands of space agency employees who work with rockets and the data produced by them, everyone who has been to space (including with space tourism), airplane pilots (who would have surely noticed that round Earth maps are wrong based on distances if they were wrong), everyone who flies higher then 100,000 feet up, every private contractor who has built rocket parts, everyone who has done experiments proving gravity (including some teachers and students), ext? It seems to me that such a conspiracy would require at least 10% of the population to be in on it, including myself for producing the results of my sunspot observation experiment I did with Dephelis (linked in my signature).
-
I think they control the world quite easily. We are the cesspool of the universe. You seem to have some faith in humanity. lol
-
I think they control the world quite easily. We are the cesspool of the universe. You seem to have some faith in humanity. lol
You seem to think that all of humanity except for you is stupid. LOL.
-
No, I include myself. I have finally decided to stop voting. What did my voting do other than to send bombs down upon Libya! (etc)
-
No, I include myself. I have finally decided to stop voting. What did my voting do other than to send bombs down upon Libya! (etc)
So are you excluding the people who supposedly control our world with the God like intelligence that they would have to have to pull off such a thing?
-
you are a genuine retard.
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
Fixed so that you don't look like too much of a retard yourself.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/7y0Lw4Q_zpstamujbrv.jpg)
Now, before you come back saying "but there aren't 3 suns dur-hur", have a think about the following;
If you're looking at a single distant object and you take 10 steps to either side, and the object is still visible, does that mean there are two or more of that object?
Try this experiment Cikljamas, put that CD you labeled on something with the 'noon' mark pointed at light pole a mile away. Now put two pencils (one at the 6am and the other at the 6pm positions) pointed at that same light pole.
Here is the crucial part... are the pencils parallel?
There you have it. No more zig-zag.
-
No, I include myself. I have finally decided to stop voting. What did my voting do other than to send bombs down upon Libya! (etc)
Exactly . The bs that the earth is a spheroid is purely for world bank ownership , it allows them to only have to place one stake in the earth (northpole ) for their claim of ownership of the whole planet in international law. A flat earth requires them to have to stake their claimed area boundaries. Which at this point in time is an impossibility, which leaves the door open for others to claim possession & owenership of areas of earth.
-
29silhouette,
If your were right (if your argument would make sense) then the Sun would look as if it's an immovable spot in the sky, and it would be so for any observer no matter where he would be placed at the surface of the Earth.
How many times do i have to stress this elementary fact to you?
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!!!
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were somewhere between a few thousands and 100 000 km away from the Earth we would notice ZIGZAG phenomena from anywhere on the Earth, except if we were standing at the poles. At the poles the Sun would look as if it's an immovable spot in the sky!
The only way how you get no difference between results of observations of the heavenly lights that take place at the North Pole and those observations that take place at any other place on the Earth, is if you observe heavenly lights standing at the FIXED, IMMOVABLE PLACE, and if heavenly lights circle around and above you, instead of vice versa.
The point is that the Sun is very, very close to the Earth, instead of being so insanely far away as HC ludicrous theory claims that it is.
Your idiotic HC-theory generates all kinds of problems, one of which is this:
According to current HC theory :
-- The Sun is stationary (for all practical purposes in our case)
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)
Now, the question:
In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?
Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?
If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!
Our Sun is simply our reference point. Instead of the Sun we could also use some particular star (only there is no star which perfectly matches the size of the Moon).
So, i put this question once more: WHICH KIND OF MOTION IS DECISIVE, WHICH KIND OF MOTION MAKES THE DIFFERENCE???
A) ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH
B) ALLEGED ORBITAL MOTION (AROUND THE EARTH) OF THE MOON
If we are at the Equator, then the right answer is A, do you agree?
If we are at the North Pole, then the right answer is B, do you agree?
Rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator = 1666 km/h
Rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole = 0 km/h
The question is this: If we are at the North Pole, how come that the Moon is able to travel (apparently) in a direction East - West, at all?
2. Now, let's see something else, look at this picture:
(http://i.imgur.com/zOzMEcf.jpg)
If the Earth rotated between 5am-7am and between 5pm-7pm you would move BACK (5pm-7pm) and FORWARD (5am-7am) with respect to the Sun, and between 11am-1pm, and between 11pm-1am you would move LATERALLY with respect to the Sun, that is to say, you would move LEFT TO RIGHT (11pm-1am), and RIGHT TO LEFT (11am-1pm).
The degrees of Sun's displacement in these periods would be drastically different if the Earth rotated!!!
3. One question on ZIGZAG argument:
Let's suppose that you are astronomer-observer at some observatory which is placed at the edge of Arctic circle, and you observe Midnight-Sun or Noon-Moon.
If the Earth rotated you would have to slightly adjust (every few minutes or so) spatial orientation of your telescope from RIGHT TO LEFT (between 6am-6pm), and from LEFT TO RIGHT (between 6pm-6am). Right?
But it doesn't happen in reality!!!
In reality you adjust spatial orientation of your telescope ALWAYS (24 hours during one Polar Day or one Polar Night) in the SAME direction! Right?
-
...
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 your whole argument is invalid, got it.
-
You make a very interesting point Charles. Our world stands on the brink of a Rothschild's nightmare! Something really, REALLY bad is going to happen this century. (It seems to me) I am wondering if Putin may take the Ruble onto the Gold Standard? (If he hasn't already been replaced by a double) Surely we could be close to Nuclear War.
-
...
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 your whole argument is invalid, got it.
Finally!
Now if we could just get him to recognize that an observer who is rotating will see distant objects move across his field of view, he'll have it!
It's just astonishing that he goes to a lot of trouble setting up experiments to "prove" some irrelevant detail, then goes to more trouble describing a misinterpretation of what he sees, when he could just stand in one place and turn around and see all objects, far and near, move across his field of vision.
-
I will try that (thanks), but I am wondering how 'I' can be certain of its accuracy. Maybe I need to take an astronomy course. I would drive my instructor craxy, I am sure! lol
Here is a question: On a round earth, the distance from point A to point C, should reach the highest latitude at point B (center point of these two distances), but have the same latitude at point A and C. Yet if we make the distance from point A to point B, then they should now have the same latitude. What am I doing wrong here?
Well, I guess they would not have same latitude, but there would always be a higher point at the middle.
The thing here is that yes, on a sphere, there would always be a higher point. A perfect sphere, however is just a 3D object with an infinite number of sides. The earth is not a sphere. It's close, but covered in mountains and slightly pear-shaped.
-
Something really, REALLY bad is going to happen this century.
Well, there's a prophecy that's almost certain to be right.
-
...
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 your whole argument is invalid, got it.
Finally!
Now if we could just get him to recognize that an observer who is rotating will see distant objects move across his field of view, he'll have it!
It's just astonishing that he goes to a lot of trouble setting up experiments to "prove" some irrelevant detail, then goes to more trouble describing a misinterpretation of what he sees, when he could just stand in one place and turn around and see all objects, far and near, move across his field of vision.
He will never admit this. He will say you are misquoting him. I am awestruck as to why he still hangs on to this zig zag idea. I guess he just cannot handle being shown he is wrong about anything. Seems pretty closed minded to me. Way to think for yourself there.
-
Mike, I think the 0.00001% are smarter than the average person. (or at least more knowledgeable in their area of expertise) This interesting video, shows how the .00001% can control everything, and that includes Nasa!
(http://#)
-
Trust me, I'm not the average person. I'm no better than anyone else, but I'm most definitely not average. The nice gentleman who puts me in the straight jacket at night told me so.
-
You make a very interesting point Charles. Our world stands on the brink of a Rothschild's nightmare! Something really, REALLY bad is going to happen this century. (It seems to me) I am wondering if Putin may take the Ruble onto the Gold Standard? (If he hasn't already been replaced by a double) Surely we could be close to Nuclear War.
Well jfk tried to bringing a note of worth back in to circulation , to end the privetly owned fedaral reserve & debt notes & debt slavery. Or at least have the intrest put back in to the country, its citizens prosperity & well being , Cost him his life. Putin will probably end the same way .
-
Mike, I think the 0.00001% are smarter than the average person. (or at least more knowledgeable in their area of expertise) This interesting video, shows how the .00001% can control everything, and that includes Nasa!
(http://#)
Wouldn't the 50% be smarter than the average person. Do you know what 'average' means?
-
Sokarul, it seems that you even believe Moon landings really had occurred, ha?
Enjoy watching my new video : Flat Earth - Apollo lies : (http://)
-
I was too busy watching the sun set without getting smaller to watch that video.
-
I was too busy watching the sun set without getting smaller to watch that video.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZweufA.jpg)
How do you manage to watch the sun set keeping you head in the send?
-
I was too busy watching the sun set without getting smaller to watch that video.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZweufA.jpg)
How do you manage to watch the sun set keeping you head in the send?
How do you manage to remain ignorant enough to believe FET even though the Sun sets?
-
I was too busy watching the sun set without getting smaller to watch that video.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZweufA.jpg)
How do you manage to watch the sun set keeping you head in the send?
Sokarul isn't the one who ran away from this thread http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1659190#msg1659190 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62793.msg1659190#msg1659190).
How is life as an ostrich?
-
The Moon is a globe, they say:
Model of a Lunar Globe:
(http://i.imgur.com/M8DkUWE.jpg)
Where did i get this photo?
Here (Secretive 'NGA' Satellite Mapping Agency) : https://www.nga.mil/About/History/Apollo%2011/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.nga.mil/About/History/Apollo%2011/Pages/default.aspx)
Interesting theory:
Flight 4U9525: Pentagon Contractor Worked for Secretive 'NGA' Satellite Mapping Agency : (http://)
-
The Moon is a globe, they say:
Model of a Lunar Globe:
http://i.imgur.com/M8DkUWE.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/M8DkUWE.jpg)
Where did i get this photo?
Here (Secretive 'NGA' Satellite Mapping Agency) : https://www.nga.mil/About/History/Apollo%2011/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.nga.mil/About/History/Apollo%2011/Pages/default.aspx)
Interesting theory:
Flight 4U9525: Pentagon Contractor Worked for Secretive 'NGA' Satellite Mapping Agency : <youtube link>
The Moon is a globe. It's been mapped. OK. Do you have a point?
What is in the video you linked that would make it worth watching? Your teaser is hardly compelling.
-
HELIOCENTRICITY IS DEAD: http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sun-rising-moon-setting-Captiva-nice-photo-2.jpg (http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sun-rising-moon-setting-Captiva-nice-photo-2.jpg)
http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
Why is this agency more secretive than NSA, CIA, FBI altogether?
Beside many other things, they certainly know the real shape of the Earth! Don't they?
This agency is more secretive than NSA, CIA, FBI altogether : (http://)
A few interesting comments below this video:
-America using the excuse of fighting terrorism that they are behind ton invade ppl's privacy and break just about every law
-We've had high level CIA and NSA whistle-blowers but we've never had a high level Pentagon whistle-blower (only Private Chelsea Manning). Shows you who really pulls the strings. The Pentagon probably whacks them at the first sign of disobedience without batting an eyelash.
-Bin Laden died over 10 years ago from a lung disease...
-'Catching Osama Bin Laden'? Lol. Great liars, too! Google needs to change its motto.
-
I was too busy watching the sun set without getting smaller to watch that video.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZweufA.jpg)
How do you manage to watch the sun set keeping you head in the send?
It doesn't work the way you think it works.
HELIOCENTRICITY IS DEAD: http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sun-rising-moon-setting-Captiva-nice-photo-2.jpg (http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sun-rising-moon-setting-Captiva-nice-photo-2.jpg)
blah blah blah
The moon set in the east? That would make world headlines. Next time actually look at the picture before you post it. It's not the moon in that picture.
-
HELIOCENTRICITY IS DEAD:
AGAIN? (http://)
But that trick never works!
http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sun-rising-moon-setting-Captiva-nice-photo-2.jpg (http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sun-rising-moon-setting-Captiva-nice-photo-2.jpg)
Is that even the Moon? It doesn't look like it. How can we know? Is whatever it is rising, or setting? How can we know? What direction are we looking? How can we know?
<another energeticforum link>
Why is this agency more secretive than NSA, CIA, FBI altogether?
They work with classified data. It says so on their website you linked to in your previous post. I don't know about "more secretive" than those other agencies. They have a website, after all (you linked to it, remember?) Apparently they make classified maps; maybe nobody really cares all that much what they're doing (unlike CIA and NSA), so they "fly under the radar".
Beside many other things, they certainly know the real shape of the Earth! Don't they?
I'm certain they do. So do about 99.999% of the world's population. That's hardly classified information.
This agency is more secretive than NSA, CIA, FBI altogether : <youtube video>
A few interesting comments below this video:
-America using the excuse of fighting terrorism that they are behind ton invade ppl's privacy and break just about every law
-We've had high level CIA and NSA whistle-blowers but we've never had a high level Pentagon whistle-blower [ ::) ] (only Private Chelsea Manning) [ ::) ]. Shows you who really pulls the strings. The Pentagon probably whacks them at the first sign of disobedience without batting an eyelash.
-Bin Laden died over 10 years ago from a lung disease...
-'Catching Osama Bin Laden'? Lol. Great liars, too! Google needs to change its motto.
Well, if it says that stuff in a youtube video it just has to be true. ::) But what do any of these "revelations" have to do with the shape of the Earth? Of course other youtube videos show the ISS orbiting above an obviously spherical earth, so those have to be the truth too, right?
[Edit] Typo.
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
One another photography of that type : http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg (http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg)
One another interesting photography : http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg)
Oops..They get caught....moon and sun together (again) : http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73023528 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73023528)
And again, and again, and again :
http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg)
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
One another photography of that type : http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg (http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg)
One another interesting photography : http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg)
Oops..They get caught....moon and sun together (again) : http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73023528 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73023528)
And again, and again, and again :
http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg)
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
I say they they are fake. I am not just saying that because it goes against what I believe, I have a legitimate reason to believe it:
Here is one of your images:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg)
I thought the Sun and Moon appeared to be the same size in the sky, and they both look like they are the same brightness.
Here is another image:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg)
This one looks real at first glance, but the give away has to do with brightness. Look at the ground in that image and you will notice that it is very dark, you can also see the Sun well enough to make out a disk so clearly this was a short exposure photograph. Yet the Moon looks nice and bright as if it were taken with a longer exposure at night. Have you ever seen the Moon in the day? It's almost overpowered by the brightness of the Sky. So how does the Moon look so bright in such a short exposure photograph? Answer: Photoshop. You can even see a black outline around the Moon where it was cut out of another image and pasted into this one.
-
Hey mike look at the first image with the two suns. Check the foreground buildings and the background buildings. Look at the placement of the sun in respect to both sets of buildings and suns. Its a picture that is overlaid with a blown up copy of itself, or a zoomed out one, can't decide on which is the lower level of the overlay, but the closer sun looks like it had the cloud covering removed via photoshop.
But cik never posts fake images... no way. We must have two suns.
-
...
One another photography of that type : http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg (http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg)
One another interesting photography : http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg)
...
You do realize those are long exposures right? You can tell by how much of the dark part of the moon can be seen. Thanks for the round earth pictures.
Also like mikeman said, you probably shouldn't post fake pictures as evidence.
When is the next time the moon and sun can be seen so close together?
-
Also the two sun one was a fake photo used on a Nibiru disaster website. Yep the world ended in 2012. The other one Mike showed from there is ripped off from Dan Heller photography, they just cropped out the watermark.
(http://www.danheller.com/images/LatinAmerica/Cuba/Scenics/sun-moon-big.jpg)
Some of the others are sun flare reflections on the camera lenses.
ZIG ZAG is dead.
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
No. Can you describe in general terms what it says? In the past, all the energeticforum links you have given have been to posts by you that are at least as erroneous as the ones you post here, so an utter waste of time.
One another photography of that type :
<Apparently links to pictures of sun and/or moon... see comments by others.>
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
Why do you say the Sun is on the horizon? Given the lack of distinct shadows as well as the position of earth's shadow on the Moon (yes, that is what's eclipsing the Moon), the Sun is obviously below the horizon. This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse (http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEping/2001-2100/LE2011-12-10T.gif) from Colorado. It's a cool picture. What revelation do you think it's supposed to convey?
-
The funny thing is he doesn't know what it means, someone else probably posted something and he fell hook line and sinker, again.
-
29silhouette,
If your were right
I am.
(if your argument would make sense)
It does to anyone smart enough to understand it.
then the Sun would look as if it's an immovable spot in the sky, and it would be so for any observer no matter where he would be placed at the surface of the Earth.
As long as one can track it until the horizon gets in the way at sunset.
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
Wow... That's what we've been telling you for quite some time.
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!!!
If we rotate from west to east, then the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were somewhere between a few thousands and 100 000 km away from the Earth we would notice ZIGZAG phenomena from anywhere on the Earth, except if we were standing at the poles. At the poles the Sun would look as if it's an immovable spot in the sky!
And since we don't notice your zigzag phenomena...
The point is that the Sun is very, very close to the Earth, instead of being so insanely far away as HC ludicrous theory claims that it is.
Then why does it look like it's far away?
If the Earth rotated between 5am-7am and between 5pm-7pm you would move BACK (5pm-7pm) and FORWARD (5am-7am) with respect to the Sun, and between 11am-1pm, and between 11pm-1am you would move LATERALLY with respect to the Sun, that is to say, you would move LEFT TO RIGHT (11pm-1am), and RIGHT TO LEFT (11am-1pm).
Indeed.
The degrees of Sun's displacement in these periods would be drastically different if the Earth rotated!!!
If I understand what you're trying to say... no, it wouldn't.
If the Earth rotated you would have to slightly adjust (every few minutes or so) spatial orientation of your telescope from RIGHT TO LEFT (between 6am-6pm), and from LEFT TO RIGHT (between 6pm-6am). Right?
No.
But it doesn't happen in reality!!!
Correct.
In reality you adjust spatial orientation of your telescope ALWAYS (24 hours during one Polar Day or one Polar Night) in the SAME direction! Right?
Yes. This is the result of the sun being 92,000,000 miles away and Earth being a rotating sphere. You can verify all this with a simple desktop globe.
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
One another photography of that type : http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg (http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg)
One another interesting photography : http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg)
Oops..They get caught....moon and sun together (again) : http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73023528 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73023528)
And again, and again, and again :
http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg)
http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg (http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg)
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
I say they they are fake. I am not just saying that because it goes against what I believe, I have a legitimate reason to believe it:
Here is one of your images:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg)
I thought the Sun and Moon appeared to be the same size in the sky, and they both look like they are the same brightness.
Here is another image:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg)
This one looks real at first glance, but the give away has to do with brightness. Look at the ground in that image and you will notice that it is very dark, you can also see the Sun well enough to make out a disk so clearly this was a short exposure photograph. Yet the Moon looks nice and bright as if it were taken with a longer exposure at night. Have you ever seen the Moon in the day? It's almost overpowered by the brightness of the Sky. So how does the Moon look so bright in such a short exposure photograph? Answer: Photoshop. You can even see a black outline around the Moon where it was cut out of another image and pasted into this one.
I cant speak for those photos ,but I can tell you first hand iv seen the sun rise regularly with the moon visible in that positioning . The moon is so often seen in the sky most days with the sun . Young children who are in bed before dark fall , dont associate the moon with night time anymore , but instead with day time.
-
Thank you captain obvious. The moon can be seen during the day depending on it's phase. It's just never seen that close to the sun.
-
I cant speak for those photos ,but I can tell you first hand iv seen the sun rise regularly with the moon visible in that positioning . The moon is so often seen in the sky most days with the sun . Young children who are in bed before dark fall , dont associate the moon with night time anymore , but instead with day time.
I said that a full Moon right next to the Sun is impossible, I am not saying that the Moon is never visable in the day, it's usually just a crescent phase when it's visable in the day though.
Thank you captain obvious. The moon can be seen during the day depending on it's phase. It's just never seen that close to the sun.
No, it's just never visable with that phase that close to the Sun.
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
No. Can you describe in general terms what it says? In the past, all the energeticforum links you have given have been to posts by you that are at least as erroneous as the ones you post here, so an utter waste of time.
One another photography of that type :
<Apparently links to pictures of sun and/or moon... see comments by others.>
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
Why do you say the Sun is on the horizon? Given the lack of distinct shadows as well as the position of earth's shadow on the Moon (yes, that is what's eclipsing the Moon), the Sun is obviously below the horizon. This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse (http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEping/2001-2100/LE2011-12-10T.gif) from Colorado. It's a cool picture. What revelation do you think it's supposed to convey?
Regarding your first question: Just click on the link : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
As for our "mysterious" Lunar eclipse, let's see it here:
(http://i.imgur.com/9N7viSi.jpg)
Now, draw me a diagram, and show me how this could be (geometrically possible) on the round Earth?
-
As for our "mysterious" Lunar eclipse, let's see it here:
(http://i.imgur.com/N4a9y5Q.jpg)
Now, draw me a diagram, and show me how this could be (geometrically possible) on the round Earth?
That is clearly an eclipse and the lack of shadows on the ground suggest that the Sun has just set or is about to rise. I will draw you a diagram when I get home to my computer.
-
Kansas, flat as a pancake. Not convex, not concave! I would like to see a serious experiment done, somehow involving an entire continant.
-
Kansas, flat as a pancake. Not convex, not concave!
That measurement takes curvature into account and it was taken with satellites which supposedly don't exist.
Do you see how easy flat earther claims are to debunk? I wonder why that is (not really).
-
Kansas, flat as a pancake. Not convex, not concave! I would like to see a serious experiment done, somehow involving an entire continant.
That's an excellent idea! What's stopping you? If you don't know how to survey yet, you might start by checking your local community college or technical college for courses. Maybe locate a retired old-school land surveyor for advice and tutoring. Since mechanical transits are no longer used by professionals, you may be able to buy one for a song, and one that's in decent condition should be more than adequate for this if you know how to use it.
Kansas would be a terrific place to start, too. Most of the state is covered by a grid of rural roads on one-mile spacing. I've suggested mapping Iowa in the "Expedition" thread, but got no comments; Kansas is bigger, population is sparser, especially in the western portion, but still shouldn't pose a problem for provisioning, and the grid is not quite as complete, but should be an excellent starting point if you'd rather do it than Iowa.
Be sure to keep us updated on your progress.
-
Yes, I am very intersested. However, my one worry is that I will get a bullet in my head!
-
Kansas, flat as a pancake. Not convex, not concave! I would like to see a serious experiment done, somehow involving an entire continant.
Imagine the whole of north America is 1 meter above sea level. Every single square meter. It would be flat. It would still follow the curvature of the earth. Every location would be equidistant to the earths centre of gravity. That's what "flat" is on a sphere.
-
Yes, I am very intersested. However, my one worry is that I will get a bullet in my head!
Considering that this forum still exists and that it's so easy to find, it's obvious that either there is no conspiracy or the conspiracy doesn't give a flying chainsaw that flat earthers exist. Either way, you are safe to experiment.
-
How about you do the experiment? I assume Kansas from point A to point B, would be level with each other, but in the center it would need to be hundreds (maybe thousnds) of feet higher. Good point weatherwax. It is not so easy to prove anything.
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
No. Can you describe in general terms what it says? In the past, all the energeticforum links you have given have been to posts by you that are at least as erroneous as the ones you post here, so an utter waste of time.
One another photography of that type :
<Apparently links to pictures of sun and/or moon... see comments by others.>
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
Why do you say the Sun is on the horizon? Given the lack of distinct shadows as well as the position of earth's shadow on the Moon (yes, that is what's eclipsing the Moon), the Sun is obviously below the horizon. This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse (http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEping/2001-2100/LE2011-12-10T.gif) from Colorado. It's a cool picture. What revelation do you think it's supposed to convey?
Regarding your first question: Just click on the link : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
Since you can't be bothered to explain why I would want to, I can't be bothered to go there. To date, every post there that you have linked to has been an total waste of time. I guess this is no different.
As for our "mysterious" Lunar eclipse, let's see it here:
(http://i.imgur.com/9N7viSi.jpg)
Now, draw me a diagram, and show me how this could be (geometrically possible) on the round Earth?
I don't take orders from you. Maybe mikeman7918 will do this for you because he enjoys doing stuff like this. Meanwhile, diagrams explaining eclipses are easy to find; see if you can figure it out for yourself. If you still can't figure it out, ask nicely about the part that confuses you.
Eclipses aren't mysterious at all once you realize the Earth is spherical and the Sun is large and very far away. Once you reach that obvious conclusion, it all becomes very easy to understand. They're mysterious if you start with the supposition that earth is flat and the Moon and Sun are nearby. Starting from there you have real problems trying to figure them out.
-
How about you do the experiment? I assume Kansas from point A to point B, would be level with each other, but in the center it would need to be hundreds (maybe thousnds) of feet higher. Good point weatherwax. It is not so easy to prove anything.
You're the one that said he wanted to see the experiment done. So how about stepping away from the keyboard and doing it instead of just sitting around whining that someone else should do it for you.
Survey a few hundred square miles and see if your loops close with and without taking curvature of the Earth into consideration. You don't have to tell anybody why you're out there; just say you just took a surveying course and are practicing.
-
How about you do the experiment? I assume Kansas from point A to point B, would be level with each other, but in the center it would need to be hundreds (maybe thousnds) of feet higher. Good point weatherwax. It is not so easy to prove anything.
The width of Kansas is 417 miles and given that I can calculate the exact bulge created by the curvature of the Earth. Kansas takes up 0.052 radians or 2.987 degrees and some trigenometry reveals that it's maximum bulge is approximately 10 miles or 43,800 feet. You were right about how big it is, but once again that was accounted for when the flatness if Kansas was measured and it was also done by satellites which you believe don't exist.
-
So your quite confident I would find this 10 mile bulge smack in the middle of Kansas? I am not certain how to do the test. Plumb lines are no use, unless I could drop a couple down deep holes, and see how they move in relation to each other. I have tried to find the inforation on line, but will need to keep searching. The test seems difficult. ...
-
So your quite confident I would find this 10 mile bulge smack in the middle of Kansas? I am not certain how to do the test. Plumb lines are no use, unless I could drop a couple down deep holes, and see how they move in relation to each other. I have tried to find the inforation on line, but will need to keep searching. The test seems difficult. ...
I did some math and I have determined that from across Kansas (on a flat Earth) an object that's at least 10 feet high and 10 feet wide could be seen with a really high quality telescope, but obviously you would need a less powerful telescope if the object was bigger, and there are some big objects that already exist which you can use. Kansas city is on the edge of Kansas and if the Earth were flat then from the other side of Kansas you would be able to see the tallest buildings with a low end cheap telescope or even a pair of binoculars. Needless to say, if the Earth were round then the 10 mile bulge would block your view of Kansas cite form the other side of Kansas.
-
It sounds good in theory, but what if there are other reasons for not being able to see Kansas City? I wish we could just drop a 400 mile "level" down on Kansas. Maybe the best way is to unwind a string from one tower (at one end) to a tower at the other end. Then pull on the string tightly, and if it doesn't snap, and if it remains above ground the entire 400 miles, then it is a flat state of Kansas. I worry the illuminati keep tabs, and so it is foolish of me to even be on this website. Maybe they like to keep some people alive, just out of curiosity.
-
It sounds good in theory, but what if there are other reasons for not being able to see Kansas City? I wish we could just drop a 400 mile "yard" stick down on Kansas. Maybe the best way is to unwind a string from one tower (at one end) to a tower at the other end. Then pull on the string tightly, and if it doesn't snap, and if it remains above ground the entire 400 miles, then it is a flat state of Kansas. I worry the illuminati are listening, and so it is foolish of me to even be on this website.
The problem with your string idea is that for a string to be perfectly strait with gravity (or whatever all the flat earthers say it is now) pulling it down it needs to have infinite tension, otherwise it will become a parabola shape. Also, even if you were to use paracord (which is very light and very strong) then it wouldn't work because it's not light and strong enough. The strongest paracord I could find (this paracord (http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/aircore_plus_spectra_cord.html#.VRyCTpPgz9I) to be precise) has a tensile strength of 1,100 pounds and a weight of 0.036 ounces per foot, meaning that a length of paracord the length of Kansas is 6,655 pounds which is 6 times what the paracord could handle if it were just dangling vertically, but in this case there is no vertical dangling going on. If you were to stretch a paracord across Kansas and both ends were held a full mile in the air (that way it could work with less tensile strength) and allowed it to almost touch the ground in the middle then the paracord would have 2,754,401 pounds of force on it at either end, which is about 2,504 times what the paracord can handle.
You are going to need a different approach if you are going to prove the shape of the Earth, because that's not going to work.
-
You, see? Nothing is so simple! Might that not be the same with your telescope example?
I keep hearing about curvature of earth, but don't see any in this video. I also don't see any rotation of the earth. lol
-
I keep hearing about curvature of earth, but don't see any in this video.
Here is an image from your video at 13:32 with some lines added:
(http://i.imgur.com/pPfBarZ.png)
The yellow line follows the horizon while the red line is perfectly strait. Do you notice something? Yeah, diverge in the middle. The reason I picked that frame is because the horizon is at the lower part of the screen meaning that any fish eye lensing would cause the Earth to look more concave then it really is, yet it looks quite convex. Thank you for proving my point: the Earth is round.
I also don't see any rotation of the earth. lol
Yeah, that's because the air moves with the Earth and the balloon moves with the air.
-
Oh, I understand the reason given for the rotation of the air, that it is the 'friction' of the earth. Is that a reasonable explanation, or an ad hoc explanation? Even above the clouds? That doesn't cause you to scratch your head?
-
Oh, I understand the reason given for the rotation of the air, that it is the 'friction' of the earth. Is that a reasonable explanation, or an ad hoc explanation? Even above the clouds? That doesn't cause you to scratch your head?
Outside the atmosphere is just empty space and the only force acting on the atmosphere is friction from the Earth. There are no forces holding it back or slowing it down and so even a stationary atmosphere on a spinning planet will eventually accelerate to spin with the planet. The upper layers of the atmosphere have friction with the lower layers of the atmosphere which have friction with the ground, so it makes sense that the whole atmosphere would spin with the Earth.
-
Ya, well I would love to see a scientific experiment proving this theory to be correct. How many feet do you have to be above the earth, before it is not rotating with the earth? 100 000 ft?
-
Ya, well I would love to see a scientific experiment proving this theory to be correct. How many feet do you have to be above the earth, before it is not rotating with the earth? 100 000 ft?
There is no real limit because air has friction with it's self and so if air is moving below it then it will start moving with that air.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FgRBn8h.jpg)
-
I keep hearing about curvature of earth, but don't see any in this video.
Here is an image from your video at 13:32 with some lines added:
(http://i.imgur.com/pPfBarZ.png)
The yellow line follows the horizon while the red line is perfectly strait. Do you notice something? Yeah, diverge in the middle. The reason I picked that frame is because the horizon is at the lower part of the screen meaning that any fish eye lensing would cause the Earth to look more concave then it really is, yet it looks quite convex. Thank you for proving my point: the Earth is round.
I also don't see any rotation of the earth. lol
Yeah, that's because the air moves with the Earth and the balloon moves with the air.
yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?
-
Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
No. Can you describe in general terms what it says? In the past, all the energeticforum links you have given have been to posts by you that are at least as erroneous as the ones you post here, so an utter waste of time.
One another photography of that type :
<Apparently links to pictures of sun and/or moon... see comments by others.>
Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137 (http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137)
Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?
Why do you say the Sun is on the horizon? Given the lack of distinct shadows as well as the position of earth's shadow on the Moon (yes, that is what's eclipsing the Moon), the Sun is obviously below the horizon. This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse (http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEping/2001-2100/LE2011-12-10T.gif) from Colorado. It's a cool picture. What revelation do you think it's supposed to convey?
Regarding your first question: Just click on the link : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html)
Since you can't be bothered to explain why I would want to, I can't be bothered to go there. To date, every post there that you have linked to has been an total waste of time. I guess this is no different.
As for our "mysterious" Lunar eclipse, let's see it here:
(http://i.imgur.com/9N7viSi.jpg)
Now, draw me a diagram, and show me how this could be (geometrically possible) on the round Earth?
I don't take orders from you. Maybe mikeman7918 will do this for you because he enjoys doing stuff like this. Meanwhile, diagrams explaining eclipses are easy to find; see if you can figure it out for yourself. If you still can't figure it out, ask nicely about the part that confuses you.
Eclipses aren't mysterious at all once you realize the Earth is spherical and the Sun is large and very far away. Once you reach that obvious conclusion, it all becomes very easy to understand. They're mysterious if you start with the supposition that earth is flat and the Moon and Sun are nearby. Starting from there you have real problems trying to figure them out.
Why is it so hard for you to move your ass just a little bit?
(http://i.imgur.com/J1vmv9U.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/opI8Eh0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/j9L2MO9.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/OZ6QuEd.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/kkGGZCl.jpg)
-
yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?
I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.
-
Cikljamas, how can the sun be over the area right under Florida, but it be before sunrise in Colorado. You should probably fix your pictures.
-
Why is it so hard for you to move your ass just a little bit?
Excuse me?
(http://i.imgur.com/J1vmv9U.jpg)
Why do you have the time set for 23:40 UTC (16:40 MST)? That's about 9 hours after maximum eclipse, and almost 10 hours since that photo was taken. The Total phase began at 14:06 UTC and ended at 14:57 UTC. The Moon was over the western Pacific Ocean at the time of maximum eclipse, not over Africa.
I do apologize for one error. I misread the chart and interpreted this eclipse as in progress at moonrise where the photo was taken. It's actually in progress at moonset. So instead of:
This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse (http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEping/2001-2100/LE2011-12-10T.gif) from Colorado.
It should be:
This is a long exposure in twilight not long before sunrise and the Moon is entering totality as it's setting. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse (http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEdisk/2001-2100/LE2011Dec10T.pdf) from Colorado.
I had the meanings of the dark grey and white areas of the initial chart reversed, and should have used the chart linked in the correction instead. It explicitly says what the shadings mean.
Apologies for any confusion.
Nonetheless, all of the following illustrations are meaningless for this conversation because the positions depicted for the Sun and Moon are wrong by nine hours or so!
http://i.imgur.com/opI8Eh0.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/opI8Eh0.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/j9L2MO9.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/j9L2MO9.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/OZ6QuEd.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/OZ6QuEd.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/kkGGZCl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/kkGGZCl.jpg)
-
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:
(http://i.imgur.com/OV0YRXf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/igsbFw8.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/laynfUl.jpg)
-
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:
Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?
northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2011_lunar_eclipse)
-
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:
http://i.imgur.com/OV0YRXf.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/OV0YRXf.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/igsbFw8.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/igsbFw8.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/laynfUl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/laynfUl.jpg)
The Moon is not located at the surface of the Earth as you depict here; it's located about a quarter million miles above it. If you draw a straight line from any point on a sphere to any different point on the sphere, the entire line will be inside the sphere. Your illustrations show nothing but that you completely misunderstand what you're trying to demonstrate.
Relocate your moon to a point 30 globe-diameters directly away from the center through the sub-lunar point and see what your sightlines look like.
-
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:
Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?
northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2011_lunar_eclipse)
For the same reason you "can't" see Polaris below the Equator!
-
yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?
I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.
well have a conservative guess . I would say over that span ,if the earth was spherical.You would have a very very noticed curvature. Which is not being displayed in that photograph .
-
yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?
I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.
well have a conservative guess . I would say over that span ,if the earth was spherical.You would have a very very noticed curvature. Which is not being displayed in that photograph .
Seriously? You don't see the curvature that I pointed out with the lines? The red line is perfectly strait and the yellow line is not parallel with it even though it intersects the red line at two points. That's called curvature. My guess is that the horizon spans about 20 miles and the curvature we see is about what we would expect on a round Earth. Now how do you flat earthers explain the distinct curvature seen on the Earth even though in that particular shot any fish eye effects would make the Earth look concave? This is going to be interesting.
-
yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?
I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.
well have a conservative guess . I would say over that span ,if the earth was spherical.You would have a very very noticed curvature. Which is not being displayed in that photograph .
I don't think that's taken at a high enough altitude for curvature to be demonstrated. Even a normal lens will often display a small amount of distortion in either direction, and as the height is well below the cloud level it's perfectly possible that the horizon there is limited by local hazing in places, causing it to be misrepresented.
Seriously? You don't see the curvature that I pointed out with the lines? The red line is perfectly strait and the yellow line is not parallel with it even though it intersects the red line at two points. That's called curvature. My guess is that the horizon spans about 20 miles and the curvature we see is about what we would expect on a round Earth. Now how do you flat earthers explain the distinct curvature seen on the Earth even though in that particular shot any fish eye effects would make the Earth look concave? This is going to be interesting.
-
I don't believe they used fish eye lens. It seems to me your fancy two lines, might be nothing more than imagination and wishful thinking.
-
The same thing could be said for any of the horizon lines I have seen to show the flat horizon. I have seen obvious thicker lines than needed to cover up the actual horizon, obvious places where you can see the same level of horizon above the straight lines drawn.
Remember this also, For Round Earth, we require no conspiracy of millions of people (there are 7.125 billion people in the world, 0.001% of that is 7.125 million). The larger and more people who belong to a conspiracy the faster it will fall apart. Things that we use every day are possible. Reality matches up with it. Whats a simpler solution to you? The sun sinks below the horizon during sunset because A we live on a rotation sphere and it is on the other side of the world, or B it disappeared because it got too far away, all while being magnified and then its light was bent in just the right way to look like option A but using some form of substance that cannot be measured?
-
We live in a gutter world. Deceit is everywhere. The figure I gave was .00001% You may simply be too nice of an individual to believe the worst about humanity. Humanity is getting worse, not better. It is viscous, vile, merciless, arrogant, and resembles the titanic.
-
If you really pay attention, you will see that there is actually more good than bad in the world. The bad is just what sells news stories.
I do not completely agree with Thomas Hobbes. He says Man is a Wolf, when left to his own devices he will only do what benefits himself.
I think we are more social than that, if we can work together, we will.
BTW I wasn't trying to pull your percentage of who you thought were in control, I was using 1 tenth of 1 percent of the population, which is a very small percentage of humans in the grand scheme of tings.
-
well have a conservative guess . I would say over that span ,if the earth was spherical.You would have a very very noticed curvature. Which is not being displayed in that photograph .
mikeman7918 noticed it; that makes it noticeable. How much would it take to be "a very very [noticeable] curvature"? Over what span? On what basis do you categorize "a conservative guess" as "conservative"?
Specifics, please. Not ambiguous, yet still meaningless, words.
-
If you really pay attention, you will see that there is actually more good than bad in the world. The bad is just what sells news stories.
I do not completely agree with Thomas Hobbes. He says Man is a Wolf, when left to his own devices he will only do what benefits himself.
I think we are more social than that, if we can work together, we will.
BTW I wasn't trying to pull your percentage of who you thought were in control, I was using 1 tenth of 1 percent of the population, which is a very small percentage of humans in the grand scheme of tings.
really? I thought you were just another bank employee .
-
If you really pay attention, you will see that there is actually more good than bad in the world. The bad is just what sells news stories.
I do not completely agree with Thomas Hobbes. He says Man is a Wolf, when left to his own devices he will only do what benefits himself.
I think we are more social than that, if we can work together, we will.
BTW I wasn't trying to pull your percentage of who you thought were in control, I was using 1 tenth of 1 percent of the population, which is a very small percentage of humans in the grand scheme of tings.
Everything depends on the kind of a worldview (philosophy) that you convey to your children (future generation).
If you teach them obvious lies (which has been disproved scientifically), then you shouldn't expect better future for your children (if any)...
7. “Imperceptibly, through decades of gradual erosion, the meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the ‘pursuit of happiness’, a goal that has even been solemnly guaranteed by constitutions. The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. The West is ineluctably slipping toward the abyss. Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism. If a blasphemous film about Jesus is shown throughout the United States, reputedly one of the most religious countries in the world, or a major newspaper publishes a shameless caricature of the Virgin Mary, what further evidence of godlessness does one need?” (Solzhenitsyn 1984, Issue 36). READ MORE : http://www.energeticforum.com/254609-post19.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254609-post19.html)
Even if you admitted TOMORROW, that....
1. Heliocentricity has been (long ago) 100 % scientifically disproved stupid lie
2. Theory of evolution is 100 % scientifically disproved disgusting lie
3. Theory of relativity has been invented to save Heliocentric theory from total collapse after disasterous results of Airy's failure experiment, Michaelson-Morley experiment, and many other experiments that had been performed at the end of 19th century.
4. The true shape of the Earth is in accordance with Flat-Earth concept (and i explained what it means here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224) (bolded sentence))
...human suffering wouldn't cease, wars and death would not be expelled or miraculously vanish from our reality, the Earth will still be a valley of death and sorrow, because we will still have to die and weep our tears....
But if you deliberately continue to lie your fellow man just about everything that really matters (as Carl Sagan had been doing and as other worshipers of the Devil still do), then you have no basis for saying things like this : "there is actually more good than bad in the world", because you yourself is the one who deliberately spreads the most fundamental lies, and what begins with lie ends with death and sorrow.
John 8:44 (BBE) You are the children of your father the Evil One and it is your pleasure to do his desires. From the first he was a taker of life; and he did not go in the true way because there is no true thing in him. When he says what is false, it is natural to him, for he is false and the father of what is false.
John 8:44 (CEB) Your father is the devil. You are his children, and you want to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has never stood for the truth, because there's no truth in him. Whenever that liar speaks, he speaks according to his own nature, because he's a liar and the father of liars.
John 8:44 (CJB) You belong to your father, Satan, and you want to carry out your father's desires. From the start he was a murderer, and he has never stood by the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is speaking in character; because he is a liar -- indeed, the inventor of the lie!
-
1. Heliocentricity has been (long ago) 100 % scientifically disproved stupid lie
2. Theory of evolution is 100 % scientifically disproved disgusting lie
3. Theory of relativity has been invented to save Heliocentric theory from total collapse after disasterous results of Airy's failure experiment, Michaelson-Morley experiment, and many other experiments that had been performed at the end of 19th century.
1. Prove it.
2. Prove it.
3. Prove it.
-
So if I am reading your response correctly, I see the good in humanity therefore I am evil. Also I think about things, provide explanations that actually work, give you real experiences of my own that disprove your notions, I am backed up by mathematical proofs, thousands of years of science, a better understanding of the real world (not just what someone else in their mom's basement says to me), and I do not require some insanely huge conspiracy, but I am the one who lies.
Then you tried to take a crack at how I raise my children also. This bub, you do not stray into. I am proud of all four of my children, they are well adjusted, very intelligent people. I encourage them to find out things on their own. This is also why we home school them. I can give them all sources of information, not just what some lawmaker decides they should learn. They understand concepts that you obviously do not. So yeah be jealous of them if you wish.
You have yet to show me where I have lied, about anything. I however have shown your obvious deception with some pictures you posted, trying to pawn them off as something else. But hey, I know its what Eric Dubay told you so I guess thinking for yourself means whatever he tells you to think. Yet I am the one who has a closed mind.
Yep you sure told me huh.
-
I suspect everyone debating in this "global conspiracy" forum, would put my own life to shame. lol While I do not see any good in regard to humanity, I don't place this upon individuals. Maybe I should apologize about my negativety. It is great that you home school, your children Mikey. That takes a real commitment. I think there will be some great independent thinkers born out of homeschooling. Personally, I have a problem with relativity. It seems inherently contridictory. Just think of the twin paradox.
-
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:
Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?
northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2011_lunar_eclipse)
For the same reason you "can't" see Polaris below the Equator!
aha, but I the thing is that I can see Polaris from anywhere north of the equator, no need to look through earth. Just like there was no need to look through earth to see the Moon at the time of that eclipse since it was above the horizon. Your answer really didn't help to clear the confusion ???
-
I suspect everyone debating in this "global conspiracy" forum, would put my own life to shame. lol While I do not see any good in regard to humanity, I don't place this upon individuals. Maybe I should apologize about my negativety. It is great that you home school, your children Mikey. That takes a real commitment. I think there will be some great independent thinkers born out of homeschooling. Personally, I have a problem with relativity. It seems inherently contridictory. Just think of the twin paradox.
Do not sell yourself short. Every moment of life is precious and has its own rewards. Just think, you are sitting at a computer of some sort right now reading this, contributing to a discussion about what our Earth may be. Whether you believe in Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, Hollow Earth, or Cone Earth. You still get to talk about your ideas and think about others ideas. You can debate or just listen in. Either way you are learning something.
My personal views on humanity do not have to match yours. I've seen enough of the worst humans have to offer n my life and instead of continuing to just be pessimistic about it, I chose to actively look for the goodness in people. I see it, and it actually outweighs the bad I see. Yes there are allot of selfish assholes out there, and they get the TV time. But I have seen that there are even more good people around. I ask you to look for the good, instead of focusing on the bad and you may well see it. A friendly wave, someone holding a door for a stranger, someone giving a homeless person some food. Most good deeds go unnoticed because you don't do it to be recognized, you do it to help your fellow human.
-
If you really pay attention, you will see that there is actually more good than bad in the world. The bad is just what sells news stories.
I do not completely agree with Thomas Hobbes. He says Man is a Wolf, when left to his own devices he will only do what benefits himself.
I think we are more social than that, if we can work together, we will.
BTW I wasn't trying to pull your percentage of who you thought were in control, I was using 1 tenth of 1 percent of the population, which is a very small percentage of humans in the grand scheme of tings.
Everything depends on the kind of a worldview (philosophy) that you convey to your children (future generation).
If you teach them obvious lies (which has been disproved scientifically), then you shouldn't expect better future for your children (if any)...
7. “Imperceptibly, through decades of gradual erosion, the meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the ‘pursuit of happiness’, a goal that has even been solemnly guaranteed by constitutions. The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. The West is ineluctably slipping toward the abyss. Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism. If a blasphemous film about Jesus is shown throughout the United States, reputedly one of the most religious countries in the world, or a major newspaper publishes a shameless caricature of the Virgin Mary, what further evidence of godlessness does one need?” (Solzhenitsyn 1984, Issue 36). READ MORE : http://www.energeticforum.com/254609-post19.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254609-post19.html)
Even if you admitted TOMORROW, that....
1. Heliocentricity has been (long ago) 100 % scientifically disproved stupid lie
2. Theory of evolution is 100 % scientifically disproved disgusting lie
3. Theory of relativity has been invented to save Heliocentric theory from total collapse after disasterous results of Airy's failure experiment, Michaelson-Morley experiment, and many other experiments that had been performed at the end of 19th century.
4. The true shape of the Earth is in accordance with Flat-Earth concept (and i explained what it means here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224) (bolded sentence))
...human suffering wouldn't cease, wars and death would not be expelled or miraculously vanish from our reality, the Earth will still be a valley of death and sorrow, because we will still have to die and weep our tears....
But if you deliberately continue to lie your fellow man just about everything that really matters (as Carl Sagan had been doing and as other worshipers of the Devil still do), then you have no basis for saying things like this : "there is actually more good than bad in the world", because you yourself is the one who deliberately spreads the most fundamental lies, and what begins with lie ends with death and sorrow.
John 8:44 (BBE) You are the children of your father the Evil One and it is your pleasure to do his desires. From the first he was a taker of life; and he did not go in the true way because there is no true thing in him. When he says what is false, it is natural to him, for he is false and the father of what is false.
John 8:44 (CEB) Your father is the devil. You are his children, and you want to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has never stood for the truth, because there's no truth in him. Whenever that liar speaks, he speaks according to his own nature, because he's a liar and the father of liars.
John 8:44 (CJB) You belong to your father, Satan, and you want to carry out your father's desires. From the start he was a murderer, and he has never stood by the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is speaking in character; because he is a liar -- indeed, the inventor of the lie!
Why do people like you pay so much attention to the tribal beliefs of a group of bronze age goat-herders? There must have been tens of thousands of similar but different ideas around back then?
Remember Monotheism is just one final, but easy, step from Atheism...
You can make that step, and you know in your heart it is the right one.
-
I suspect everyone debating in this "global conspiracy" forum, would put my own life to shame. lol While I do not see any good in regard to humanity, I don't place this upon individuals. Maybe I should apologize about my negativety. It is great that you home school, your children Mikey. That takes a real commitment. I think there will be some great independent thinkers born out of homeschooling. Personally, I have a problem with relativity. It seems inherently contridictory. Just think of the twin paradox.
Yeah, relativity is weird but there is too much mathematical evidence to deny it. Here are some videos that should help you understand it:
(http://)
(http://)
There is plenty of experimental proof which suggests that the speed of light is constant.
-
Why do people like you pay so much attention to the tribal beliefs of a group of bronze age goat-herders? There must have been tens of thousands of similar but different ideas around back then?
Remember Monotheism is just one final, but easy, step from Atheism...
You can make that step, and you know in your heart it is the right one.
Wait now, I still hold on to my faith in addition to understanding science. It's not as much of an oddity as people think either. I just don't think human's can pass stories down for hundreds of years simply word of mouth before writing it down, then translating it multiple times and picking what you want to keep in this new book to be able to say it is a perfect thing. God gave us free will, we can chose to believe what we want, write things down how we want, make our group powerful in that book if we want, etc. The thing to do is look beyond the words, see the underlying ideas that the stories are meant to convey, all while understanding that a human cannot hope to fathom things in God's terms. Much like a toddler cannot understand nuclear physics.
Since God is supposed to be eternal, why would he come from inside a universe bound by time. In the beginning there was nothing. Before the big bang there was nothing (the universe and time did not exist here).
The failure in my opinion, and it is MY opinion, is that people take their holy books too literally. Like every letter, word, and sentence has meaning. I love to hear people say God would not let the bible be changed, therefore my version of the bible is the correct one. Who is the authority to say what holy book is correct. If God wouldn't let it be changed, how is there competing versions.
-
1. Heliocentricity has been (long ago) 100 % scientifically disproved stupid lie
2. Theory of evolution is 100 % scientifically disproved disgusting lie
3. Theory of relativity has been invented to save Heliocentric theory from total collapse after disasterous results of Airy's failure experiment, Michaelson-Morley experiment, and many other experiments that had been performed at the end of 19th century.
1. Prove it.
2. Prove it.
3. Prove it.
1. Read this thread, there is plenty of evidence of this kind.
Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?
Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"
His great contemporary Henri Poincare confessed:
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."
Lincoln Barnett agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”
Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:
“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”
In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage.”
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.
2. Very nice video : FLAT EARTH THEORY : (http://)
Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : (http://)
Where is the evidence for evolution:
University of California Berkeley Professor Jonathan Wells Evolution Exposed : (http://)
INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong : http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/ (http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/)
James Tour-evolution: #t=52m2s (http://#t=52m2s)
DAWKINS - BEN STEIN interview : #t=3m26s (http://#t=3m26s)
On top of that :
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647606#msg1647606 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647606#msg1647606)
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/intelligent-design.html (http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/intelligent-design.html)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behes_critics_make_dar044511.html (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behes_critics_make_dar044511.html)
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo18/18luskin.php (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo18/18luskin.php)
3. Read this thread, there is plenty evidence of this kind.
It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: "Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?" This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the "enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.
The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science".
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy. Read more: http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm (http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm)
-
Why do people like you pay so much attention to the tribal beliefs of a group of bronze age goat-herders? There must have been tens of thousands of similar but different ideas around back then?
Remember Monotheism is just one final, but easy, step from Atheism...
You can make that step, and you know in your heart it is the right one.
In a speech to University College (1903), Kelvin said: “Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.” (Kelvin, as cited in Yahya 2002). “The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p. 267, as cited in Bowden 1982, 218).
“To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” (Millikan, as cited in Grounds 1945, 22). “I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).
To the question, “Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck - have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?” Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” (Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139).
“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes restin them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Bacon 1875, 64).
“All nature cries to us that He exists, that there is a Supreme Intelligence, a power immense, an order admirable, and all teaches us our dependence.” (Voltaire, as cited in Parton 1884, 554).
In The Natural History of Religion(1757), Hume wrote: “Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author.” (David Hume 1956, 26).
“The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.” (David Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).
“God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.” (Spinoza 1883, Part I,Prop. XI).
‘I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creatorcould put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.’ J. P. Sartre
“As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom. Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter.” (Planck, as cited in Eggenstein 1984, Part I; see “Materialistic Science on the Wrong Track”).
I maintain knowledge of the existence of God as the most certain and obvious of all! Descartes
Essence and Existence are the same in God (Aesity) : http://www.saintaquinas.com/article4.html (http://www.saintaquinas.com/article4.html)
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WEST RIGHT NOW???
America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.
A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.
This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
Many of the greatest scientists of all time operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a Creator.
Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE EAST AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WEST???
There is an ever increasing highway that is being built in the Middle East and Africa. It is no longer tribal factions fighting over grazing land, or water rights. This is a blackness of untold magnitude that is spreading from the east to the west. And it’s growing like a cancer. It has been covered in a fog from the bottom to the top. The bottom with the media, and the top with Governments. The media is working alongside the governments in these areas and the West to cover and distract the world from knowing the truth.
We get only snapshots of terror, that they like to blame on tribal fighting, and small groups of religious zealots, & civil wars over evil dictators. It works for the most part because it guides the public into thinking it’s the same old fight that’s been going on for centuries—why worry about it.
This is not the truth. There is a terrible highway being built by evil factions that have one agenda. Though they are a mixed people they have one goal in mind, and that is to kill everyone and everything that is different from them. If you don’t believe in their brand of god, than you will die.
Look at Syria and the devastation there not only to the land, but to the people. Millions have fled, hundreds of thousands have died in heinous ways. The devastation continue while most in the West distract, distract, distract from the truth.
In Somalia today, Charisma magazine is reporting that a woman who converted to Christianity was dragged from her home and shot in the street with the community watching. Some tried to help her, and so they fired into the crowd. This was Al-shabab. (More) Al-shabab is connected to Al-queda via the terror network that is spreading through a super highway of evil. These evil abominations have manifested themselves and are targeting governments and officials in an attempt to rid the regions of ‘Christians.’
This is happening in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Lybia, and the CAR. Look at all the deaths to the lawmakers there in recent past. And this is the claim made by these incendiary thugs. They are ridding their land of Christians and those who take money from the West. This is happening in Nigeria, it’s happening in the CAR, it’s happening in Libya, Pakistan, & Afghanistan. It’s time for the world to wake up!
While they have unleashed this snake, dragon, beast, a silent genocide is being carried out. While they terrorize communities, innocents, and governments, the west is silent. They have created these groups Al-qaeda-like, to do their dirty work like in Afghanistan, with proxy wars and now they can’t control them. They can’t do anything but watch. Watch in horror as Christians and the worse slaughter in history takes place. This will go down in history as the second holocaust. A holocaust like the first, as the world was silent while it’s carried out. And they are silent for the second holocaust. So maybe some of our questions have been answered. The West and the world is complicit in this slaughter. And Christians and other minorities are indeed just collateral damage. Read more : https://voiceofthepersecuted.wordpress.com/ (https://voiceofthepersecuted.wordpress.com/)
-
Ya, what freedoms still remain are hanging in the balance. No doubt we would live in a much more free society if everyone was like CIK. My problem with relativity is not that it is weird. Rather, that it seems to be a flat out contradiction. Will look at the info mikeman.
-
I was going to make a real response but it would be a waste of time. Ill just post a picture of a sunset.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/Sunset_2007-1.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/Sunset_2007-1.jpg.html)
-
It is lovely. Sometimes it is best to enjoy the simple moments of life....
-
Ya, what freedoms still remain are hanging in the balance. No doubt we would live in a much more free society if everyone was like CIK. My problem with relativity is not that it is weird. Rather, that it seems to be a flat out contradiction. Will look at the info mikeman.
The videos I posted show that math proves that General relativity is undeniably 100% true given that the speed of light is constant, and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting that.
One of the most famous experiments showing that the speed of light is constant is where a group of researchers measured the speed of light coming from the Sun at sunrise and again at sunset expecting it to be slower at sunset and faster at sunrise because of how you head towards the Sun at sunrise and away from it at sunset due to the rotation of the Earth. What they could was that the speed of light was the same in both scenarios, and I have seen this cited a few times as proof of a flat Earth, but in a flat Earth wouldn't you expect to see the same resilt as in a round Earth because of the Sun moving towards you at Sunrise and away from you at sunset?
Time dilation caused by General relativity had actually been measured by taking an atomic clock in a plane and flying it around the world to find that afterwards it's slightly offset from clocks on the ground. This experiment was repeated several times and always yelled results that were exactaly as relativity predicted.
Relativity is really weird and it seems contradictory at times, but everything else out of the ordinary in weird too, in fact that's the definition of weird.
-
It's more than predictable that cikljamas will come up with reams of outdated "science" that's centuries old in a feeble effort to prove his point. The only so-called evidence that the flat earthers can ever muster is never dated from 1985, or 1995, or 2005. It's inevitably 19th century stuff—or even earlier LOL.
The reason for this is obviously that any notions of a flat earth have long been dealt a death blow by the advancements of contemporary science, particularly in the fields of astrophysics and astronautics. Since man is no longer tethered to the earth, we've obtained a much clearer and evidence-based picture of our planet and the universe. And which is why there's only a few hundred flat earthers now scattered thinly across the planet, and still struggling with the realities of 21st century science.
-
Ya, what freedoms still remain are hanging in the balance. No doubt we would live in a much more free society if everyone was like CIK.
Thank you!
My problem with relativity is not that it is weird. Rather, that it seems to be a flat out contradiction. Will look at the info mikeman.
The Foucault pendulum has been proven (150 years ago) to be a fabrication , which proves nothing. Is the earth actually moving or are the heavenly bodies doing the moving? Or to use the nebulous phrase of science: 'Is there some unexplained phenomenon to consider?' Study them all. Cold reason should cause you to acknowledge that no conclusive proofs exist to prove Galileo’s theory. Even our most powerful instruments conclusively prove movement only - but movement of what? Perhaps the most notable experiments are "Airy’s failure" and the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two are a ‘must’ for any serious study of this intriguing subject. The Astronomer Royal of England, George Biddel Airy (1801-1892), in 1871 performed a star-gazing experiment which came to be known as "Airy’s failure". The simple solution to all the problems raised in this experiment was that the earth is at rest, immobile, in absolute space (...) But the crushing blow to heliocentrism was the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all those who tried to imitate or perfect it.
Their classical experiment of 1887 was [ironically] another effort designed to vindicate Galileo. But it also backfired. They bounced a beam of light off two mirrors in perpendicular directions and reflected the light back to their source. The lights returned simultaneously, regardless of location, season, elevation or orientation of instruments. The expected result was that the beam of light running parallel to the "supposed" path of the orbiting earth would return more quickly. For those desiring detailed, scientific information on experiments that favor geocentrism, research the Fresnell drag experiments and Arago’s experiment (Livingston). Study the Trouton-Noble experiment, the [self-]induction effect (Des Coudres), the test for rotation of polarized light (Strutt), the Ahranov-Bohm effect (Erlichson), and the phase shift of electrons in a superconductor (Jacklevic)... In De Labore Solis Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily.
For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives: 'Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind. Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts:
Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.
These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16th century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those
scholastically sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration, science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong failed. But to continue - the very name ‘Einstein’ = (savior of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly disseminated.
And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every direction.
Arthur Eddington dared to contemplate that:
"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."
Lincoln Barnett agrees:
"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
So, when all attempts to prove any kind of motion of the Earth FAIL, what does it mean?
It means that the contrary is the fact: The Earth is at rest!
Every failure of all these attempts presents the proof to the contrary : The Earth is at rest!
If you don't want to make me laugh, then you cannot just say: O.K., we have failed so far to prove any kind of Earth's motion through space but there is still some chance that we could succeed to prove it in some distant future?
In how distant future? When we inhabit another galaxy?
Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them...
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact! Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an " exact science," yea, according to them, " the most exact of all the sciences.
HONEST AND NOBLE CONFESSIONS.
"When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary and central position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we can ours, in adition to which they have the evidence of their senses, and SCRIPTURE and FACTS in their favour. WHICH WE HAVE NOT : it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system .... However perfect our theory may appear in our estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth that, IF OUR PREMISES BE DISPUTED AND OUR FACTS CHALLENGED, THE WHOLE RANGE OF ASTRONOMY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROOFS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.— Dr. Woodhouse, a late Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
Those who believe the plain and provable facts of the Bible are set down as lunatics, but the above shows where the lunacy really lies. John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the men of the modern astronomical school, although most of his followers do. In his Journal he writes :
"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth, some affirm it lo be only three, and others ninety millions of miles."
Happy Easter!!!
-
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post
This is the best way to deal with his crap spouting.
-
Ya, what freedoms still remain are hanging in the balance. No doubt we would live in a much more free society if everyone was like CIK.
Thank you!
My problem with relativity is not that it is weird. Rather, that it seems to be a flat out contradiction. Will look at the info mikeman.
The Foucault pendulum has been proven (150 years ago) to be a fabrication , which proves nothing. Is the earth actually moving or are the heavenly bodies doing the moving? Or to use the nebulous phrase of science: 'Is there some unexplained phenomenon to consider?' Study them all. Cold reason should cause you to acknowledge that no conclusive proofs exist to prove Galileo’s theory. Even our most powerful instruments conclusively prove movement only - but movement of what? Perhaps the most notable experiments are "Airy’s failure" and the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two are a ‘must’ for any serious study of this intriguing subject. The Astronomer Royal of England, George Biddel Airy (1801-1892), in 1871 performed a star-gazing experiment which came to be known as "Airy’s failure". The simple solution to all the problems raised in this experiment was that the earth is at rest, immobile, in absolute space (...) But the crushing blow to heliocentrism was the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all those who tried to imitate or perfect it.
Their classical experiment of 1887 was [ironically] another effort designed to vindicate Galileo. But it also backfired. They bounced a beam of light off two mirrors in perpendicular directions and reflected the light back to their source. The lights returned simultaneously, regardless of location, season, elevation or orientation of instruments. The expected result was that the beam of light running parallel to the "supposed" path of the orbiting earth would return more quickly. For those desiring detailed, scientific information on experiments that favor geocentrism, research the Fresnell drag experiments and Arago’s experiment (Livingston). Study the Trouton-Noble experiment, the [self-]induction effect (Des Coudres), the test for rotation of polarized light (Strutt), the Ahranov-Bohm effect (Erlichson), and the phase shift of electrons in a superconductor (Jacklevic)... In De Labore Solis Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily.
For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives: 'Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind. Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts:
Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.
These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16th century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those
scholastically sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration, science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong failed. But to continue - the very name ‘Einstein’ = (savior of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly disseminated.
And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every direction.
Arthur Eddington dared to contemplate that:
"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."
Lincoln Barnett agrees:
"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
So, when all attempts to prove any kind of motion of the Earth FAIL, what does it mean?
It means that the contrary is the fact: The Earth is at rest!
Every failure of all these attempts presents the proof to the contrary : The Earth is at rest!
If you don't want to make me laugh, then you cannot just say: O.K., we have failed so far to prove any kind of Earth's motion through space but there is still some chance that we could succeed to prove it in some distant future?
In how distant future? When we inhabit another galaxy?
Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them...
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact! Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)
2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)
CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an " exact science," yea, according to them, " the most exact of all the sciences.
HONEST AND NOBLE CONFESSIONS.
"When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary and central position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we can ours, in adition to which they have the evidence of their senses, and SCRIPTURE and FACTS in their favour. WHICH WE HAVE NOT : it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system .... However perfect our theory may appear in our estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth that, IF OUR PREMISES BE DISPUTED AND OUR FACTS CHALLENGED, THE WHOLE RANGE OF ASTRONOMY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROOFS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.— Dr. Woodhouse, a late Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge."
In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
Those who believe the plain and provable facts of the Bible are set down as lunatics, but the above shows where the lunacy really lies. John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the men of the modern astronomical school, although most of his followers do. In his Journal he writes :
"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth, some affirm it lo be only three, and others ninety millions of miles."
Happy Easter!!!
I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that you're a Theist who is defending a motionless earth based on the Bible, perhaps, and accusing such scientists as Newton of being "godless"? Yet you also seem to be a lover of science. That is why I feel I must at least introduce you to creation.com. You will see there that the Bible clearly speaks of a round earth, not a flat one, and Newton was a very devout Christian. Here is a link that recently addresses geocentrism, but there are many good resources of this type, if you look around and do some searches. http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism (http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism)
Happy Easter! =)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
cikljamas will believe anything he reads unless it is the truth.
-
Loved the article Cikjamas!
I am curious to know why a stationary earth cannot have a tilt. I would think a earth without a tilt, cannot be a sphere. Therefore, it is very simple (if you are correct) Just 3 steps
#1. Stationary earth
#2. No tilt
#3. Flat earth
Happy easter!
interesting short video's mikeman.
-
Loved the article Cikjamas!
I am curious to know why a stationary earth cannot have a tilt. I would think a earth without a tilt, cannot be a sphere. Therefore, it is very simple (if you are correct) Just 3 steps
#1. Stationary earth
#2. No tilt
#3. Flat earth
Happy easter!
Why stationary Earth hypothesis presumes expelling the Earth's tilt assumption?
Because, the alleged tilt of the Earth makes sense only if the Earth orbits the Sun, otherwise Earth's tilt supposition doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.
Earth's tilt is the heliocentric holly grail, because without it, their theory falls apart instantly.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
Isn't it absolutely stunning that all geocentrists (which are round-earthers) have failed to notice such an elementary obstacle for functioning the round earth hypothesis?
How come they have been overlooking this fact for so long? All of them?
And this is not the only problem for them.
Another one is this:
How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?
We won't even ask them how one could evade to draw necessary (insane) presumption/postulation of an insane speeds to which all heavenly bodies should have to be submitted if they had to travel (DAILY) around the tiny Earth instead of vice versa...
-
I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that you're a Theist who is defending a motionless earth based on the Bible, perhaps, and accusing such scientists as Newton of being "godless"? Yet you also seem to be a lover of science. That is why I feel I must at least introduce you to creation.com. You will see there that the Bible clearly speaks of a round earth, not a flat one, and Newton was a very devout Christian. Here is a link that recently addresses geocentrism, but there are many good resources of this type, if you look around and do some searches. http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism (http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism)
Happy Easter! =)
This guy thinks he can debunk authenticity of the Bible by proving that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat. Although he is not aware that he failed to debunk credibility of the Bible, he is right about that the biblical cosmology is in accordance with the Flat Earth theory: (http://)
Happy Easter!
-
I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that you're a Theist who is defending a motionless earth based on the Bible, perhaps, and accusing such scientists as Newton of being "godless"? Yet you also seem to be a lover of science. That is why I feel I must at least introduce you to creation.com. You will see there that the Bible clearly speaks of a round earth, not a flat one, and Newton was a very devout Christian. Here is a link that recently addresses geocentrism, but there are many good resources of this type, if you look around and do some searches. http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism (http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism)
Happy Easter! =)
This guy thinks he can debunk authenticity of the Bible by proving that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat. Although he is not aware that he failed to debunk credibility of the Bible, he is right about that the biblical cosmology is in accordance with the Flat Earth theory: (http://)
Happy Easter!
Disagree, but oh well. =)
-
Cikljamas, that's a strange definition of "proof" you have as it does not seem to involve experiments, evidence, or even logic.
-
I don't know why he thinks the sun needs "two speeds" ::), but actually in flat earth theory is does need to change speed, as it has an inner and outer circular path, but a day remains 24 hours.
-
I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that you're a Theist who is defending a motionless earth based on the Bible, perhaps, and accusing such scientists as Newton of being "godless"? Yet you also seem to be a lover of science. That is why I feel I must at least introduce you to creation.com. You will see there that the Bible clearly speaks of a round earth, not a flat one, and Newton was a very devout Christian. Here is a link that recently addresses geocentrism, but there are many good resources of this type, if you look around and do some searches. http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism (http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism)
Happy Easter! =)
This guy thinks he can debunk authenticity of the Bible by proving that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat. Although he is not aware that he failed to debunk credibility of the Bible, he is right about that the biblical cosmology is in accordance with the Flat Earth theory: (http://)
Happy Easter!
Disagree, but oh well. =)
They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called " years of discretion," they would at once have rejected. This astronomic method of instilling error into young minds, recalls to my remembrance Pope's apt lines respecting vice -
"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen
But, grown at length familiar with its face.
We first abhor—then pity—then embrace."
The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.
" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."
Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.
The Earth, being thus " stretched upon the waters," has, of course, waters under it; so we read that the Israelites were commanded as follows " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the Earth" Exod. xx. 4.;
and again—"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or on the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the Earth "— Deut. v. 8.
No waters could possibly exist under a revolving Planet—but waters do exist under the Earth—therefore the Earth is not a revolving Planet.
In Isaiah xl. 22 God is poetically described as sitting upon or over (pt) " the circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word there used for circle is hhoog, a circle or circumference, not a globe, and the Greek word used to translate it in the same passage in the Septuagint is guros, a circle, not sphaira, a sphere. The fact is that no word for " globe " or " sphere " occurs in the Bible from beginning to end.
Again, in Proverbs viii. 27, we read, be-hhegoo hhoog ol peni tehoom, " when He set a circle upon the face of the deep," referring to the impassable ice barriers of the great Southern Circumference. This is corroborated by Job xxvi. 10 — "He hath described a circumference upon the face of the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness " or, as Dr. Young translates it — " a limit hath He placed on the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness." The word here used for "boundary" or "limit" is hhoog, the same as described as " circle " or " circumference," as previously noted.
Before leaving this subject of the Circumference, there is one other passage in the Authorised Version of the Bible to which I would like to refer, as it has been made a pretext for believing the theory of the Earth whirling round the Sun. It is as follows — " He stretcheth out- the North over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing " Job xxvi. 7.
The Hebrew is neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh, the proper translation of which is — " He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings." I am much surprised that not only the translators of the Authorised and Revised Versions, but such a distinguished scholar as the late Dr. Robert Young, could have made such a strange mistake, as to say that God " hangeth the Earth upon nothing," which is neither a proper rendering nor common sense ; besides which it distinctly contradicts the Word of God which, in so many other places, declares that the Earth rests upon Foundations. There must be a support for any thing that hangs, and our Modem Astronomers were not long in taking advantage of the above mistranslation by saying that, as it was impossible for such a heavy mass as the Earth to stand by itself, the passage must mean that it whirls round the Sun by the force of Gravitation...
...It is, therefore, evident from the above examination, that the real meaning of belimeh in Job xxvi. 7 is that God supports the Earth upon fastenings, or, in other words, upon "foundations," the truth of which will be fully confirmed in the following Section, in which it will be seen that the Earth is not only stretched out upon the waters which have an impassable circumference, but that it has Immovable Foundations, therefore IT CANNOT BE A PLANET.
-
Another one is this:
How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?
As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl. FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer. Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?
-
I think "simplyfascinated", does believe the Bible. I thought he was just trying to give a fellow believer reasons for round earth theory.
-
They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called " years of discretion," they would at once have rejected. This astronomic method of instilling error into young minds, recalls to my remembrance Pope's apt lines respecting vice -
"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen
But, grown at length familiar with its face.
We first abhor—then pity—then embrace."
The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.
" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."
Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.
The Earth, being thus " stretched upon the waters," has, of course, waters under it; so we read that the Israelites were commanded as follows " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the Earth" Exod. xx. 4.;
and again—"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or on the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the Earth "— Deut. v. 8.
No waters could possibly exist under a revolving Planet—but waters do exist under the Earth—therefore the Earth is not a revolving Planet.
In Isaiah xl. 22 God is poetically described as sitting upon or over (pt) " the circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word there used for circle is hhoog, a circle or circumference, not a globe, and the Greek word used to translate it in the same passage in the Septuagint is guros, a circle, not sphaira, a sphere. The fact is that no word for " globe " or " sphere " occurs in the Bible from beginning to end.
Again, in Proverbs viii. 27, we read, be-hhegoo hhoog ol peni tehoom, " when He set a circle upon the face of the deep," referring to the impassable ice barriers of the great Southern Circumference. This is corroborated by Job xxvi. 10 — "He hath described a circumference upon the face of the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness " or, as Dr. Young translates it — " a limit hath He placed on the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness." The word here used for "boundary" or "limit" is hhoog, the same as described as " circle " or " circumference," as previously noted.
Before leaving this subject of the Circumference, there is one other passage in the Authorised Version of the Bible to which I would like to refer, as it has been made a pretext for believing the theory of the Earth whirling round the Sun. It is as follows — " He stretcheth out- the North over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing " Job xxvi. 7.
The Hebrew is neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh, the proper translation of which is — " He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings." I am much surprised that not only the translators of the Authorised and Revised Versions, but such a distinguished scholar as the late Dr. Robert Young, could have made such a strange mistake, as to say that God " hangeth the Earth upon nothing," which is neither a proper rendering nor common sense ; besides which it distinctly contradicts the Word of God which, in so many other places, declares that the Earth rests upon Foundations. There must be a support for any thing that hangs, and our Modem Astronomers were not long in taking advantage of the above mistranslation by saying that, as it was impossible for such a heavy mass as the Earth to stand by itself, the passage must mean that it whirls round the Sun by the force of Gravitation...
...It is, therefore, evident from the above examination, that the real meaning of belimeh in Job xxvi. 7 is that God supports the Earth upon fastenings, or, in other words, upon "foundations," the truth of which will be fully confirmed in the following Section, in which it will be seen that the Earth is not only stretched out upon the waters which have an impassable circumference, but that it has Immovable Foundations, therefore IT CANNOT BE A PLANET.
[/quote]
Thank you for such a thorough explanation of the basis for your belief in a flat earth. I am at a disadvantage because up until a month ago or so, I didn't even know that flat-earth believers existed. Therefore, I am not as knowledgeable in this area and am still picking things up as I go. I am having to do some research for my response, so bear with me if I take my time.
I was mistaken, it seems, that the Bible speaks of a sphere. You were correct in stating that there was no word in the Hebrew for such a shape. Therefore, either shape could be assumed.
As far as the water argument goes, I was able to find this quote from creation.com:
"We may agree with the idea of the land being set ‘upon’ the sea, but to say that it ‘floats’ upon that sea is not at all indicated in the text. The biblical description accords with an accepted creationist paradigm that postulates the pre-diluvian existence of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11) which produced most of the water of the Genesis Flood. It would be perfectly proper to have described the land as having been ‘spread out’ over this vast subterranean water source. It would also be perfectly proper for what was left of this water source to continue to be referred in the same terms after the Flood when it would still be a source for underground springs (Genesis 49:25, Deuteronomy 33:13)."
In response to your "ice wall" alleged references, I will try to do some more digging. I am intrigued for sure. =)
I'm afraid I didn't understand your last argument. If you were referencing the verse that speaks of earth's foundations "shall not be moved," this is a figure of speech. I quote again, because others have said it better than I can:
"Psalm 96:10 is another critical verse for us to understand. It says:
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.”
Similar statements that “the earth shall not be moved” appear in Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 104:5. Do these verses not say that the earth does not move? No, they do not, for one very simple reason: the Hebrew word מוֺט (mot) means “to totter, shake, or slip”11 and is often translated such in other places. The opposite of “shake” can be “unmoving”, as in these verses, but it can also be accurately translated “unshaken”. Using the same word, Psalm 55:22 and Psalm 112:6 say the righteous will never be moved. Same word, similar context, but obviously this does not mean people are fixed in place! Yet, if the righteous can move, so can the earth. Following on that theme, Psalm 121 is titled, “The Righteous shall never be moved.” verse 3 says God will never let your foot be moved, yet a few verses later talks about “coming in” and “going out”, meaning the feet must be moving and the earlier use of “shall not be moved” must be a metaphoric or poetic expression for “firm” or “unshaken”. Also, Psalm 16:8 says, “I shall not be moved,” and most biblioskeptics and geocentrists would not think that the Psalmist was in a strait jacket! Finally, Psalm 125:1 says those who trust in the Lord are like Mt. Zion, which cannot be moved and abides forever. This is perhaps a better place to use “cannot be moved”, for we are talking about a mountain, but even that will be burned up in the future (according to most views on eschatology), so the poetic expression is clear."
I'm not sure that this covers what you were talking about or not. "Foundations" is a word that can be explained by both round-earthers and flat-earthers alike. I would argue that even space itself is that "foundation" or "firmament" that is described in Genesis.
Other than the ice wall verses, did I respond to all your arguments? Again, I will look into those references to the best of my ability when I can. =)
-
Hmm okay, I guess that didn't take long (lol). Here we go:
Most modern translators agree that this "scribing a circle" in relation to the world refers to the horizon of the earth.
NIV: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
NLT: He created the horizon when he separated the waters; he set the boundary between day and night.
GWT: He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.
-
Loved the article Cikjamas!
I am curious to know why a stationary earth cannot have a tilt. I would think a earth without a tilt, cannot be a sphere. Therefore, it is very simple (if you are correct) Just 3 steps
#1. Stationary earth
#2. No tilt
#3. Flat earth
Happy easter!
interesting short video's mikeman.
I don't get how what you said proves anything.
-
Another one is this:
How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?
As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl. FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer. Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?
You should study path that the sun makes in the sky (ANALEMMA) more carefully.
Why does the sun take this strange path? There are two reasons and they are completely independent from each other.
1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun.
WRONG. The Earth is not tilted (the only thing that is tilted is typical HC brainwashed - head. Alleged tilt of the Earth is (an alibi) the way how to disguise the fact that the Sun circles above the Earth in wider and narrower circles.
2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse.
I am not sure about the exact path of the Sun above the Earth, but it is obvious that this explanation (number 2) serves to hide one another truth, that is to say: The Sun circles above the Earth with different velocities at different times of the year. The Sun's speed is higher in winter (tropic of capricorn), and slower in summer (tropic of cancer).
We call these two situations a “fast Sun” and a “slow Sun”. If the y-axis of the analemma was due to the Earth’s axial tilt (a.k.a width of the Sun's orbit above the Earth), then the x-axis comes from the Sun "appearing" fast or slow (a.k.a the Sun's real (not the apparent) speed).
It is simply the sum of these two ("effects") facts that causes the analemma.
You should also distinguish the speed and path of the source of light vs the speed and path of the projection of Sun's light : http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086)
-
Thank you for such a thorough explanation of the basis for your belief in a flat earth. I am at a disadvantage because up until a month ago or so, I didn't even know that flat-earth believers existed. Therefore, I am not as knowledgeable in this area and am still picking things up as I go. I am having to do some research for my response, so bear with me if I take my time.
I was mistaken, it seems, that the Bible speaks of a sphere. You were correct in stating that there was no word in the Hebrew for such a shape. Therefore, either shape could be assumed.
Wrong, there is only one shape that could be assumed : Flat Earth concept (i explained what it means several times)!
“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either." Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason".
Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”
The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...
Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!
Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.
21th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now.
With the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html)
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (that the HC theory is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!
Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."
I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.
THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
The Bishop of Peterborough is another notable example. He says:
" I have no fear whatever, that the Bible will be found, In the long run, to contain more science than all the theories of philosophers put together."
-
Another one is this:
How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?
As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl. FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer. Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?
You should study path that the sun makes in the sky (ANALEMMA) more carefully.
Why does the sun take this strange path? There are two reasons and they are completely independent from each other.
1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun.
WRONG. The Earth is not tilted (the only thing that is tilted is typical HC brainwashed - head. Alleged tilt of the Earth is (an alibi) the way how to disguise the fact that the Sun circles above the Earth in wider and narrower circles.
Unless you can think of a good reason the Sun will circle above the Earth in wider and narrower circles, at a different rate than the stars circle above the earth in concentric circles (and there can be a different set of concentric circles other stars follow, while the distances between stars never changes), that works no worse than the tilted, spinning Earth, this idea won't get very far.
2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse.
I am not sure about the exact path of the Sun above the Earth, but it is obvious that this explanation (number 2) serves to hide one another truth, that is to say: The Sun circles above the Earth with different velocities at different times of the year. The Sun's speed is higher in winter (tropic of capricorn), and slower in summer (tropic of cancer).
We call these two situations a “fast Sun” and a “slow Sun”. If the y-axis of the analemma was due to the Earth’s axial tilt (a.k.a width of the Sun's orbit above the Earth), then the x-axis comes from the Sun "appearing" fast or slow (a.k.a the Sun's real (not the apparent) speed).
But the "fast sun" (in terms of apparent motion across the sky), a few seconds a day faster than the "slow sun", occurs when the "orbit of the Sun above the Earth" is largest, near the tropic of Capricorn. Why would that be?
It is simply the sum of these two ("effects") facts that causes the analemma.
You should also distinguish the speed and path of the source of light vs the speed and path of the projection of Sun's light : http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html)
From the linked post:
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/l59bi9a9drgp55a8ivmv.jpg)
Isn't a main appeal of a flat earth that it's simpler than a spherical one? That's one hideously complicated (but probably necessary) model for the behavior of light! I think I'll stick with straight light rays and a spherical surface, thanks!
This is easily the best illustration of the behavior of the paths that "bendy light" rays would have to take to simulate, on a flat earth, the behavior of straight rays of light from a distant source hitting a spherical earth. Is there a mathematical expression that describes the path those rays take? If one is even possible, it's gotta be pretty a uncivilized beast.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086)
I'm surprised you'd bring up that train wreck of an argument again. If you read the posts following that one, you'll see how your case justifying the terribly butchered image was taken apart point by point. Thanks for linking instead of quoting the whole thing again here, though!
[Edit] fix typo.
-
I felt the need to isolate in particular this ludicrous piece of drivel from amongst the plethora of rainbow-coloured and multi-sized fonts that cikljamas chooses in an effort to impart more veracity to his nonsensical ramblings...
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. "In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
A couple of terms caused me to endanger yet another of my ribs; the date of 1878, and the phrase 'modern astronomy'.
I'm thinking that cikljamas may well have fallen into his very own "delirium of lunatics".
;D
-
Another one is this:
How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?
As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl. FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer. Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?
You should study path that the sun makes in the sky (ANALEMMA) more carefully.
Why does the sun take this strange path? There are two reasons and they are completely independent from each other.
1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun.
WRONG. The Earth is not tilted (the only thing that is tilted is typical HC brainwashed - head. Alleged tilt of the Earth is (an alibi) the way how to disguise the fact that the Sun circles above the Earth in wider and narrower circles.
2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse.
I am not sure about the exact path of the Sun above the Earth, but it is obvious that this explanation (number 2) serves to hide one another truth, that is to say: The Sun circles above the Earth with different velocities at different times of the year. The Sun's speed is higher in winter (tropic of capricorn), and slower in summer (tropic of cancer).
We call these two situations a “fast Sun” and a “slow Sun”. If the y-axis of the analemma was due to the Earth’s axial tilt (a.k.a width of the Sun's orbit above the Earth), then the x-axis comes from the Sun "appearing" fast or slow (a.k.a the Sun's real (not the apparent) speed).
It is simply the sum of these two ("effects") facts that causes the analemma.
You should also distinguish the speed and path of the source of light vs the speed and path of the projection of Sun's light : http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086)
Pretty complicated amount of precision bendy light you've got there. So you say the sun is circling so much faster around Capricorn vs Cancer, and yet a myriad of things are combining to make it look like it's moving the same speed as in the north while also still appearing round plus the same size throughout the day.
What happens as the actual sun gets further and further ahead of the 'observed' sun?
Perhaps you and Rory can make a video of how this works.
Also,
If it's agreed that the sun moves, or Earth rotates, at a speed of 1,038mph at the equator, this gives us a circumference of 24,901 miles for the equator. Everyone agree?
However, with a surface distance of 6,210 miles from the N. pole to the equator, we get an equator circumference 39,018 miles with a flat Earth. This means the sun would have to circle (at the equator) at a speed of 1,625mph. I'm pretty sure we've established 1,038 though.
Sorry, but a spherical Earth is far simpler.
-
Cikljamas, considering how metaphorical the Bible is and the fact that it's a book of religion and not a book of science you can't automatically assume that everything in it which sounds like cosmology can't all be taken literally. Please say where in the Bible it says "the hydrogen atom consists of a single proton and a single electron." or "in the last days people will be lied to about the shape of the Earth".
-
But the "fast sun" (in terms of apparent motion across the sky), a few seconds a day faster than the "slow sun", occurs when the "orbit of the Sun above the Earth" is largest, near the tropic of Capricorn. Why would that be?
I don't know!
The Sun is a complete mystery. How it works? Noone knows. But arrogant scientists reject (by default) "I don't know" as an answer, because it is not an explanation of any kind. If you are scientist you are aware that you have a spoiled, brainwashed auditorium which wants to hear from you scientific explanations, and not an answer like "We just don't know", am i right)?
But is it honest and fair to continue to lie to your brainwashed auditorium just because you have to keep your silly job and to earn your dirty salary?
Wouldn't be much more honest if you just admit that you don't know something that you simply don't know?
The TRUTH about the Sun, The Sun Is Hollow Interdimensional : (http://)
Next video lasts less than 2 minutes:
Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : (http://)
Now, just change the name of a video above by replacing the words "theory of Evolution" with the words "Modern fraudulent nuclear-solar theory" and listen what Phillip E. Johnson has to say to you!
You can also replace those words with some other phrases, like:
HC theory
Big Bang theory
Theroy of relativity
Theory of gravitation
etc....
So, i don't know how the Sun works, but i know how the Sun doesn't work.
I don't know what is exact shape of the Earth, but i do know that whatever that shape might turn out to be, it is going to be in accordance with FET concept, and it's not gonna be in accordance with idiotic HC theory!
And in this thread i have presented a whole bunch of proofs for that, one of which is this (whether you like it or not): http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086)
-
Sorry, but a spherical Earth is far simpler.
It certainly doesn't mean it's truer, just because some aspects of a FE theory are not simpler than the same aspects of a HC fraudulent theory. Generally FET theory is much simpler and much, much, much more plausible than totally idiotic HC theory! But even if it were not so, this particular question (which theory is simpler) wouldn't decide (by no means) which theory is right and which of these two theories is not in accordance with reality!
-
Cikljamas, considering how metaphorical the Bible is and the fact that it's a book of religion and not a book of science you can't automatically assume that everything in it which sounds like cosmology can't all be taken literally. Please say where in the Bible it says "the hydrogen atom consists of a single proton and a single electron." or "in the last days people will be lied to about the shape of the Earth".
Please say where in the Bible it says : There are smart people, there are less smart people, and there are even less smart people...
-
Please say where in the Bible it says : There are smart people, there are less smart people, and there are even less smart people...
It doesn't say that, what has this got to do with anything?
-
But the "fast sun" (in terms of apparent motion across the sky), a few seconds a day faster than the "slow sun", occurs when the "orbit of the Sun above the Earth" is largest, near the tropic of Capricorn. Why would that be?
I don't know!
The Sun is a complete mystery. How it works? Noone knows. But arrogant scientists reject (by default) "I don't know" as an answer, because it is not an explanation of any kind.
"I don't know" is clearly the best answer when it's true. Where it is undesirable is when it's used to avoid saying what you don't want to admit knowing.
If you are scientist you are aware that you have a spoiled, brainwashed auditorium which wants to hear from you scientific explanations, and not an answer like "We just don't know", am i right)?
No. "I don't know" is a fine answer to a question when you don't know the answer. Can you lose the pejorative terms like "spoiled" and "brainwashed", please.
But is it honest and fair to continue to lie to your brainwashed auditorium just because you have to keep your silly job and to earn your dirty salary?
Are you saying this is commonly done? Examples? Your problem is that you consider any answer you didn't want to hear to be a lie. It may be comforting for you to believe that, but doesn't make it true or accomplish anything useful.
Wouldn't be much more honest if you just admit that you don't know something that you simply don't know?
Why do you think this is never done?
The TRUTH about the Sun, The Sun Is Hollow Interdimensional : (http://)
Next video lasts less than 2 minutes:
Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : (http://)
No, thanks. Please summarize here if there's anything new in either of these.
Now, just change the name of a video above by replacing the words "theory of Evolution" with the words "Modern fraudulent nuclear-solar theory" and listen what Phillip E. Johnson has to say to you!
You can also replace those words with some other phrases, like:
HC theory
Big Bang theory
Theroy of relativity
Theory of gravitation
etc....
So, i don't know how the Sun works, but i know how the Sun doesn't work.
So you don't know why the Sun moves in the sky the way it does, and you don't know what it's source of energy is. In other words, you don't know much of anything at all about the Sun, but for some reason you know the model that actually works is wrong. Got it.
I don't know what is exact shape of the Earth, but i do know that whatever that shape might turn out to be, it is going to be in accordance with FET concept, and it's not gonna be in accordance with idiotic HC theory!
So you don't know much of anything at all about the shape of the Earth and have no working hypothesis that fits with common observations, but for some reason you know the model that actually works is wrong. Got it.
And in this thread i have presented a whole bunch of proofs for that, one of which is this (whether you like it or not): http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086)
In this thread you've presented nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated arm waving that has been shown, time after time, in detail, to be misconception on your part. You keep referring people back to that argument you decisively lost. Why? You're saying right here that you don't know why the analemma works, yet you keep referring back to a post where you claim (unsuccessfully) that its existence disproves the heliocentric solar system.
-
Alpha,
You can twist my words and misinterpret their meaning as much as you want, but it won't help you, nothing can save your idiotic theory from being put down and crushed into cubes. I did it numerous times (by now) in this thread. Anyone who read this thread from the beginning (to the end) and read it with proper attention and comprehension, cannot fail becoming fully convinced in incomparable superiority of FE theory over RE theory.
All you guys have is your Foucault pendulum argument (which is inexpressible embarrassment for someone who lives in 21 century), and unceasing repetition of question about the unknown mechanics of sunsets and sunrises (which is inexpressible embarrassment, also), and about the exact path of the Sun and other questions regarding many other unknowns about the Sun which is total mystery, as i have emphasized numerous times.
However, some of these questions could be easily solved. For example, the question about the exact differences in velocities of "winter" (fast) sun and "summer" (slow) Sun could be easily answered if it were to be allowed to scientific community to ascertain exact values of these differences and to publish them.
The same goes for the EXACT form of the surface of the Earth.
But even without the help of 100 % corrupted scientific community we have debunked many major hoaxes of modern "science", and first and greatest of all scientific lies and hoaxes (of all time) is (without the doubt) the HC - RE theory.
Eric Dollard The Sun is not what we wave been told.!!! : (http://)
-
sick llamas, you've been reading a different thread than the rest of us if you see any fe win here.
-
Another great video CIK. Interesting when Dollard says the Sun's light could only be minutes old. What I think makes foucault's pendulum dubious is the fact that it seems to be effected by a solar eclipse. What does an eclipse have to do with the rotation of the earth? A few hundred flat earthers are expected to have all the answers, but do the millions of taxpayer supported 'Big Bang' scientists have all the answers?
-
I don't think flat earthers have to have all the answers.
Some answers that make sense and can be observed in reality would be a nice start though.
-
sick llamas, you've been reading a different thread than the rest of us if you see any fe win here.
Your father has been ill when he slept with your mother, so you ended up so retarded.
-
Alpha,
You can twist my words and misinterpret their meaning as much as you want, but it won't help you,
Hey, you're the one who said "The Sun is a complete mystery. How it works? Noone knows." and "So, i don't know how the Sun works, but i know how the Sun doesn't work." not me. Don't blame me for your ignorance. I've been trying to help.
nothing can save your idiotic theory from being put down and crushed into cubes. I did it numerous times (by now) in this thread. Anyone who read this thread from the beginning (to the end) and read it with proper attention and comprehension, cannot fail becoming fully convinced in incomparable superiority of FE theory over RE theory.
Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure.
It used to be interesting gathering enough detail about your errors to properly explain why they're errors. Now you're just being silly.
<more pointless ranting>
-
Another great video CIK. Interesting when Dollard says the Sun's light could only be minutes old. What I think makes foucault's pendulum dubious is the fact that it seems to be effected by a solar eclipse. What does an eclipse have to do with the rotation of the earth? A few hundred flat earthers are expected to have all the answers, but do the millions of taxpayer supported 'Big Bang' scientists have all the answers?
The Sun's light is not even minutes old, it's instantaneous, because the Sun is so close to the Earth. This is something that we know, even without the help of a totally morally corrupted scientific community!
This guy lives in a car, because he revealed some facts about the sun which he hasn't been allowed to reveal.
Should i remind us to these words:
Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677089#msg1677089 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677089#msg1677089)
-
Another great video CIK. Interesting when Dollard says the Sun's light could only be minutes old. What I think makes foucault's pendulum dubious is the fact that it seems to be effected by a solar eclipse. What does an eclipse have to do with the rotation of the earth? A few hundred flat earthers are expected to have all the answers, but do the millions of taxpayer supported 'Big Bang' scientists have all the answers?
You have to see this excerpt (it's hilarious):
#t=15m14s (http://#t=15m14s)
If you wanted to ask me if there is anything strange (tragic) that has happened to this guy i would have to give you the right answer, which is this:
20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
-
Ya, I would imagine they would jail everyone who didn't believe in evolution if they could get away with it! Probably including torture, and the death penalty. Here is a good website on the topic www.evoillusion.org/ (http://www.evoillusion.org/) This website was a benefit to me and my friend...
I don't agree with everything Kent says, but I respect him. He has very big balls. He is what you would call a real man. Give him a Cigar, a glass of whiskey, and a Cowboy hat, and put him beside Clint Eastwood.
What makes a man, isn't big muscles and tattoos, but the ability to speak your mind, and to take a stand. We live in a politically correct age, where the biggest crime is to disagree with the establishment. Being wrong about something isn't the end of the world. Losing our freedoms, is the end of everything (including science). If flat earthers happen to be wrong, it isn't the end of the world, but I am willing to bet, most flat earthers strongly support individual freedom.
-
Why are old world monkeys only found in Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys only found in South America?
-
Why are old world monkeys only found in Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys only found in South America?
Because that is where they live.
-
Thank you for such a thorough explanation of the basis for your belief in a flat earth. I am at a disadvantage because up until a month ago or so, I didn't even know that flat-earth believers existed. Therefore, I am not as knowledgeable in this area and am still picking things up as I go. I am having to do some research for my response, so bear with me if I take my time.
I was mistaken, it seems, that the Bible speaks of a sphere. You were correct in stating that there was no word in the Hebrew for such a shape. Therefore, either shape could be assumed.
"Wrong, there is only one shape that could be assumed : Flat Earth concept (i explained what it means several times)!"
“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either." Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"."
Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”
The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...
Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!
Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.
21th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now.
With the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html)
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
Pretty sure this happened.
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (that the HC theory is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!
Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."
I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.
THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
The Bishop of Peterborough is another notable example. He says:
" I have no fear whatever, that the Bible will be found, In the long run, to contain more science than all the theories of philosophers put together."
My response is lengthy, so everyone's patience is appreciated for all the work that went into this (you made me do my homework! lol)
"Wrong, there is only one shape that could be assumed : Flat Earth concept (i explained what it means several times)!"
And I explained why the Bible does not speak specifically of a flat earth or a spherical earth. I do not see anything you have said that proves otherwise.
“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either."[/b][/color][/u] Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"."
Heliocentricism is not "modern astronomy." By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. More on this later.
As I stated previously, It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môwt) in the same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved’. Rather, the passage teaches that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. If that’s so, then it’s impossible to deny that ‘the world … cannot be moved’ could mean that Earth will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set for it.
The Psalms are clearly poetic, not historical like Genesis.14 Thus, they were never intended to be used as a basis for a cosmological model. This can be shown by analyzing the context of Psalm 93:1: ‘The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.’
We should understand the terms as used by the biblical authors. Let’s read the next verse, ‘[God’s] throne is established of old,’ where the same word Hebrew כּוּן (kûn) is translated ‘established’ [i.e., stable, secure, enduring, not necessarily stationary, immobile].
Also, the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (מוֹט môt) is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved.’ Surely, even skeptics wouldn’t accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! He meant that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. So the earth ‘cannot be moved’ can also mean that it will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set for it. Life on earth requires that the earth’s orbit is at just the right distance from the sun for liquid water to exist. Also, that the earth’s rotational axis is at just the right angle from the ecliptic (orbital plane) so that temperature differences are not too extreme.
Joshua’s command to the sun to stand still does not support geocentrism. The Bible uses the language of appearance and observation.
Today people do exactly the same thing. For example, scientists who prepare weather reports for TV announce the times of ‘sunrise and sunset’. In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves.
Flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. There are accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon, inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan and Nicholas Oresme; the monk John of Sacrobosco who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede, who popularized the common BC/ AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight.
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
And the leading church theologian of the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas, wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:
“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.”
The above demonstrate that Columbus was never opposed by flat earthers, simply because there were none to oppose him, among either church or political leaders. So what was the real issue?
Columbus was trying to reach India by sea, the ‘long way’ around the earth. But to do that, his ships had to carry enough provisions for the length of the journey. He had learned that the 9th-century Persian astronomer Alfraganus had estimated each degree of latitude spanned “56⅔ miles”. But Columbus thought Alfraganus meant the Roman mile (1,480 m, 4,856 ft), whereas he was using the Arabic mile (1,830 m, 6,004 ft). Thus Columbus thought that the earth’s circumference was only about ¾ of its actual length of about 40,000 km (25,000 miles). Columbus also greatly underestimated the distance between Japan and the Canary Islands as 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km or 2,300 miles), whereas the distance by sea is more like 19,600 km (12,200 miles).
It was thus the size of the earth, not the shape, that was under dispute. His critics argued that ships of his day (1492) could not carry enough fresh water and food for such a huge journey. And they were right! Columbus was just lucky that an enormous continent was in the way.
An example of the misinformation in the ‘education’ system comes from the 20th-century high-school history textbook The American Pageant by Thomas Bailey. Many of its editions claimed, “The superstitious sailors [of Columbus’ crew] … grew increasingly mutinous … because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world.”
However, sailors were well aware of the shape of the earth. One myth states that people realized that the earth was round because they saw ships slowly sinking below the horizon. But before telescopes, it was more likely the other way round: sailors returning to land saw high mountains before lowlands.
Also, sailors from the northern hemisphere crossed the equator well before Christ, and reported that in the South, the sun shone from the north. They also knew how to measure their latitude from the angle of the sun at noon, which works only with a spherical earth.
The much-parroted flat-earth myth about him comes not from history but from the tales of Washington Irving, "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus". Irving was probably America’s first genuine best-selling writer, but he admitted that he was “apt to indulge in the imagination.” Flat-earth belief was certainly a figment of his imagination.
It was bad enough that this myth entered the public perception thanks to Irving’s wide readership. But it became worse when it acquired the veneer of scholarship, so it could be used as a club with which to bash Christianity. The main propagandists for this cause were the notorious 19th century anti-Christian bigots John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Draper, a fine chemist and photographer—first president of the American Chemical Society—but a lousy historian, wrote History of the Conflict between Religion and Science as a poorly informed polemic against the Church. White was a disgruntled ex-Episcopalian and the founder of Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States. He also published the two-volume work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
Both authors relied heavily on the work of Cosmas, portraying his flat-earth teaching as typical rather than the almost forgotten, extreme minority view that it was. And they are the ones most responsible for the discredited ‘conflict thesis’ between Christianity and science, instead of the real history that the Christian world-view was responsible for science in the first place, while it was still-born in other places like ancient Greece and China.
Colin Russell, Emeritus Professor of History of Science and Technology at the Open University, writes:
“Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship.”
Both J.B. Russell and Gould argue that Draper and White had an agenda to discredit Christians who opposed the then-new theories of Darwin as ‘flat earthers’. Nothing much has changed!
The ancient Greeks well before Christ, had realized that the earth is a globe by observing lunar eclipses. They realized that at such times, the earth was between the moon and the sun, and it always cast a circular shadow, regardless of the direction, which proves that it’s a globe. For example, the famous philosopher Aristotle said:
“Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical. And it is right to call anything that which nature intends it to be, and which belongs to it, rather than which it is by constraint and contrary to nature. The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind—straight, gibbous, and concave—but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.”
If the Bible does not explicitly say that the earth is flat and/or still (different from immovable, as stated above), then it is unreasonable to assume that proofs of the earth's sphericity is a scam and a lie. Indeed the Bible itself speaks against conspiracy theory: Isaiah 8:12-13 says,
“Do not say, ‘A conspiracy,’ Concerning all that this people call a conspiracy, Nor be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled."
-
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!! That's all i can say!
If the Earth were a globe, i would give up the whole Bible, and that's not all, that's exactly what has happened on a "global" level. Do you remember these words:
The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.
" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."
Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.
2. Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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!!!
Which option is going to be true, what do you think?
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
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)
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
3. Something about the accuracy of every single word that has been written in the Bible:
Prophecy fulfilled ...
Now take the 476 years in this prophecy and simply start counting from March 14, 445 B.C. (when the command to rebuild the city Jerusalem and its wall was given) and you end on the exact year (even the very day) Jesus (Yeshua) rode 'triumphantly' into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday), being praised as King and Messiah by thousands upon thousands of the Jewish people who had gathered from all over for the Passover Holidays. Honored, yet lowly, riding on a donkey - exactly as another prophet, the prophet Zechariah, said He would ...
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion (Israel)!
Behold, your King (Messiah) is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
yet He is lowly and riding on a donkey."
(Zechariah 9:9 ... written around 500 B.C.)
Thus, on the 10th day of Nisan ("Palm Sunday") 32 AD ... 476 years after the command was given to rebuild the city and its wall ... Jesus (Yeshua) made His famous "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem, riding on a donkey. It was the only day that He ever allowed Himself to be honored as Messiah or King (Mark 11:1-12) as the people of Israel cried out and sang "Hosanna to the Son of David (this is a Psalm of the Messiah), blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!" from Psalm 118 ... (and all this took place just a few days before He was "executed" exactly as Daniel's prophecy said He would!)
A remarkable prophecy . . . simply count the years!
March 14, 445 B.C. Commandment is issued by Artexerxes I to rebuild the wall
to April 6, 32 A.D. "Palm Sunday", 10th of Nisan - Jesus welcomed as King and Messiah
= 477 years
- 1 year Subtract one for no "0" A.D. or B.C.
= 476 years Exactly!
Who else around 32 A.D. fulfilled all these many prophecies?
No one!!! Only Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth (born in Bethlehem in the line of King David) ... the promised Messiah!
This prophecy in the Book of Daniel (written over 500 years before Jesus was born) ALSO warned Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple ("Sanctuary") would be destroyed AFTER Messiah would be executed ...
"And the people of the prince who shall come ("People" = Roman Empire ... "Prince" = The Antichrist)
shall destroy the CITY (Jerusalem)
AND the TEMPLE ("Sanctuary")
(Daniel 9:26)
A NEW prophecy given: Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed ... (fulfilled by the Romans in 70 AD)
Right after the "Triumphal Entry," Jesus (Yeshua) wept over Jerusalem ... knowing the people of Israel would ignore this prophecy... and all the other prophecies of the Messiah which were so specific that God held them accountable! This is why the Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were scattered and dispersed around the world . . . Read more : http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy1.html (http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy1.html)
-
Ya, I would imagine they would jail everyone who didn't believe in evolution if they could get away with it! Probably including torture, and the death penalty. Here is a good website on the topic www.evoillusion.org/ (http://www.evoillusion.org/) This website was a benefit to me and my friend...
I don't agree with everything Kent says, but I respect him. He has very big balls. He is what you would call a real man. Give him a Cigar, a glass of whiskey, and a Cowboy hat, and put him beside Clint Eastwood.
What makes a man, isn't big muscles and tattoos, but the ability to speak your mind, and to take a stand. We live in a politically correct age, where the biggest crime is to disagree with the establishment. Being wrong about something isn't the end of the world. Losing our freedoms, is the end of everything (including science). If flat earthers happen to be wrong, it isn't the end of the world, but I am willing to bet, most flat earthers strongly support individual freedom.
Click on the link at the bottom of this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695)
This interview with Edward Snowden was blocked from US & German television networks. No major news outlets are covering this story. The video is immediately taken down every time it’s posted on Youtube : http://buzzready.tv/2014/01/watch-rare-snowden-interview-blocked-by-us-german-media-outlets/ (http://buzzready.tv/2014/01/watch-rare-snowden-interview-blocked-by-us-german-media-outlets/)
One excerpt from this interview:
Interviewer: What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this kind of instrument?
Snowden: You could read anyone’s email in the world. Anybody you got an email address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any computer that an individual sits at, you can watch it, any laptop that you’re tracking, you can follow it as it moves from place to place throughout the world. It’s a one stop shop for access to the NSA’s information. And what’s more, you can tag individuals using “XKeyscore.” Where, let’s say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was interesting, or you just have access that’s interesting to me. Let’s say you work at a major German corporation, and I want access to that network. I can track your username on a website, on a form somewhere, I can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends, and I can build what’s called a fingerprint, which is network activity unique to you, which means anywhere you go in the world, anywhere you try to sort of hide your online presence, hide your identity, the NSA can find you. And, anyone who’s allowed to use this, or who the NSA shares their software with, can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries that have access to “XKeyscore.”
Interviewer: This sounds rather frightening.
-
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!! That's all i can say!
If the Earth were a globe, i would give up the whole Bible, and that's not all, that's exactly what has happened on a "global" level.
If 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!!!
Which option is going to be true, what do you think?"
First of all, I am definitely not twisting God's words. Everything I said is within perfectly acceptable interpretations. I can't even fathom why you would give up the whole Bible if what I said about it is true. I would dare say that your faith and relationship with God must not be very real if it solely depends upon the shape of our earth. Really?
What do I think? I think the earth is moveable i.e. it spins. I do not think it can be moved off of its rotation or orbit, and I do not think anyone or anything can control it to that extent except for God. That is how I interpret those scriptures, and it is perfectly reasonable to interpret them in this way. If you have to be so literal in order to have your salvation in place, you might as well also believe that all of Revelation is literal, including the woman on the dragon. You have to know what is meant to be taken literally, plainly, poetically, metaphorically, and historically. There is a difference between each, and God meant/the authors meant for certain phrases to be taken within the reason of what we know about our world/God.
A spinning, spherical earth does not contradict anything in scripture, whatsoever. You are viewing a flat earth on the same level as Jesus paying for your sins. If that is the case, you are so stuck in your opinions, there is nothing I can say to you further, and I will not waste my time.
Your ramblings about prophecy have nothing to do with our topic, that I could see. It seems that you are a flailing mad person without much logic and full of fear and cynical views about everyone around you. I pray that God gives you some peace and perspective (and whatever else you need) in order that you may have a more fulfilling rest of your days.
-
@ simplyfascinated,
I am offering you scientific evidences which corroborate words of a living God, but you are blind slave who is not able to discern white and black, left and right, it's your choice to be blind slave and to twist God's word.
But even if your attitude about the shape of the Earth depended only on God's words, you still couldn't deny (if you were reasonable person who reads Bible carefully and with understanding) that the Bible repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
So i repeat: Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!!
Don't waste your precious time answering to these words, your further comments are not welcome in this thread anyway, because you are an arrogant clown incapable to think for himself, and beside that we have had enough of yours stupid quotes which you are picking up at stupid creation.com...
If you had a shred of reason in your mind then you would be able to understand the true meaning of these words :
What makes a man, isn't big muscles and tattoos, but the ability to speak your mind, and to take a stand.
Thanks @ Earth is a stage for these clever words!!!
This is my testimony about my RE-FE conversion:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640968#msg1640968 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640968#msg1640968)
Thanks for your partaking in this discussion and goodby!!!
My faith and relationship with God doesn't solely depend upon the shape of our earth, but God wouldn't be God if He ever said even only one single lie. And if the Earth were round He would be a liar. You are coward because you have no courage to face and to accept God's word in their genuine form and meaning. God never lies, NEVER!!! And God's words on this issue (whether the Earth is immobile or not) are ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. That is the point.
Thanks for your partaking in this discussion and goodby!!!
P.S. Yes, i know, i shouldn't throw pearls before swine", but i am just a sinner, sorry...
-
Stop going on about bronze age mythology for once, and try to talk at least some sense,
The "god" you rant about exists no more (probably less so) than Odin and Thor.
-
Stop going on about bronze age mythology for once, and try to talk at least some sense,
The "god" you rant about exists no more (probably less so) than Odin and Thor.
sevenhills
A word of advice. Check out jroa's subject on "Purgatory." If I read it correctly, he is going to start banning people for posts such as yours. In other words is this website only going to be open to flat earthers and anything against the flat earth is going to be verboten ?
-
@ simplyfascinated,
I am offering you scientific evidences which corroborate words of a living God, but you are blind slave who is not able to discern white and black, left and right, it's your choice to be blind slave and to twist God's word.
But even if your attitude about the shape of the Earth depended only on God's words, you still couldn't deny (if you were reasonable person who reads Bible carefully and with understanding) that the Bible repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
So i repeat: Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!!
Don't waste your precious time answering to these words, your further comments are not welcome in this thread anyway, because you are an arrogant clown incapable to think for himself, and beside that we have had enough of yours stupid quotes which you are picking up at stupid creation.com...
If you had a shred of reason in your mind then you would be able to understand the true meaning of these words :
What makes a man, isn't big muscles and tattoos, but the ability to speak your mind, and to take a stand.
Thanks @ Earth is a stage for these clever words!!!
This is my testimony about my RE-FE conversion:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640968#msg1640968 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640968#msg1640968)
Thanks for your partaking in this discussion and goodby!!!
My faith and relationship with God doesn't solely depend upon the shape of our earth, but God wouldn't be God if He ever said even only one single lie. And if the Earth were round He would be a liar. You are coward because you have no courage to face and to accept God's word in their genuine form and meaning. God never lies, NEVER!!! And God's words on this issue (whether the Earth is immobile or not) are ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. That is the point.
Thanks for your partaking in this discussion and goodby!!!
P.S. Yes, i know, i shouldn't throw pearls before swine", but i am just a sinner, sorry...
@ simplyfascinated,
I am offering you scientific evidences which corroborate words of a living God, but you are blind slave who is not able to discern white and black, left and right, it's your choice to be blind slave and to twist God's word.
But even if your attitude about the shape of the Earth depended only on God's words, you still couldn't deny (if you were reasonable person who reads Bible carefully and with understanding) that the Bible repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
So i repeat: Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!!
Don't waste your precious time answering to these words, your further comments are not welcome in this thread anyway, because you are an arrogant clown incapable to think for himself, and beside that we have had enough of yours stupid quotes which you are picking up at stupid creation.com...
If you had a shred of reason in your mind then you would be able to understand the true meaning of these words :
What makes a man, isn't big muscles and tattoos, but the ability to speak your mind, and to take a stand.
Thanks @ Earth is a stage for these clever words!!!
This is my testimony about my RE-FE conversion:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640968#msg1640968 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640968#msg1640968)
Thanks for your partaking in this discussion and goodby!!!
My faith and relationship with God doesn't solely depend upon the shape of our earth, but God wouldn't be God if He ever said even only one single lie. And if the Earth were round He would be a liar. You are coward because you have no courage to face and to accept God's word in their genuine form and meaning. God never lies, NEVER!!! And God's words on this issue (whether the Earth is immobile or not) are ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. That is the point.
Thanks for your partaking in this discussion and goodby!!!
P.S. Yes, i know, i shouldn't throw pearls before swine", but i am just a sinner, sorry...
Your immature, personal attacks and efforts to control what I say and when do not help your cause and do not reflect your alleged faith in the One who commands us to be loving and kind to one another, speaking humbly to each other about our differences.
You apparently do not care to digest anything I've said about the way "immovable" was meant to be read, including the Hebrew roots of the word. Honestly, I don't really care.
You're right, God doesn't lie. Never said He did. ::)
If I were a coward, I certainly wouldn't be dabbling in creation.com. =)
If you were recently converted to a FE, then how does that reflect your opinions about God's word regarding it? Diid you also become a Christian after 2014? Were you a clown and a coward before then? I saw your link. There were very good refutes against your pictures that you never responded to. Your pictures, for one, are not to scale for seeing the curvature of the earth. We live on a very big planet (relatively speaking). I do hope that wasn't really the reason for your conversion.
Your strong and false assumptions about a few things, including 9/11, prove to me that you're someone on the verge of constant paranoia, as I expected. I feel sorry for you, and wish you well. Thanks for your time.
-
Stop going on about bronze age mythology for once, and try to talk at least some sense,
The "god" you rant about exists no more (probably less so) than Odin and Thor.
sevenhills
A word of advice. Check out jroa's subject on "Purgatory." If I read it correctly, he is going to start banning people for posts such as yours.
You are an idiot. Pongo, you can ban me again. I will not even complain to John Davis about getting banned this time.
-
One of my difficulties with the round earth, is the fact that lighthouses can be seen (sometimes) at distances beyond the curviture of the earth. When you should have something like a wall of water around a 1000 ft high, but you can see a lighthouse only a few hundred ft high. I understand that on a large earth, it might be difficult to see any curviture, but it is often RET that are claiming to see the curviture. How can curviture be seen under 40 000 ft. I am sorry to see name calling on this forum. Everyone is a valuable human being.
-
One of my difficulties with the round earth, is the fact that lighthouses can be seen (sometimes) at distances beyond the curviture of the earth. When you should have something like a wall of water around a 1000 ft high, but you can see a lighthouse only a few hundred ft high. I understand that on a large earth, it might be difficult to see any curviture, but it is often RET that are claiming to see the curviture. How can curviture be seen under 40 000 ft. I am sorry to see name calling on this forum. Everyone is a valuable human being.
You are thinking about a round Earth horizon wrong, you also have to take into account the altitude of the observer and the maximum distance a lighthouse can be observed at is the distance to the horizon from the top of the lighthouse plus the distance to the horizon for the observer.
-
If a lighthouse is 150 feet above sea-level, what would you say is the maximum number of miles it should be able to be seen? Are there certain conditions that can cause the lighthouse to be seen temporarily further?
-
If a lighthouse is 150 feet above sea-level, what would you say is the maximum number of miles it should be able to be seen? Are there certain conditions that can cause the lighthouse to be seen temporarily further?
I can't calculate that unless I know the height of the observer. If I assume that the observer is an average height and standing at sea level then the horizon would be 3 miles away while from the top of the horizon would be 15 miles. This means that if you were standing at sea level you would be able to see the top of the lighthouse from 18 miles away. If you were at a higher altitude then you would be able to see the lighthouse from further away, and you didn't really specify the height of the observer so keep that in mind.
-
If a lighthouse is 150 feet above sea-level, what would you say is the maximum number of miles it should be able to be seen? Are there certain conditions that can cause the lighthouse to be seen temporarily further?
I'm going to post this anyway, but it deals with seeing a lighthouse on round earth.
This may answer some of your questions ?
http://www.pajack.com/stories/pitts/viewdistance.html (http://www.pajack.com/stories/pitts/viewdistance.html)
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
And this is a chart on how far you should see a lighthouse is taking into account the height of the observer and the height of the lighthouse.
http://www.terrypepper.com/Lights/lists/visibility.htm (http://www.terrypepper.com/Lights/lists/visibility.htm)
If there are charts and information on how far the lighthouse could be seen on a flat earth, this would be interesting.
I am probably going to get banned or at least get a warning since it presents round earth facts and from my own personal observations during my Naval Service but does not deal with the subject from a flat earth standpoint.
jroa Do you see why we "Round Earthers" have problems in answering these kinds of questions ?
-
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)
Nope. Sorry, but the horizon isn't really that far from the observer, and as the observer is turning in a complete circle to track the sun, the horizon will continue moving one direction in relation to the sun. It seems you are unable to understand this, and also the RE distance to the sun.
There would be no zigzag.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/hrzn_zpsgcohetj4.jpg)
-
Also, something I learned just today from a photographer is that on a fish eye lense, the curvature of a horizon will actually be distorted to curve up. So in a lot of pictures taken of the horizon, it has been straightened out.
-
Thanks Googleotomy. Appreciate you finding this information for me. I believe your chart must be including refraction in it's calculation. (100 ft, the chart gives 13.23 miles, and not 12.3 miles.)
I wish I could give you a $2.00 tip!
-
Also, something I learned just today from a photographer is that on a fish eye lense, the curvature of a horizon will actually be distorted to curve up. So in a lot of pictures taken of the horizon, it has been straightened out.
If you are interested in truth use a straight edge.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61022.msg1582692#msg1582692 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61022.msg1582692#msg1582692)
-
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!! That's all i can say!
If the Earth were a globe, i would give up the whole Bible, and that's not all, that's exactly what has happened on a "global" level. Do you remember these words:
The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.
" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."
Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.
2. Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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!!!
Which option is going to be true, what do you think?
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
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)
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.
That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.
And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!
Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.
This new mindset was indisputably foundational for the success of the Bible-denying evolutionism which was the next thing the Devil was to send down the road, attired fetchingly as "science". First infiltrate the physical "sciences," then the life "sciences."
Once understood, denial of the symbiotic relationship between Copernicanism and Darwinism can only exist through willful blindness of historical and spiritual facts. The blindness is often coupled with pleas that the focus has to be kept on evolution, ignoring the fact that the two are fundamentally inseparable.
This is a blindness that can no longer be dismissed with a shrug amongst undeviating Bible Creationists today. It is a blindness that is the root of all modern Bible-bashing. Christians cannot continue to disregard and minimize this fact and be indifferent toward it. Satan seemingly has been allowed to trick even the very elect on this one; and now God is calling His own to take back that which was stolen.
Called "giants" who refuted geocentrism on the tape, Kepler, Galileo and Newton PROVED NOTHING!!! Newton himself never claimed to have any proof for or against heliocentrism. But, in a spiritual sense, they are still giants, to be sure. They are the "giants in the land" that today's Joshuas and Calebs amogst honest folk everywhere are called by God to expose, knock off their pedestals, and drive out of the land which they helped fortify against Bible Absolutism!
Take Kepler, of whom it is said: "...the question of lifes's origin on earth fascinated Kepler." (John Lear, Kepler's Dream, U. of CA. Berkeley and Los Angeles) And "adaptation of species...seemed as logical to Kepler as it did to Charles Darwin over two centuries later when Darwin began to put together his theory of evolution." So we see here a clear and remarkably early connection of heliocentrism and evolutionism in the mind of this "giant" of the Copernican movement. Moreover, it is well established that Kepler believed there were evolved life forms on the Moon. How is it then that this precocious evolutionist is acclaimed by Creationists today as a great man of God???
Indeed, who is this Copernican-evolutionist Kepler that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) now lionized with a book, and whom Dr. DeYoung calls a "giant" who helped slay geocentrism)? Well, Kepler's lineage and career are certainly of interest to any serious Bible lover. Note these factual tidbits:
* His grandmother was raised by a "kinswoman who had been executed for witchcraft".
* His mother had forty-nine counts of witchcraft officially brought against her.
* In January, 1616, officials in Wurttenberg charged Johannes Kepler himself with practicing "forbidden arths", i.e., witchcraft.
* Kepler studied for the Lutheran Clergy, but was always wrangling with the church authorities and was never allowed to have a pulpit.
* The pastor at Linz wouldn't allow Kepler to take communion.
* While a university student in the late 1500's, Kepler wrote a wild story about demons taking people to the Moon so they could watch the Earth rotating!?!?!?!
* Kepler got into a partnership with Tycho Brahe, the dean of astronomers at that time, who was a bulwark against the rising Copernican heresy. Brahe died rather suddenly (an conveniently for the Copernican movement) pleading with Kepler not to use his work to further Copernicanism (which plea was ignored, of course).
Both Protestant and Catholic church leaders remained officially opposed to Copernicanism for at least 150 years until Newton's Principia was published in 1687. Then they began to waffle. Still, there were plenty of holdouts through the next century and into the 1800's. The Roman Catholic Index didn't delete Copernicus' book until 1835. Scatered books and protests even continued until about the First World War, then virtually died out, and only in recent years have begun to be seen and heard again.
Though Newton's book certainly did not prove Copernicanism, it incorporated some new abstract mathematics which served that purpose and rapidly gained acceptance at the universities (just like Darwinism later).
Mathematics, utterly abstruse and esoteric, now became the primary instrument in the hands of Copernicans. The secular science establishment used this new priesthood of mathematicians to soften up the universities first, and then the churches. Thus was the way prepared for the acceptance of some real Bible-bashing by the coming "scientific" substitute for the six-day Creation of man and all else, viz.., evolutionism.
-
Wait does anyone still read all that crap? I normally scroll past ciks entire posts now. Pretty bold colored words though, I still refuse to read it anymore since its always the same, or copied from 3 posts before.
-
Also, something I learned just today from a photographer is that on a fish eye lense, the curvature of a horizon will actually be distorted to curve up. So in a lot of pictures taken of the horizon, it has been straightened out.
The horizon could curve up while using a fish eye lens. It all depends on the location of the horizon in reference to the lens. The horizon could also curve down, or even be perfectly straight when using a fish eye lens.
-
Yes, ausgeoff did post a diagram a while back showing as bit to how a fish eye lens distorts the picture at the edges. Above the middle it will curve upwards and below the middle it will curve downwards. Happens left and right also the same way. it all depends on the type of lens too.
-
While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.
Twisting God's words is the greatest shame of all!!! That's all i can say!
If the Earth were a globe, i would give up the whole Bible, and that's not all, that's exactly what has happened on a "global" level. Do you remember these words:
The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.
" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."
Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.
2. Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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!!!
Which option is going to be true, what do you think?
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
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)
(http://i.imgur.com/7y0Lw4Q.jpg)
All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.
That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.
And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!
Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.
This new mindset was indisputably foundational for the success of the Bible-denying evolutionism which was the next thing the Devil was to send down the road, attired fetchingly as "science". First infiltrate the physical "sciences," then the life "sciences."
Once understood, denial of the symbiotic relationship between Copernicanism and Darwinism can only exist through willful blindness of historical and spiritual facts. The blindness is often coupled with pleas that the focus has to be kept on evolution, ignoring the fact that the two are fundamentally inseparable.
This is a blindness that can no longer be dismissed with a shrug amongst undeviating Bible Creationists today. It is a blindness that is the root of all modern Bible-bashing. Christians cannot continue to disregard and minimize this fact and be indifferent toward it. Satan seemingly has been allowed to trick even the very elect on this one; and now God is calling His own to take back that which was stolen.
Called "giants" who refuted geocentrism on the tape, Kepler, Galileo and Newton PROVED NOTHING!!! Newton himself never claimed to have any proof for or against heliocentrism. But, in a spiritual sense, they are still giants, to be sure. They are the "giants in the land" that today's Joshuas and Calebs amogst honest folk everywhere are called by God to expose, knock off their pedestals, and drive out of the land which they helped fortify against Bible Absolutism!
Take Kepler, of whom it is said: "...the question of lifes's origin on earth fascinated Kepler." (John Lear, Kepler's Dream, U. of CA. Berkeley and Los Angeles) And "adaptation of species...seemed as logical to Kepler as it did to Charles Darwin over two centuries later when Darwin began to put together his theory of evolution." So we see here a clear and remarkably early connection of heliocentrism and evolutionism in the mind of this "giant" of the Copernican movement. Moreover, it is well established that Kepler believed there were evolved life forms on the Moon. How is it then that this precocious evolutionist is acclaimed by Creationists today as a great man of God???
Indeed, who is this Copernican-evolutionist Kepler that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) now lionized with a book, and whom Dr. DeYoung calls a "giant" who helped slay geocentrism)? Well, Kepler's lineage and career are certainly of interest to any serious Bible lover. Note these factual tidbits:
* His grandmother was raised by a "kinswoman who had been executed for witchcraft".
* His mother had forty-nine counts of witchcraft officially brought against her.
* In January, 1616, officials in Wurttenberg charged Johannes Kepler himself with practicing "forbidden arths", i.e., witchcraft.
* Kepler studied for the Lutheran Clergy, but was always wrangling with the church authorities and was never allowed to have a pulpit.
* The pastor at Linz wouldn't allow Kepler to take communion.
* While a university student in the late 1500's, Kepler wrote a wild story about demons taking people to the Moon so they could watch the Earth rotating!?!?!?!
* Kepler got into a partnership with Tycho Brahe, the dean of astronomers at that time, who was a bulwark against the rising Copernican heresy. Brahe died rather suddenly (an conveniently for the Copernican movement) pleading with Kepler not to use his work to further Copernicanism (which plea was ignored, of course).
Both Protestant and Catholic church leaders remained officially opposed to Copernicanism for at least 150 years until Newton's Principia was published in 1687. Then they began to waffle. Still, there were plenty of holdouts through the next century and into the 1800's. The Roman Catholic Index didn't delete Copernicus' book until 1835. Scatered books and protests even continued until about the First World War, then virtually died out, and only in recent years have begun to be seen and heard again.
Though Newton's book certainly did not prove Copernicanism, it incorporated some new abstract mathematics which served that purpose and rapidly gained acceptance at the universities (just like Darwinism later).
Mathematics, utterly abstruse and esoteric, now became the primary instrument in the hands of Copernicans. The secular science establishment used this new priesthood of mathematicians to soften up the universities first, and then the churches. Thus was the way prepared for the acceptance of some real Bible-bashing by the coming "scientific" substitute for the six-day Creation of man and all else, viz.., evolutionism.
* The earth is fixed and immovable and lies at the center of all things. The sun moves about the earth, not the other way around. Use of the phrase "solar system" should therefore be avoided in favor of the more accurate "geosystem."
* The earth is flat and finite. Its boundary may be circular, but the earth is most certainly not a sphere as was hypothesized by Eratosthenes (a pagan scientist who lived two centuries before the birth of Christ). The placement of globes in public classrooms can only serve to promote ecology as a possible state religion.
* The sky is the roof over the earth -- a solid impervious barrier that protects both believers and non-believers from the waters beyond. The term "outer space" is a notion perpetrated by secular humanists, new age gurus, and other freethinkers.
* The stars on the sky are much smaller than the earth. (The word "on" is not a typographical error here.) The notion of "distant suns" is nothing more than a theory entertained by misguided scientists.
-
The mobility of the sun
The most important biblical quote supporting a geocentric universe can be found in the Book of Joshua. This will be used as the starting point for our scriptural cosmology.
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
The miracle of Joshua appears again as a reference in The Book of Habakkuk.
Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.
The evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming here. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. He did not order the earth to cease rotating nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves. Descriptions of its motion can be rather poetic.
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
-
The stability of the earth
On the other side of the geocentric coin, if the sun moves then the earth must not move. There are a few passages which more-or-less forbid the motion of the earth.
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
In addition, the notion of an earth with a "foundation" is quite common. This leads one to conclude that the earth is quite stable.
2 Samuel 22:16
Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
Psalms 18:15
Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
Psalms 102:25
Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Proverbs 8:27-29
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
Isaiah 48:13
My hand laid out the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.
Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.
Isaiah 24:18
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.
The earth's geo-architecture is also uncertain. Compare the following passages.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
Job 38:4-6
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?
-
The shape of the earth
In any case, the earth is not spherical. According to the Scriptures, from a very high spot (heaven, for example) one could see the entire earth such that nothing would be hidden. Such a thing is not possible with a spherical earth as the opposite side can't be seen directly. This implies that the earth is flat.
Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
From a great distance, a sphere would look like a circle. Perhaps the phrase "circle of the earth" refers to the outline of the earth? Perhaps. But then how could one see "all the kingdoms of the world? Those on the back hemisphere would remain hidden. The next passages should remove this confusion.
Psalms 136:6
to him who spread out the earth upon the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;
Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth -- Who was with me? --
If the earth were spherical, one would use a verb other than "spread out" to describe its creation (balled up, gathered up, gathered together, anything but spread out). One might say they "spread out" batter to make pancakes but no one would ever say they "spread out" hamburger to make meatballs. The earth in the Bible was "spread out" because it is flat.
-
None of the things you posted are not ambiguous about the shape of the Earth.
-
Wait does anyone still read all that crap? I normally scroll past ciks entire posts now. Pretty bold colored words though, I still refuse to read it anymore since its always the same, or copied from 3 posts before.
Nope, I'm done. lol
-
Also, something I learned just today from a photographer is that on a fish eye lense, the curvature of a horizon will actually be distorted to curve up. So in a lot of pictures taken of the horizon, it has been straightened out.
If you are interested in truth use a straight edge.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61022.msg1582692#msg1582692 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61022.msg1582692#msg1582692)
I addressed pictures like yours already. Yours are definitely not true to scale for seeing the curvature of the earth. As far as I know, you need to be above the earth quite a bit before seeing it.
-
Ladies and Gentleman, I have in my possession now, a chart that provides the maximum distance of the visibility of objects. It begins with these confident words:
"As a result of the curvature of the earth, there is a maximum distance at which an object of a given height can be seen before it disappears beneath the horizon. The chart below shows these distances for structures of heights from 5 feet through 1,000 feet.
This distance is increased when the observer is located at a point above the surface of the earth, and since most aids to navigation are viewed from the deck of a vessel, the maximum distance of visibility is increased. This is represented in the "Plus 15 foot observer" column."
Now, based upon the information provided by Eric Dubey, we can ascertain if the "maximum distance" is ever contravened. His article begins:
"A copy of the book “The Lighthouses of the World” and a calculator are enough to prove that the Earth is not a globe, but an extended flat plane. The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a globe Earth 25,000 miles in circumference."
Here are some of his examples:
"The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight. The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight! The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon! The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!"
When I compare these examples with the chart provided by Googleotomy, there seems a discepancy!
For example the Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse would need to be around 1000 ft above sea level, and the lighthouse in Egypt, is well out of range of the chart. Are there any credible answers from the round earth theory perspective?
-
Fun facts. Mixing up meters with feet and km with miles makes calculations look ridiculous. Also misstating the range that it can be seen from is also rather insidious.
Needles Lighthouse (Isle of Wight, the new one)
Height 31 m (102 ft)
Focal height 24 m (79 ft)
Range Red (intensified) and White - 17 nmi (31 km; 20 mi); Red and Green - 14 nmi (26 km; 16 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needles_Lighthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needles_Lighthouse)
Lighthouse of Port Said
Height 56 m (184 ft)
Range 40 km (25 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_of_Port_Said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_of_Port_Said)
Cape Agulhas Lighthouse
Height 27 m (89 ft)
Focal height 31 m (102 ft)
Range 30 nmi (56 km; 35 mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Agulhas_Lighthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Agulhas_Lighthouse)
Statue of Liberty I couldn't find range data on it but
Height
Base to torch: 151 feet 1 inch (46 meters)
Ground to torch: 305 feet 1 inch (93 meters)
edit *** I did find some data on the statue being used as a lighthouse in the past and its range was 24 miles, but I'm pretty sure the torch was no where near as bright as a lighthouse beam *** edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty)
I have researched much of Eric Dubay's work and I do not trust his claims, there has been obvious deception such as this misstating of facts to make things look like what he wants it to.
Now I haven't looked these up on the charts that earth is a stage has right now, but I think i know which one is being referred to and will check into it later if need be.
-
Earth is a stage, in the calculation you did about how far away lighthouses should be visable from did you take into account the height of the observer? In larger boats you might be alas much as 25 feet of the surface of the water which compared to the 15 foot value you asumed for the observer height would make the horizon almost 2 miles further. Refraction is also a factor and it's explained (among other things) in this video:
(http://)
-
I think the chart is including the refraction. I used the 15 feet, because that is the figure given on the chart. I am saddened, if Eric purposely fudged the numbers. I was wondering about tides and waves, and if a ship can be temporarily raised higher in the sea.... (etc) I am wondering if I am going to need to travel to these locations, and actually go on the ships. lol
thanks guys. Get back with more details. I will do my own further research!
-
It's a common mistake to mix up meters and feet, but I have seen and heard Eric intentionally make up crap before. He relies on people to just take his claims at face value and not fact check. Now have i been to these places and measured them myself, no, but neither has he and I searched around for a few sources other than wiki before posting. wiki is just easier to see.
Here is a nice one to look at that may show you some closer lighthouses to you if you want to go and measure for yourself. I encourage you to do so, as long as you can afford the time and financial portions of said trip. It's always good to get out and see the world for yourself.
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/ (http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/) This is a directory of about 8300 lighthouses
-
Ladies and Gentleman, I have in my possession now, a chart that provides the maximum distance of the visibility of objects.
Can you post it up?
This is represented in the "Plus 15 foot observer" column."
I'm curious in what way this is calculated.
A viewing height of 72 inches would result in a slightly downward line of sight intersecting the horizon 3 miles away, which means from that point, the drop is only 8 inches at mile 4.
Now about "refraction" or 'superior mirage', which is the result of a layer of cold air under warmer air, causes light to curve with the surface curvature more or less.
Dropping in viewing elevation should result in distant objects 'sinking' below the horizon, correct?
Here are two pictures I took of a distant hillside and buildings sinking below the horizon. A layer of cooler air against the water resulted in a type of superior mirage in which the light was refracted downward, thus the buildings appear higher than they were, even though both the buildings and the hill were sinking beyond the horizon as I lowered my observation point.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/bridge2_zps38b17185.jpg)
-
There you are 29..
http://www.terrypepper.com/Lights/lists/visibility.htm (http://www.terrypepper.com/Lights/lists/visibility.htm)
-
earth is a stage, I wish all FE's were as nice as you. =) Thanks for keeping things pleasant, from what I've seen from you.
-
earth is a stage, is curious. He asks questions and does not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected. He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is. It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.
-
earth is a stage, is curious. He ask questions and do not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected. He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is. It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.
You make a good point. If you are truly one with an "open mind," you shouldn't be offended at other views or information that might not line up with what you thought you knew. Of course it could be that not everyone here is claiming to have an open mind. I think the greatest joy (well, one of them) is learning. I'm always learning stuff when I can, and doing so has changed my mind about things in my adulthood that I always thought I knew. It's fun to grow.
-
earth is a stage, is curious. He ask questions and do not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected. He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is. It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.
You make a good point. If you are truly one with an "open mind," you shouldn't be offended at other views or information that might not line up with what you thought you knew. Of course it could be that not everyone here is claiming to have an open mind. I think the greatest joy (well, one of them) is learning. I'm always learning stuff when I can, and doing so has changed my mind about things in my adulthood that I always thought I knew. It's fun to grow.
Aw, you guys, you just made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Cheers, from tappet.
-
earth is a stage, is curious. He ask questions and do not get upset if the answers do not end up being what he expected. He doesn't believe in spherical Earth theories, but at least shows what an open mind really is. It isn't taking anyone's word for what is, but it also isn't dismissing it either.
For that i will also add my thank you.
You make a good point. If you are truly one with an "open mind," you shouldn't be offended at other views or information that might not line up with what you thought you knew. Of course it could be that not everyone here is claiming to have an open mind. I think the greatest joy (well, one of them) is learning. I'm always learning stuff when I can, and doing so has changed my mind about things in my adulthood that I always thought I knew. It's fun to grow.
Aw, you guys, you just made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Cheers, from tappet.
I "lose" sleep over it... ;D
-
2. Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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)
All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.
That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.
And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!
Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.
This new mindset was indisputably foundational for the success of the Bible-denying evolutionism which was the next thing the Devil was to send down the road, attired fetchingly as "science". First infiltrate the physical "sciences," then the life "sciences."
Once understood, denial of the symbiotic relationship between Copernicanism and Darwinism can only exist through willful blindness of historical and spiritual facts. The blindness is often coupled with pleas that the focus has to be kept on evolution, ignoring the fact that the two are fundamentally inseparable.
This is a blindness that can no longer be dismissed with a shrug amongst undeviating Bible Creationists today. It is a blindness that is the root of all modern Bible-bashing. Christians cannot continue to disregard and minimize this fact and be indifferent toward it. Satan seemingly has been allowed to trick even the very elect on this one; and now God is calling His own to take back that which was stolen.
(http://i.imgur.com/sYquq3F.png)
LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html)
PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html)
SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329)
GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185)
THE GREAT FLOOD : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435)
Once Satan's counterfeit of God's Truth of an Earth-centered geocentric universe gained control of "higher" education, the way was clear to foist his evolutionary counterfeit into the corridors of academia with very little opposition! The real spade work had already been done! Copernicans Voltaire and Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) were developing "ape-man" theories in the 1700's. By the time lawyer Sir Charles Lyell came along with his uniformitarian geology in 1830, evolutionary ideas were fermenting and fomenting in many universities, awaiting only Darwin's "natural selection" mechanism to uncork the bottle.
Does it surprise anyone that the earliest proselytizers of evolutionism were avowed Copernicans, having just received that great quantum leap in "wisdom" from their grandfathers? I can find none.
What i do find, is that philosophers and other intellectuals, all Copernicans from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, had established the heliocentric cosmology so solidly over a 300 year period in the universities and publication circles that even the famous scientist von Humboldt was cowed into silence. Just before Darwin's book came out in 1859, Humboldt said: "I have known too far a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system..." Still, fear of "scorn of a thoughtless multitude" prevented him from saying anything. (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)
Thus, secure from any "credible" attack on their Copernican "science" front, the new Darwinian "science" offensive could then link hands with that "established scientific truth" and forge boldly ahead toward the goal of pushing the Bible completely off stage as a repository of Truth.
In all this, as many of you know, Ernst Haeckel was a powerful force early in the establishment of Darwinism. This biographical note about Herr Haeckel succinctly tells what happened and why it happened: "Ernst Haeckel wedded the idea of clasical physics (Copernicanism) with the new Darwinian history of nature to form a comprehensive materialist cosmology, or anti-theology" (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)
This "comprehensive materialist cosmology" is what Creationists today are up against and, excepting a handful, they do not know it! Evolutionism does not stand alone as a Bible-wrecking, contra-scientific deception, Satanically conceived. Evolutionism is historically, phiosophically, scientifically, and spiritually wedded to a previously conceived Bible-wrecking, anti-scientific deception called Copernicanism!
The Creation "movement" today denies or ignores this wedded union and thus is not 1/50th the threat to Satan's kingdoms in this world that it can and should be. Fellow Creationists: It's wake-up time!!! Fellow Geocentrists (who are not Flat Earthers): It's wake-up time!!!
-
There was another "-ism" that was born out of the Copernican mindset but was floundering until evolutionism began to take hold. That was Communism. As evolutionism sand securely into university curicula (and was soon augmented by evolution-based Freudianism in behavioral "sciences"), Marxist Communism took on new life and in a mere generation and a half had conquered Russia. So an officially atheistic state was established which was referred to in the early days as the application of "Scientific Socialism" to government and economics. What was this "scientific" base anyway?
Well, most Creationists know by now that biological evolutionism is an indispensable foundational principle of "scientific socialism" (which includes not only communism, but the infinitely more slinky idea of "humanism"). Most have heard that, after reading Darwin, Marx said:
"This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." (J.D. Bernal, Marx and Science, (New York; International Publishers, 1952), p.17.)
When Marx finished his first volume of Das Kapital, he offered to dedicate it to Darwin.
Darwin's book had given God "the death blow," he exulted to LaSalle. What he and Engles et. al. had created out of the anti-Bible secular philosophy made possible by the triumph of Copernicanism in the physical sciences, was now certified by Darwin in the natural sciences!
Atheistic Communism was now fully equipped by both the physical and natural sciences to conquer the world with a political and economic system which openly stated that Bible Christianity was moribund at last and would soon be put out of its misery by an enlightened "science"-based movement. The philosopher Nietzsche boasted in the 1880's: "God is dead; we have killed him with our science!"
While knowledgeable Creationists have known about the Communist-Socialist-Humanist dependency upon evolutionism, they have not generally known or thought about the Copernican connection to the same "-isms". IT IS NOW TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS CONNECTION!
It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.
Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.
They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over! Note these quotes from that formal gathering of Communist "scientists":
* "Modern physics rejects absolute inertia." (Dr. Joseph Needham, Fwd., "Marx's Theory on the Historical Process", Science At The Crossroads. (London: Frank Cass and Co., Ltd., 1971),p.189.)
* "Teaching the self-movement of matter received its full development in the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engles, and Lenin."
* F. Engles established "one of the basic theses of dialectical materialism, i.e., the inseparability of movement from matter..."
* Notice the specialized role of Mathematics in all this: "This special mathematics -- the tensor analysis, the matrix calculus...has for the greater part been created by the physicist themselves."
* "For Mathematics there is only one way out: conscious, planned reconstruction on the basis of materialist dialectics" (i.e., atheist philosophy resting on Copernicanism and Darwinism)
* "Proceeding from the Leninist theory...we in the Soviet Union shall reconstruct the Mathematical sciences..."
The fact that the Copernican cosmology underpinning communism and humanism is erected totally on the phony authority of "reconstructed mathematics" is a fact that must be grasped without further delay. All who are really interested in exposing and bringing down the evolution myth must begin:
A) To depend on the God behind the geocentric-Flat (or flattish) Earth Word;
B) Eschew their fears of "science falsely so-called" and
C) Get informed and begin to attack the Copernican taproot of these deceptions masquearading as "science".
It's God's Word, after all, and He will not have it return to Him void on this Creation matter indefinitely (Isaiah 55:11).
But Soviet communism is finished, someone objects, "so what's the big deal about what their scientists said?"
The problem, Creationist friend, (not to ignore the little matter of the rise of Communist China to superstate status...) is that humanism is in place all over the world today and Humanism has exactly the same roots in Copernicanism and Darwinism as Soviet Marxism had!
It's the same Bible destroyer as before, only now wearing a different hat. The whole world is ready to unite under a humanist new world order and usher in a humanist new age. The cards are dealt. It's a done deal. And the real purpose, the hidden agenda, of this incipient and insidious cardboard utopia about to descend on all of us is simply this, a one-world religion where all beliefs except Bible Christianity will be allowed.
"Hate crime" laws now on the books are steadily broadening their scope to the end that they will be the instrument used to criminalize New Testament Christianity in the pagan new world order.
The 1959. Centennial Celebration in Chicago was Darwinism's finest hour. One of the most honored speakers on this occasion was Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley.[/b] Julian Huxley's speech was a glittering oration on the majestic grandeur of Darwin's achievement, coupled with a vision of its totalizing implications for the future. Here is excerpt from his speech:
"Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this Earth of ours - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself. This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. . . .
In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. . . Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/254728-post33.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254728-post33.html)
-
Cikljamas, have you ever eaten corn? Of course you have. It's a very useful crop that's also quite tasty, but it wasn't always that way. Corn used to be really small and it wasn't a very useful crop, but farmers over hundreds of years only re planted the seeds from their best plants and are the rest which basically controled evolution which eventually made corn so much bigger and more useful. This is evolution.
-
"MICHELSON AND MORLEY" EXPERIMENT :
Michelson and Morley8 planned to turn their apparatus until they found the maximum fringe shift produced by light travelling in two perpendicular directions. The position of maximum fringe shift would show the direction in which the earth was moving, the size of the fringe shift would be a measure of the speed of the earth through the aether.
But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established that the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movements of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment the earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.
So they repeated the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains ...and everywhere .. . no fringe shift.
In other words, the earth was not moving.
It is interesting to see what various scientists have said about this:
Adolf Baker said "Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be at rest' ... it was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space".
Bernard Jaffe said "The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous".
But we might ask "Why preposterous?" After all, has anybody ever actually proved that the earth is moving?
Giancoli put it this way:- "But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe".
That of course is unacceptable to anyone who has decided that the earth is a very ordinary second class planet speeding through some insignificant backwater of the universe. Another ad hoc was required to save the theory from the evidence.
The man who came up with the ger of the dea for the required ad hoc was an lrish physicist called George Francis Fitzgerald. His suggestion was developed into the idea that if Michelson and Morley's apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's spaceship) at high speed it becomes slightly shorter than when it was stationary. An interesting idea. To accept such an idea as scientific one should, of course, take measurements and check that it is so. Our intrepid motorist (or space traveller) takes his ruler with him and measures his vehicle to see if it really does become shorter. ;D Unfortunately the ruler must get shorter by exactly the right amount to make the measurement identical to that when it is stationary.
Measurement says it does not get shorter.
Then how do we know it really does get shorter?
Obviously it must get shorter.
Otherwise Michelson and Morley's experiment shows that the earth stands still.
But there is a way to test for "Fitzgerald contraction". An interferometer would get shorter by exactly the right amount only if the lengths of the two arms were exactly equal. But if an interferometer were made with, say, one arm only half the length of the other, the contraction would no longer be just right, and a fringe shift would be observed. Such an interferometer was built.
It is interesting to see Arthur Beiser's comment on this experiment:- "We might be tempted to consider the Michelson-Morley result solely as evidence for the contraction of the length of their apparatus in the direction of the earth's motion.
This interpretation was tested by Kennedy and Thorndike using an interferometer with arms of unequal length. They also found no fringe shift which means that these experiments must be considered evidence for the absence of an aether."
But why "MUST be considered evidence for the absence of an aether"? Why not taken as evidence that the earth stands still? All the observations would fit that idea! And if this experiment proves that there is no aether, then it raises a very interesting philosophical question. Is it possible for scientists to measure properties of something that does not exist? Fresnel had measured properties of the aether. If it is possible for scientists to measure the properties of something that does not exist, then what value can we assign to science?
Anything the scientists measure might be a measurement of something that does not exist at all! But if it is not possible to measure properties of something that does not exist, then what about Fresnel's (and several other scientists') measurements of properties of the aether? And if there is no aether, how do we explain away the failure of Airy to find the result he expected in Boscovich's experiment? And how do we make sense of Maxwell's equations, which come directly from consideration of the aether?
It is intriguing to note that all the experiments fit in with the idea that the earth does not move ... without the need for any ad hocs at all.
-
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.
-
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.
How come that some people have to speek up so often, when it is obvious that it would be much better for them if they would just keep their mouth shut? What do you think?
(http://i.imgur.com/3SDnQBO.jpg)
-
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.
How come that some people have to speek up so often, when it is obvious that it would be much better for them if they would just keep their mouth shut? What do you think?
I think you should heed your own advice.
(http://i.imgur.com/3SDnQBO.jpg)
"Northern arc of rotation", "southern arc of rotation"?? Since they represent rotation of the Earth, those arrows must be along the same parallel of latitude (in fact, it's labeled "Arctic Circle" which is a parallel of latitude) so they go neither north nor south. Shouldn't those be labeled "sunward" (pink) and "anti-sunward" (blue) instead? Apparent motion of the Sun would be in the opposite direction as earth's rotation, so WTH are those two figures supposed to represent?
Since they're both pointing in the same circumferential direction (counterclockwise) why do you say the blue CCW arrow is W-E and the pink CCW arrow is E-W in the top bottom figure?
Please heed your own advice and stop posting so much nonsense.
[Edit] oopsies...
-
29silhouette,
How many times do i have to stress this elementary fact to you?
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!!!
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were somewhere between a few thousands and 100 000 km away from the Earth we would notice ZIGZAG phenomena from anywhere on the Earth, except if we were standing at the poles. At the poles the Sun would look as if it's an immovable spot in the sky!
He almost had it with the no zigzag if the sun was 93 million miles away bit, then he lost it again when he thought of some 180 degree displacement thing. I honestly think he believes that for the Earth to be spherical it must be very small and we in turn must be large comparably. From the vantage point of a human which is so small compared to the Earth that we can't even clearly make out the largest structures we have ever built when viewing the Earth as a whole. So as the Earth rotates, the horizon in the viewing line from us to the sun rotates. This mean, since the Earth is what we are standing on, we rotate with it and if we were in the Arctic or Antarctic circle during their respective summer and we keep our sight line on the sun it would appear to follow just above the horizon all the way around to where it started from. An if we are tilted the sun would look to wobble higher and lower during that transit. We are very small compared to the Earth. Because the Earth is spherical our horizon is approx 3 or 4 miles away from us so that 6 mile circle that you can see from your position on Earth moves with the Earth (it is part of it actually) and in turn the vantage point of that horizon between you and the sun constantly changes in just the way we see in reality.
So if this explains the movement of the sun from our perspective, then tell me how the sun wobbles up and down and travels around the sky from very close to the North Pole in the flat Earth model. Fro that vantage point it would seem that the sun does not travel in a circular path like the flat Earth model shows. But at the same time if you have to change the path of the flat Earth sun to match what is seen at the North pole, then it would break what we see away from the North pole.
-
Hadn't you been a Satanists, you would have admitted long time ago that there must be two completely different geometrical situations (how our hypothetical observer perceives the motion of the Sun) in these two completely (geometrically) different scenarios:
1. Our hypothetical observer is on merry go round and the Sun is ahead of him.
2. Our hypothetical observer stands at the fixed place and the Sun circles above and around him.
Only a complete idiot can claim that these two scenarios make no difference regarding apparent vs real motion of the Sun as it would be perceived by our hypothetical observer at the edge of the Arctic circle.
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!
Satanists go to Hell!
If i were you i would repent and convert!
But even if there were no hell and no punishment, how can you pretend to be stupid to the extent that you embarrass yourself so inexpressibly?
Some of you aren't stupid, that is for sure, but it makes things even much worse for such despicable liars, since those of you who pretend to be SO stupid are hideous immoral perverts.
-
I see you like to call yourself a Christian. You however have no right, nor enough knowledge to pass judgement on me. I will one day be with my maker, who gave me eyes, intelligence, the free will to question things, and a universe of things to wonder about. He does not require blind faith. If all the evidence shows that he is not there, and reality matches the evidence, yet I still believe in him, wouldn't that be the actual faith and belief that he asks of me? Also you like to quote the bible quite a lot, but do you know its history and how it came into being? Even Galileo, whom you also claim is a satanist, was a devout Catholic. He said "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
But I guess you are anointed by God to pass judgement on everyone else. Must be nice to be so special.
-
Hadn't you been a Satanists, you would have admitted long time ago that there must be two completely different geometrical situations (how our hypothetical observer perceives the motion of the Sun) in these two completely (geometrically) different scenarios:
1. Our hypothetical observer is on merry go round and the Sun is ahead of him.
2. Our hypothetical observer stands at the fixed place and the Sun circles above and around him.
Only a complete idiot can claim that these two scenarios make no difference regarding apparent vs real motion of the Sun as it would be perceived by our hypothetical observer at the edge of the Arctic circle.
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!
By that definition I must be a complete idiot. Fortunately for my sake (not to mention all of productive humanity), cikljamas' opinion about who is a complete idiot means nothing.
Those two situations are equivalent, unless cikljamas is egotistical enough to presume that the Sun and entire universe is circling around him, and him alone, wherever he happens to be standing.
Say you're on a merry-go-round some 5 m from its center and the Sun is fixed some distance away. For the purpose of the argument, let's say the Sun is a relatively close 300 m away from the center. As you circle along with the merry-go-round, the sun will appear to shift left and right by about one degree each way compared to an object behind it that's much more distant, due to parallax. Fine, there's your zig-zag if the Sun were really that close.
If, instead, you are at the same place on the merry-go-round, but it's stopped. Instead, the Sun and everything else in the universe is rotating around the center of the merry-go-round. Guess what? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference just by looking at the behavior of the Sun relative to more-distant objects!
In reality, of course, the Sun is much further in terms of the radius of the Earth than the illustration here. To make the model fit the actual scale, the Sun would have to be more than 10000 times as far as our scaled earth radius. Since the Arctic Circle is only about 40% the radius of the Earth, our scaled Earth radius would be 12.5 meters, so the Sun needs to be more than 125 km away to be realistic. Do you really think you're going to detect your "zig-zag" watching for parallax on an object 125 km away if you're moving left or right by 5 m? It's there, but it's too tiny to be measured!
... hideous immoral perverts.
Love it! This is the entertaining stuff that keeps us coming back.
-
Cikljamas, have you ever eaten corn? Of course you have. It's a very useful crop that's also quite tasty, but it wasn't always that way. Corn used to be really small and it wasn't a very useful crop, but farmers over hundreds of years only re planted the seeds from their best plants and are the rest which basically controled evolution which eventually made corn so much bigger and more useful. This is evolution.
Cute story,
By the way, look inside a balance tank of a sewage treatment plant one day check out ya corn,
Bon appetite.
-
Plant cultivation is a lie of the re nasa satanists?
-
The experiment showed no aether. It had nothing to do with earth's movement.
It had!
-
I see you like to call yourself a Christian. You however have no right, nor enough knowledge to pass judgement on me. I will one day be with my maker, who gave me eyes, intelligence, the free will to question things, and a universe of things to wonder about. He does not require blind faith. If all the evidence shows that he is not there, and reality matches the evidence, yet I still believe in him, wouldn't that be the actual faith and belief that he asks of me? Also you like to quote the bible quite a lot, but do you know its history and how it came into being? Even Galileo, whom you also claim is a satanist, was a devout Catholic. He said "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
I don't know what to think about Galileo (whether he was a Satanist or not), but i am sure that my countryman Ruđer Bošković (whom i consider the greatest theoretical physicist of all time, and according to whoes instructions Airy performed famous "Airy's failure" experiment) was not a Satanist, nevertheless he had inclined to Copernicanism. How and why that happened is impenetrable mystery to me.
And that is not all, his role in putting and pushing Copernicanism forward was of the greatest importance at that time:
At the instance of Ruđer Bošković, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[95] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.
However, he gave us precise instructions according which we can determine which theory is right, and which theory is wrong.
In short, the convinced Copernican Bošković proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked stick, Airy made a straight hit.”
He said "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
The most important ancient document describing Hebrew cosmology is 1 Enoch (sometimes called the Ethiopic Book of Enoch), one of those long, disjointed, scissors and paste jobs beloved by ancient scribes. For a dozen or so centuries, European scholars knew 1 Enoch only from numerous passages preserved in the patristic literature. In 1773, the Scottish adventurer James Bruce found complete copies in Ethiopia.
Numerous manuscripts of 1 Enoch have since been found in Ethiopian monasteries. Turn of the century scholars concluded that parts of the book are pre-Maccabean, and most (perhaps all) of it was composed by 100 B.C. [Charles, 1913]. These conclusions were largely vindicated when numerous fragments of 1 Enoch were found among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. There have been two major English translations of 1 Enoch, the 1913 translation of R. H. Charles and the 1983 translation by E. Isaac. All of the quotations that follow come from the newer translation.
The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:
There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder, therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and Church Fathers [1986, 10].
First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in 2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery (or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion” as follows:
It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: “I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15).”
The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.
First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.
The Ends of the Earth
The angel Uriel guided Enoch in most of his travels. They made several trips to the ends of the earth, where the dome of heaven came down to the surface. For instance, Enoch says:
I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1 Enoch 33:1-2).
(The sharp-eyed reader will note what I suspect is an editing error in the Isaac translation. The earth resting on the heaven makes no sense. R. H. Charles has “whereon the heaven rests.”)
Again, Enoch says, “I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2).” This accords well with Jeremiah 51:16 which says, “he brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses.” In subsequent chapters, Enoch journeys “to the extreme ends of the earth” in the west, south, and east. In each place he saw three more “open gates of heaven.”
There were other things to be seen at the ends of the earth. Earlier, we deferred discussion of the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” On several occasions when Enoch and the angel are out beyond the dome of heaven, Enoch comments that there is nothing above or below. For instance, “And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place (1 Enoch 21:1-2).” Could this be the kind of nothingness referred to in Job?
An angel also showed Enoch the storerooms of the winds (18:1) and the cornerstone of the earth (18:2).
The Sun and Moon
And what of the sun and moon? Psalm 19:4-6 (quoted earlier) suggest that the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. Enoch expands upon this idea. In 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they return...” Further, “they keep faith one with another: in accordance with an oath they set and they rise.”
Enoch discusses the solar and lunar motions at length, explaining why the apparent azimuths of their rising and setting varies with the season. The explanation, found in the section called “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” begins thus:
This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).
From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.
Now, figure this out: Ptolomaic system comes to the scene in 2nd century A.C., and 200 years after that (in 4th century A.C.) The book of Enoh was expelled from the list of cannonical books of the Old Testament.
Ptolomy was geocentrists but he was also wrong. Why?
He had totally wrong impression about the distances between heavenly lights!!!
Different assumptions about how the stars move and how the aether behaves would lead to different distances. . .giving a greate - or perhaps, even, a smaller size of the universe.
This is very significant because the distances affect all our ideas about what the astronomical bodie actually are. An astronomer sees a smudge of light on his photograph. He interprets this as the image of a galaxy, and assigns a distance to it. He assumes that this galaxy is a group of stars. He assumes that the stars are very similar to our sun. He then reasons that the galaxy must consist of thousands of millions of stars in order to appear so bright at such a huge distance. If the distances are wrong then his conclusion will be wrong - in fact, the generally accepted ideas about most astronomical objects will be wrong. Scientifically it makes a huge difference. Clearly this question is of major significance.
What happened in 4th century A.C., happened AGAIN (but this time, in a much worse way) with gradual acceptance of Copernicanism during 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century!!!
-
Great finding, cikljamas, very interesting book.
How does Enochian Astronomy, asserting storehouses of the sun during night, explain that there is always day somewhere on earth? Shouldn't be night everywhere when the sun is in the storehouse?
-
I have read the Book of Enoch, and was fascinated and wondered about its authenticity, especially since it is supposedly quoted by Jude. (Same with The Assumption of Moses.) So, I delved in deeper, and this is what I found:
With Enoch, there is some question as to whether Jude is even quoting that book. The dating of 1 Enoch, where this quote used by Jude appears, is uncertain, and the book is thought to have been reworked over time by both Jewish and Christian editors into successive editions. It may be that Enoch is actually quoting Jude! Or else, it may be that both are quoting some other work now lost, or some floating prophetic tradition. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Jude is quoting Enoch and ask whether there is any indication that Enoch was generally regarded as a historical book.
Enoch does seem to cover certain historical events from the time of Genesis, and that would seem to suggest it was intended to be seen as history. On the other hand, ‘historical fiction’ was not entirely unheard of at this time (think of the apocryphal gospels of Jesus!) so the mere reporting of events in this manner is not enough to build a case.
With Enoch, there is some question as to whether Jude is even quoting that book. The dating of 1 Enoch, where this quote used by Jude appears, is uncertain, and the book is thought to have been reworked over time by both Jewish and Christian editors into successive editions. It may be that Enoch is actually quoting Jude!
Are there any external sources, like Josephus, that say Enoch was historical? Many church fathers apparently approved of the book in some way, but this was because of the quote in Jude, and so their views have little bearing on whether the author of Enoch and his contemporaries intended it to be understood as historical. Do we have any indications in that regard? The answer, unfortunately, seems to be no. Though it was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we do not know why it was used by the Essenes and how they regarded it. In addition, what the Essenes thought of it may not reflect what most other Jews thought of it.
In the same vein, we can find nothing to suggest that the Assumption of Moses was regarded by others as a historical work. Indeed, since both of these works were composed thousands of years after their title’s characters, I would suggest that it is far more likely that they were simply regarded as edifying fiction–like Lord of the Rings!
Some point to vs. 9 and 14 and ask if the documents these are taken from are meant to be seen as inspired Scripture. Not at all: Paul quotes Menander, Epimenides, and other Greek authors. This doesn’t mean that he considered their works Scripture; it does mean that he thought something they said was sufficiently accurate to be an excellent way to get a point across to his readers, and the same may be said of the other quotes. Paul also apparently uses Wisdom 14:22-31 as a source for his arguments in Romans 1:24-32, and Wisdom 2:23-4 for Romans 5:12-21. Does this reflect a belief that Wisdom was canonical, or worthy of being called Scripture? No: ‘Wisdom of Solomon’s canonicity does not appear to concern Paul, but only the theological arguments in it.’ Paul was out to make a point, as, most likely, were Jude and the others who quote or allude to apocryphal works.
-
Though it was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we do not know why it was used by the Essenes and how they regarded it. In addition, what the Essenes thought of it may not reflect what most other Jews thought of it.
At least the Astronomical section of the book was of high importance for the Qumran people, for they based their ritual calendar on it. so obviously it was not regarded as a book of fiction by them.
It is unknown by the way, if they were what Josephus calls "Essenes".
Also, prophetic books like that never were read as fiction. They were either regarded as authentic or as fraud.
-
Great finding, cikljamas, very interesting book.
How does Enochian Astronomy, asserting storehouses of the sun during night, explain that there is always day somewhere on earth? Shouldn't be night everywhere when the sun is in the storehouse?
Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Would you say that "a tree in the midst of the earth" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal tree?
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
Would you say that "a very high mountain" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal mountain?
-
"MICHELSON AND MORLEY" EXPERIMENT :
Michelson and Morley planned to turn their apparatus until they found the maximum fringe shift produced by light travelling in two perpendicular directions. The position of maximum fringe shift would show the direction in which the earth was moving, the size of the fringe shift would be a measure of the speed of the earth through the aether.
But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established that the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movements of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment the earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.
So they repeated the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains ...and everywhere .. . no fringe shift.
In other words, the earth was not moving.
It is interesting to see what various scientists have said about this:
Adolf Baker said "Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be at rest' ... it was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space".
Bernard Jaffe said "The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous".
But we might ask "Why preposterous?" After all, has anybody ever actually proved that the earth is moving?
Giancoli put it this way:- "But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe".
That of course is unacceptable to anyone who has decided that the earth is a very ordinary second class planet speeding through some insignificant backwater of the universe. Another ad hoc was required to save the theory from the evidence.
The man who came up with the ger of the dea for the required ad hoc was an lrish physicist called George Francis Fitzgerald. His suggestion was developed into the idea that if Michelson and Morley's apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's spaceship) at high speed it becomes slightly shorter than when it was stationary. An interesting idea. To accept such an idea as scientific one should, of course, take measurements and check that it is so. Our intrepid motorist (or space traveller) takes his ruler with him and measures his vehicle to see if it really does become shorter. ;D Unfortunately the ruler must get shorter by exactly the right amount to make the measurement identical to that when it is stationary.
Measurement says it does not get shorter.
Then how do we know it really does get shorter?
Obviously it must get shorter.
Otherwise Michelson and Morley's experiment shows that the earth stands still.
But there is a way to test for "Fitzgerald contraction". An interferometer would get shorter by exactly the right amount only if the lengths of the two arms were exactly equal. But if an interferometer were made with, say, one arm only half the length of the other, the contraction would no longer be just right, and a fringe shift would be observed. Such an interferometer was built.
It is interesting to see Arthur Beiser's comment on this experiment:- "We might be tempted to consider the Michelson-Morley result solely as evidence for the contraction of the length of their apparatus in the direction of the earth's motion.
This interpretation was tested by Kennedy and Thorndike using an interferometer with arms of unequal length. They also found no fringe shift which means that these experiments must be considered evidence for the absence of an aether."
But why "MUST be considered evidence for the absence of an aether"? Why not taken as evidence that the earth stands still? All the observations would fit that idea! And if this experiment proves that there is no aether, then it raises a very interesting philosophical question. Is it possible for scientists to measure properties of something that does not exist? Fresnel had measured properties of the aether. If it is possible for scientists to measure the properties of something that does not exist, then what value can we assign to science?
Anything the scientists measure might be a measurement of something that does not exist at all! But if it is not possible to measure properties of something that does not exist, then what about Fresnel's (and several other scientists') measurements of properties of the aether? And if there is no aether, how do we explain away the failure of Airy to find the result he expected in Boscovich's experiment? And how do we make sense of Maxwell's equations, which come directly from consideration of the aether?
It is intriguing to note that all the experiments fit in with the idea that the earth does not move ... without the need for any ad hocs at all.
It was not only optical experiments that were giving this problem. Electromagnetic experiments, such as that of Trouton and Noble, also suggested that the earth does not move.
The man who came up with the way out of the dilemma was Hendrik Anton Lorentz, a famous Dutch physicist. He proposed that high speed motion through the aether led not only to length contraction but also to increased resistance to acceleration (which is equivalent to increase in mass), and the slowing down of clocks. The famous "Lorentz Transformations" formed the core of his "Theory of Relativity".
A young "genius" working in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, later expressed Lorentz's theory in a different way a mathematical abstraction without a physical basis. Expressed this way the theory needed no aether, in fact it could not tolerate the aether. It was later realised that this solved the problem of Thorndike and Kennedy's experiment. Einstein's version of relativity became more popular than Lorentz's, and the idea of the aether went out of fashion.
Most physicists continue to deny the existence of the aether yet they are forced to admit that "free space" is, as K.W. Ford expressed it, "a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields, and short-lived, virtual particle pairs that form and annihilate". It is generally agreed that key "vacuum" properties include intrinsic energy, permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance - properties associated with the "aether" of Maxwell and Lorentz. This gives the impression that its existence is denied in chosen circumstances simply by repudiating its former name.
Einstein's original contribution to relativity centres on two fundamental assumptions, neither of which is obvious, and both of which contradict Maxwell's equations (which the theory was intended to justify!?!?!?!??!?!??!).
The first assumption is that no matter how an observer is (uniformly) moving he will always come to the same conclusion about the laws of science. No matter how he is moving he will always come to the same conclusions about the universe. In other words, all frames of reference are absolutely equivalent.
The second assumption is that however an observer is (uniformly) moving, he will always measure the speed at which light reaches him as being the same, a constant, "c".
This means that if the earth is moving through space with a speed "v", and it meets a ray of light moving in exactly the opposite direction in a head-on collision, then the impact speed will be c+v but this will be exactly equal to c! A ray of light moving in the same direction as the earth, catching the earth up, will meet the earth with an impact speed of c-v, and this will also be exactly equal to c.
So (c+v) = c = (c-v) :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
To anyone with a little knowledge of mathematics it looks as if there is one, unique, solution, v = 0 ... the earth is not moving.
Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. By abandoning physical reasoning, and accepting pure mathematical formalism, it gave them a plausible excuse to ignore all the evidence that the earth is stationary. Part of their acceptance required rejecting the existence of the aether. But a French scientist called Sagnac seemed unconvinced. No one had ever proved that the earth was actually moving, and Relativity was based on the assumption that it must be moving. In fact Relativity is largely an ad hoc to explain away the observations that show the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe (Einstein's denial notwithstanding!).
Sagnac built a turn-table with mirrors on it arranged in such a way that a beam of light was split into two beams, one was reflected from mirror to mirror anticlockwise around the turntable, the other was reflected around clockwise. After a complete circuit the beams were recombined in a camera to give interference fringes. Looking at it in a very simplified way, when the turntable was set spinning there was known to be movement, the beam going round with the turn table's rotation would be chasing the camera (which is moving away at speed v) with a relative speed of c-v, whereas the beam going against the rotation would approach the camera "head on" with a relative speed of c +v. If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c-v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.
But there was a fringe shift. A basic assumption of Relativity was apparently wrong. More explanations were needed to keep Relativity and the motion of the earth alive. But the excuses of the relativists were tested, experimentally and theoretically, and found to be invalid. Eventually the famous physicist Herbert Ives pointed out that the only way to carry on believing in Relativity was to "avoid looking at the evidence." Arguments are still being put forward to explain away Sagnac's experiment. Interestingly enough there are a number of explanations of such problems for Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" (STR) which appeal to his "General Theory of Relativity" (GTR).
Now STR cannot have an aether and must have a constant velocity of light. On the other hand GTR is, as Einstein put it "unthinkable without the aether" and cannot tolerate a constant velocity of light. The two theories are mutually exclusive. At least one must be wrong. To solve difficulties for one by calling in the other is clearly invalid.
Michelson, together with a new collaborator called Gale, thought of a way to test whether the aether exists or not. They built a tunnel of pipe sections at Chicago. The tunnel was in the form of a large rectangle. They reasoned that if there were an aether, then the rotation of the earth from west to east through it should cause a beam of light travelling clockwise round the tunnel to take slightly less time to get round than a beam travelling anticlockwise. If there were no aether then both beams would take the same time. the earth's rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the earth were standing still with the universe, including the aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.
They measured a difference. Existence of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.
-
The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much.
Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate. Some point out that the difficulties can be explained away by working in terms of "Riemanian space", a mathematical abstraction which can be bent, warped and twisted in as many dimensions as a mathematician may care to invent. Since the reality which we live in actually seems to consist of normal ("Euclidian") space of exactly three dimensions which are "flat" (i.e.not bent, warped or twisted) these arguments are only convincing to confirmed believers in Einstein's theory - or to those so intimidated by the mathematics that they are afraid to appear ignorant if they disagree!
That figures!!!
-
But we might ask why the scientist always need to invent excuses to explain away the evidence? Is it not possible that the earth really is stationary at the centre of the universe? Why the unwillingness to consider that possibility?
Rutherford probably came close to answering that question when he said:
-"Even if it is recognized that different frames of reference are possible mathematically, a reference system that is acceptable to one person may involve PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are unacceptable to another".
Now doesn't that ring a bell?
Why did Copernicus take the earth away from the centre in the first place?
The philosophical assumptions of his Greek inventors.
Burgess, writing in "Earth Chauvinism" probably came even closer to the truth when he said this:- "The story of Christianity tells about a plan of salvation centred upon a particular people and a particular man. As long as someone is thinking in terms of a geocentric universe the story has a certain plausibility. As soon as astronomy changes theories, however, the whole Christian history loses the only setting within which it would make sense."
THAT FIGURES!!!
-
But we might ask why the scientist always need to invent excuses to explain away the evidence? Is it not possible that the earth really is stationary at the centre of the universe? Why the unwillingness to consider that possibility?
Rutherford probably came close to answering that question when he said:
-"Even if it is recognized that different frames of reference are possible mathematically, a reference system that is acceptable to one person may involve PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are unacceptable to another".
Now doesn't that ring a bell?
Why did Copernicus take the earth away from the centre in the first place?
The philosophical assumptions of his Greek inventors.
Burgess, writing in "Earth Chauvinism" probably came even closer to the truth when he said this:- "The story of Christianity tells about a plan of salvation centred upon a particular people and a particular man. As long as someone is thinking in terms of a geocentric universe the story has a certain plausibility. As soon as astronomy changes theories, however, the whole Christian history loses the only setting within which it would make sense."
THAT FIGURES!!!
Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.
-
Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....
1.
It was not only experiments like those of Sagnac and Michelson and Gale which pointed to the earth as central. Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared in his telescope (and therefore presumably the further away), the more its spectrum was shifted to the red.
It did not matter in which direction he looked. In every direction, the further away from the earth the more "red shifted" the spectrum.
This is usually explained in terms of what is called the "Doppler" effect. The "redder" the spectrum, the faster something is supposed to be moving away from us. This leads to the idea of the "expanding universe". The further an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.
It is almost certain that this interpretation is wrong.
Scientists like Halton C. Arp and W.G. Tift have shown that the red shifts are not due to the Doppler Effect and the universe may no be expanding at all.
Halton C. Arp, was a provocative son of American astronomy whose dogged insistence that astronomers had misread the distances to quasars cast doubt on the Big Bang theory of the universe and led to his exile from his peers and the telescopes he loved died on Dec. 28 2013. in Munich. He was 86.
2.
Michelson and Morley planned to turn their apparatus until they found the maximum fringe shift produced by light travelling in two perpendicular directions. The position of maximum fringe shift would show the direction in which the earth was moving, the size of the fringe shift would be a measure of the speed of the earth through the aether.
But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established that the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movement of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment the earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.
So they repeated the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains...and everywhere... no fringe shift.
In other words, the earth was not moving.
3.
If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.
4.
Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are!
Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider:
A. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity.
B. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist).
C. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period.
D. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe!
E. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions!
For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.
5.
"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"
6.
(http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg)
Yes, why wouldn't we see Polaris if north-south tangent line at the equator would be exactly parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation?
Hm, strange question i must admit, pay attention to a green line in above picture and meditate some more on this issue...
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!
Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!
7.
Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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)
-
Great finding, cikljamas, very interesting book.
How does Enochian Astronomy, asserting storehouses of the sun during night, explain that there is always day somewhere on earth? Shouldn't be night everywhere when the sun is in the storehouse?
Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Would you say that "a tree in the midst of the earth" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal tree?
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
Would you say that "a very high mountain" meant to represent (to be understood as) a literal mountain?
The tree: clearly not, as obvious from the context.
The mountain: hard to say, but for the point of the story somewhat irrelevant.
The storehouse of the sun: hard to say, but somewhat relevant, for that part of the book tries to explain the motion of the celestial bodies. The author obviously believed that sunsets are real, contrary to the current FE models, where the sun never really sets. So if the storehouses are figurative, they are figures for what?
-
@ FalseProphet,
They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.
-
@ FalseProphet,
They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.
I accept that (although I still suspect the author just didn't know about time zones). But what do you believe? Is the sun always above the (flat) earth?
-
@ FalseProphet,
They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.
I accept that (although I still suspect the author just didn't know about time zones). But what do you believe? Is the sun always above the (flat) earth?
Of course it is, why do you even ask such an odd question?
Now, let me ask you this: do you know who is stilling the Sun from you?
I am going to give you a clue:
(http://i.imgur.com/2oYJGPH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/3X1aikU.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/PiSXE9F.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/775pXo6.jpg)
https://chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com/tag/project-cloverleaf/ (https://chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com/tag/project-cloverleaf/)
-
@ FalseProphet,
They are figures for the time (& place) of the Sun's absence above the horizon. Had he (Enoh) gone into details and tried to explain exact mechanics of sunsets (or the exact path of the Sun) it would have been necessary to undertake an enormous theoretical enterprise, which task would have took him far beyond the basic purpose of Enoh's book, i would say.
I accept that (although I still suspect the author just didn't know about time zones). But what do you believe? Is the sun always above the (flat) earth?
Of course it is, why do you even ask such an odd question?
Because of iWitness ;D.
And well, I am concerned about Global warming. Because I do not live in England, I live in Malaysia, and here it is already warm enough.
-
If chemtrails are real then we can add just about everybody who works with airplanes to the list of conspirators.
-
I just have to put in my two cents about some experiments being mentioned here, but I don't have enough interest to put in more time than this on the subject. I admit to not reading the long ramblings about the geocentric experiments, but I know what they entailed anyway.
The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction was an attempt to explain the result of the Michelson-Morely experiment while salvaging the classical ether. In his special theory of relativity Einstein took the result of the Michelson–Morely experiment at face value and assumed the invariance of the speed of light as a postulate. Geocentrists must realize that special relativity and geocentricity are only two of many possible explanations for the Michelson-Morely experiment. Why did special relativity come to be so widely accepted? The predictions of special relativity, such as mass increase and time dilation, have been observed in countless experiments. Newtonian mechanics does not anticipate these results, though anti-relativists have managed to modify Newtonian mechanics with backward engineering to mimic these results.
In regards to Airy’s ‘failure’, this is not the destruction of relativity/heliocentric theories that geocentrists would have us believe. The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments are less known, though I did find a mention of the latter. That source indicated no problem with modern relativity theory, making a distinction between translational and rotational motion of the Earth.
I suspect that since both the Sagnac and Michelson–Gale experiments involve rotational motion, and hence centripetal acceleration, the special theory of relativity does not apply, since that theory only addresses inertial frames of reference. Accelerated frames must be analyzed with general relativity.
-
RE: Chemtrails. Ugh. Yes, everybody is either lying or out to get you, ruining the world for you and for them as well, and their offspring, apparently, since they live here. There is absolutely no evidence for this that hasn't been debunked. My in-laws believe in this too, so I hear it all the time. (But I don't argue with them, so I'll vent here instead, hehe!) They live in isolation, fearing cities and government, living in constant worry and cynicism. I think you all just need a greater purpose to your life, so you live for the sensational.
Scientists have examined and said that the behavior of contrails is nothing out of the ordinary for the vapor they excrete. Wikipedia has some good info on this. They have also said that from here, their trails look much more uniform than they actually are. It's a matter of perspective.
-
I shot these photographs from my balcony:
(http://i.imgur.com/IMCcSGC.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/tQPsUoo.jpg)
These are contrails, ha?
Yea, and you are very smart ass who buried his head in the send, also...
Stupid ostriches are the reason why this world has come to the point when the sense of the very existence of such a world is under the question...
-
I'm glad I don't live in fear every second of my life.
-
I'm glad I don't live in fear every second of my life.
He is not living in fear or ignorance. If you think that shit is normal, you are wrong.
-
I'm glad I don't live in fear every second of my life.
He is not living in fear or ignorance. If you think that shit is normal, you are wrong.
Do you know what reaction happens inside an airplane engine?
-
These are contrails, ha?
Yea, and you are very smart ass who buried his head in the send, also...
Stupid ostriches are the reason why this world has come to the point when the sense of the very existence of such a world is under the question...
Yes, those are contrails. I will not stoop as low as you and respond with snide remarks about your character. You are not a Christian, so I wish you'd stop pretending you are, and giving those who actually care to be like Jesus a bad name. You are so extreme to call anyone who disagrees with you a "Satanist" as if you know what a Satanist actually does, and obviously there is no reasoning with you. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.
-
These are contrails, ha?
Yea, and you are very smart ass who buried his head in the send, also...
Stupid ostriches are the reason why this world has come to the point when the sense of the very existence of such a world is under the question...
could you please explain exsactly what a Christian is ?
Yes, those are contrails. I will not stoop as low as you and respond with snide remarks about your character. You are not a Christian, so I wish you'd stop pretending you are, and giving those who actually care to be like Jesus a bad name. You are so extreme to call anyone who disagrees with you a "Satanist" as if you know what a Satanist actually does, and obviously there is no reasoning with you. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.
Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.
-
Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.
Not giving Christianity a bad name and having Christian values is a big part of it and cikljamas isn't doing to great at either of those.
-
Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.
[/quote]
Of course. Quite simply, a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who paid for our sins, that we may have eternal life. Although that is all it means to be a Christian, there are "fruits of the Spirit" a true Christian would be able to show: love, joy, patience, gentleness, self-control, just to name a few. Of course we can't be perfect and struggle all the time, but it should be clear in situations when one is publicly announcing that they are a Christian and discussing beliefs, by that person's character and how they are treating others, whether or not they are a true follower of Christ or a hypocrite. It's never too late to change, though, and I don't mean to condemn anyone with my words.
Another thing that Christians should *not* do, is focus on conspiracy theories. The Bible says in Isaiah, “Do not say, ‘A conspiracy,’ Concerning all that this people call a conspiracy, Nor be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled." This is because, even if things like chem trails, 9/11 inside job, nasa lying and all that were true (I don't believe they are), it shouldn't be our focus, because God is the one in control of our lives, when we trust him. We need to be at peace with that instead of doubting everyone and living in fear. But sometimes, people forget.
-
Here is my response to all the chemtrail stuff, I didn't want to quite it because there is a lot of stuff cikljamas posted about it.
Contrails are only formed when it's cold enough for condensation to happen which is why planes only produce them at high altitude when it's relatively warm. If you look at cikljama's photos of contrails there are a lot of them and I would bet that that's because it's not too warm there. I live in St. George which is generally quite hot especially at this time of the year and despite living next to an airport the sky couldn't be clearer right now because it's too warm here for contrails to form.
If chemtrails were real then what are they supposed to do? I have heard people say that they supposedly dump people down but if that's the case then why is cikljamas with many contrails over his house questioning the shape of the Earth while I have no contrails over me and yet to flat earthers I am the most indoctrinated fool there is. Maybe chemtrails are real and make you dumber, that would explain cikljama's intelligence. No, that's impossible because it would require all aircraft mechanics, airline pilots, and just about anyone else who works with planes to be in on the conspiracyTM without one blowing the whistle.
-
Could you please explain exsactly what being a Christian means ?.
Of course. Quite simply, a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who paid for our sins, that we may have eternal life. Although that is all it means to be a Christian, there are "fruits of the Spirit" a true Christian would be able to show: love, joy, patience, gentleness, self-control, just to name a few. Of course we can't be perfect and struggle all the time, but it should be clear in situations when one is publicly announcing that they are a Christian and discussing beliefs, by that person's character and how they are treating others, whether or not they are a true follower of Christ or a hypocrite. It's never too late to change, though, and I don't mean to condemn anyone with my words.
[/quote]Well I have a different interpretation of Jesus Christ & what he was teaching. Does that make me less Christian then you ?
-
“If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.”
Albert Einstein
Senator David Norris" Israel bombs first and weeps later" must see : (http://)
Israeli sniper killing wounded civilian : (http://)
Shocking Clip: Israeli Checkpoint Cruelty : (http://)
How Israeli soldiers abuse Palestinian children : (http://)
Young American Jew, Israeli National police beat him : (http://)
Jimmy Carter unveils truth about Israel : (http://)
An honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel : (http://)
If this turned out to be true i wouldn't be surprised : http://www.infowars.com/former-al-qaeda-commander-isis-works-for-the-cia/ (http://www.infowars.com/former-al-qaeda-commander-isis-works-for-the-cia/)
The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history : http://www.iosworld.org/shame_of_being_an_american.htm (http://www.iosworld.org/shame_of_being_an_american.htm)
Ending the impunity of perpetrators of human rights atrocities: A major challenge for international law in the 21st century : https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqhj.htm (https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqhj.htm)
CNN Wants This Video Banned (SEE WHY) : (http://)
COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : (http://)
20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : (http://)
DANIEL BARENBOIM WOLF PRIZE VIDEO must see : http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/ (http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/)
(http://i.imgur.com/or12tGS.jpg)
(http://[img]http://i.imgur.com/MSM1EsU.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/71q0sQH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/7YhTbbq.jpg)
Mahalia Jackson vs Troubles Of The World 2 : (http://)
Revelation 3:15
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
Mark 11:15
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.
24 Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!
25 What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence!
26 You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish, and then the outside will become clean, too.
27 What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity.
28 Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed.
30 Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’
31 But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started.
33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?
34 Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city.
35 As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.
-
Buried amongst the religious screeds and political rants was this little gem of a post...
Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....
Care to explain why you think the statement above is so funny?
1.
It was not only experiments like those of Sagnac and Michelson and Gale which pointed to the earth as central. Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared in his telescope (and therefore presumably the further away), the more its spectrum was shifted to the red.
It did not matter in which direction he looked. In every direction, the further away from the earth the more "red shifted" the spectrum.
This is usually explained in terms of what is called the "Doppler" effect. The "redder" the spectrum, the faster something is supposed to be moving away from us. This leads to the idea of the "expanding universe". The further an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.
It is almost certain that this interpretation is wrong. [citation needed]
Scientists like Halton C. Arp and W.G. Tift have shown that the red shifts are not due to the Doppler Effect and the universe may no be expanding at all.
Halton C. Arp, was a provocative son of American astronomy whose dogged insistence that astronomers had misread the distances to quasars cast doubt on the Big Bang theory of the universe and led to his exile from his peers and the telescopes he loved died on Dec. 28 2013. in Munich. He was 86.
Through much of the early to mid-'60s a battle was raging between "Big Bang" and "Steady State" cosmology. The former was most famously championed by Dr. George Gamow, and the latter by Dr. Fred Hoyle[nb]It was Dr. Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang", as a pejorative. Instead, the term was not only adopted, but embraced, by the other side.[/nb]. Eventually the "Big Bang" model won out because it was a better theory and made better predictions. Dr. Arp was a holdout for the Steady-State theory until the bitter end, long after the preponderance of evidence rendered the Steady-State model obsolete. It is not at all unusual for there to be a few guys like this.
2.
Michelson and Morley planned to turn their apparatus until they found the maximum fringe shift produced by light travelling in two perpendicular directions. The position of maximum fringe shift would show the direction in which the earth was moving, the size of the fringe shift would be a measure of the speed of the earth through the aether.
But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established that the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movement of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment the earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.
So they repeated the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains...and everywhere... no fringe shift.
In other words, the earth was not moving.
Or, much more likely, the Earth was not moving through an aether, as was supposed.
3.
If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not.[citation needed] Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.
Since the Sun's movement around the galaxy is approximately the same as all the other bright stars, they're all in the same frame of reference and there's no aberration due to this motion. The Earth's orbital speed about the Sun doesn't change enough to be significant. The constant of aberration you cite is the maximum a star will be shifted due to average orbital motion (which doesn't change). What does change is the direction of the apparent displacement through the year; at the ecliptic pole, the pattern is (nearly) circular, becoming more elliptical as you approach the ecliptic. On the ecliptic, it's a straight line. Where's the problem?
4.
Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are!
Since science is based on evidence, not proofs, this is to be expected. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is consistent with the Earth moving, so that's the model science uses with great success.
Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider:
A. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity.
B. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist).
C. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period.
D. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe!
E. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions!
For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.
So what are your brilliant ideas about all of the above? Why do you think any of these are problems for a heliocentric solar system and spherical earth?
5.
"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"
Is there any evidence that Rowbotham actually carried out this experiment, or is this simply another fabrication?
6.
http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg)
Yes, why wouldn't we see Polaris if north-south tangent line at the equator would be exactly parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation?
Hm, strange question i must admit, pay attention to a green line in above picture and meditate some more on this issue...
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) [41' is less than 0.7°] difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
Do you have any evidence that this is actually true?
So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!
Yes. It's unlikely that Polaris is visible from 2° south except in rare circumstances, though. At 1° south it should be dim but visible at certain times of night under typical, but very clear, conditions if you have a clear view of the northern horizon September - February.
Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!
You have no reliable evidence that anyone has seen Polaris from 12° south.
7.
Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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.
False dichotomy.
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)
Since your "zig-zag" argument has been shown to be faulty time and time again, why do you keep bringing it up? The amount of parallax you postulate simply does not exist.
-
Alpha, do you remember these wise words of my dear friend Acenci:
Third, your attempts to debunk all my proofs don't work, because I have addressed all your objections before. The problem with you shills is that if there are three points in someone's argument, after he's done explaining the third point, you ask for his first point again.
Then someone else comes along and he asks the truther to explain his second point again. Then another shill comes along and he says the truther forgot to explain his third point.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666642#msg1666642 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666642#msg1666642)
But i can do you a favor by repeating these words:
"MICHELSON AND MORLEY" EXPERIMENT :
Michelson and Morley planned to turn their apparatus until they found the maximum fringe shift produced by light travelling in two perpendicular directions. The position of maximum fringe shift would show the direction in which the earth was moving, the size of the fringe shift would be a measure of the speed of the earth through the aether.
But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established that the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movements of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment the earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.
So they repeated the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains ...and everywhere .. . no fringe shift.
In other words, the earth was not moving.
It is interesting to see what various scientists have said about this:
Adolf Baker said "Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be at rest' ... it was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space".
Bernard Jaffe said "The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous".
But we might ask "Why preposterous?" After all, has anybody ever actually proved that the earth is moving?
Giancoli put it this way:- "But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe".
That of course is unacceptable to anyone who has decided that the earth is a very ordinary second class planet speeding through some insignificant backwater of the universe. Another ad hoc was required to save the theory from the evidence.
The man who came up with the ger of the dea for the required ad hoc was an lrish physicist called George Francis Fitzgerald. His suggestion was developed into the idea that if Michelson and Morley's apparatus contracted in the direction of the earth's motion, then, provided that the contraction was just the right amount, no fringe shift would be observed. This contraction must occur with any moving body, which means that when one drives one's car (or one's spaceship) at high speed it becomes slightly shorter than when it was stationary. An interesting idea. To accept such an idea as scientific one should, of course, take measurements and check that it is so. Our intrepid motorist (or space traveller) takes his ruler with him and measures his vehicle to see if it really does become shorter. ;D Unfortunately the ruler must get shorter by exactly the right amount to make the measurement identical to that when it is stationary.
Measurement says it does not get shorter.
Then how do we know it really does get shorter?
Obviously it must get shorter.
Otherwise Michelson and Morley's experiment shows that the earth stands still.
But there is a way to test for "Fitzgerald contraction". An interferometer would get shorter by exactly the right amount only if the lengths of the two arms were exactly equal. But if an interferometer were made with, say, one arm only half the length of the other, the contraction would no longer be just right, and a fringe shift would be observed. Such an interferometer was built.
It is interesting to see Arthur Beiser's comment on this experiment:- "We might be tempted to consider the Michelson-Morley result solely as evidence for the contraction of the length of their apparatus in the direction of the earth's motion.
This interpretation was tested by Kennedy and Thorndike using an interferometer with arms of unequal length. They also found no fringe shift which means that these experiments must be considered evidence for the absence of an aether."
But why "MUST be considered evidence for the absence of an aether"? Why not taken as evidence that the earth stands still? All the observations would fit that idea! And if this experiment proves that there is no aether, then it raises a very interesting philosophical question. Is it possible for scientists to measure properties of something that does not exist? Fresnel had measured properties of the aether. If it is possible for scientists to measure the properties of something that does not exist, then what value can we assign to science?
Anything the scientists measure might be a measurement of something that does not exist at all! But if it is not possible to measure properties of something that does not exist, then what about Fresnel's (and several other scientists') measurements of properties of the aether? And if there is no aether, how do we explain away the failure of Airy to find the result he expected in Boscovich's experiment? And how do we make sense of Maxwell's equations, which come directly from consideration of the aether?
It is intriguing to note that all the experiments fit in with the idea that the earth does not move ... without the need for any ad hocs at all.
It was not only optical experiments that were giving this problem. Electromagnetic experiments, such as that of Trouton and Noble, also suggested that the earth does not move.
The man who came up with the way out of the dilemma was Hendrik Anton Lorentz, a famous Dutch physicist. He proposed that high speed motion through the aether led not only to length contraction but also to increased resistance to acceleration (which is equivalent to increase in mass), and the slowing down of clocks. The famous "Lorentz Transformations" formed the core of his "Theory of Relativity".
A young "genius" working in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, later expressed Lorentz's theory in a different way a mathematical abstraction without a physical basis. Expressed this way the theory needed no aether, in fact it could not tolerate the aether. It was later realised that this solved the problem of Thorndike and Kennedy's experiment. Einstein's version of relativity became more popular than Lorentz's, and the idea of the aether went out of fashion.
Most physicists continue to deny the existence of the aether yet they are forced to admit that "free space" is, as K.W. Ford expressed it, "a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields, and short-lived, virtual particle pairs that form and annihilate". It is generally agreed that key "vacuum" properties include intrinsic energy, permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance - properties associated with the "aether" of Maxwell and Lorentz. This gives the impression that its existence is denied in chosen circumstances simply by repudiating its former name.
Einstein's original contribution to relativity centres on two fundamental assumptions, neither of which is obvious, and both of which contradict Maxwell's equations (which the theory was intended to justify!?!?!?!??!?!??!).
The first assumption is that no matter how an observer is (uniformly) moving he will always come to the same conclusion about the laws of science. No matter how he is moving he will always come to the same conclusions about the universe. In other words, all frames of reference are absolutely equivalent.
The second assumption is that however an observer is (uniformly) moving, he will always measure the speed at which light reaches him as being the same, a constant, "c".
This means that if the earth is moving through space with a speed "v", and it meets a ray of light moving in exactly the opposite direction in a head-on collision, then the impact speed will be c+v but this will be exactly equal to c! A ray of light moving in the same direction as the earth, catching the earth up, will meet the earth with an impact speed of c-v, and this will also be exactly equal to c.
So (c+v) = c = (c-v) :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
To anyone with a little knowledge of mathematics it looks as if there is one, unique, solution, v = 0 ... the earth is not moving.
Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. By abandoning physical reasoning, and accepting pure mathematical formalism, it gave them a plausible excuse to ignore all the evidence that the earth is stationary. Part of their acceptance required rejecting the existence of the aether. But a French scientist called Sagnac seemed unconvinced. No one had ever proved that the earth was actually moving, and Relativity was based on the assumption that it must be moving. In fact Relativity is largely an ad hoc to explain away the observations that show the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe (Einstein's denial notwithstanding!).
Sagnac built a turn-table with mirrors on it arranged in such a way that a beam of light was split into two beams, one was reflected from mirror to mirror anticlockwise around the turntable, the other was reflected around clockwise. After a complete circuit the beams were recombined in a camera to give interference fringes. Looking at it in a very simplified way, when the turntable was set spinning there was known to be movement, the beam going round with the turn table's rotation would be chasing the camera (which is moving away at speed v) with a relative speed of c-v, whereas the beam going against the rotation would approach the camera "head on" with a relative speed of c +v. If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c-v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.
But there was a fringe shift. A basic assumption of Relativity was apparently wrong. More explanations were needed to keep Relativity and the motion of the earth alive. But the excuses of the relativists were tested, experimentally and theoretically, and found to be invalid. Eventually the famous physicist Herbert Ives pointed out that the only way to carry on believing in Relativity was to "avoid looking at the evidence." Arguments are still being put forward to explain away Sagnac's experiment. Interestingly enough there are a number of explanations of such problems for Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" (STR) which appeal to his "General Theory of Relativity" (GTR).
Now STR cannot have an aether and must have a constant velocity of light. On the other hand GTR is, as Einstein put it "unthinkable without the aether" and cannot tolerate a constant velocity of light. The two theories are mutually exclusive. At least one must be wrong. To solve difficulties for one by calling in the other is clearly invalid.
Michelson, together with a new collaborator called Gale, thought of a way to test whether the aether exists or not. They built a tunnel of pipe sections at Chicago. The tunnel was in the form of a large rectangle. They reasoned that if there were an aether, then the rotation of the earth from west to east through it should cause a beam of light travelling clockwise round the tunnel to take slightly less time to get round than a beam travelling anticlockwise. If there were no aether then both beams would take the same time. the earth's rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the earth were standing still with the universe, including the aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.
They measured a difference. Existence of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.
Now, what is it exactly that you don't understand in the text above?
In addition: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678905#msg1678905 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678905#msg1678905)
Anything suspicious?
Let's not forget to stress these important facts once more:
Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)
PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If 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)
Cheers!
-
Hey guys, if you didn't see this fight, would you like to watch it now : (http://)
-
Hey guys, if you didn't see this fight, would you like to watch it now : (http://)
And this is part of the global conspiracy how?
-
No answers to my questions or replies to my comments, just another wall of copy-paste. A lot of it is the very text that prompted the unanswered questions.
Would you please answer the questions here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1679256#msg1679256)? Comments and rebuttals to the observations would be welcome, also.
Alpha, do you remember these wise words of my dear friend Acenci:
Wasn't he the guy who kept saying "this is my last post" every few hours for months? I guess he must have finally kept his promise. Can't say he seems to be missed by many around here.
Third, your attempts to debunk all my proofs don't work, because I have addressed all your objections before. The problem with you shills is that if there are three points in someone's argument, after he's done explaining the third point, you ask for his first point again.
Then someone else comes along and he asks the truther to explain his second point again. Then another shill comes along and he says the truther forgot to explain his third point.
That happens all the time because the "explanations" offered each time are either inadequate or just plain wrong. Maybe there's a message here?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666642#msg1666642 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666642#msg1666642)
But i can do you a favor by repeating these words:
Please don't. This has all been addressed before.
<Bunch of stuff already answered before, with a few nuggets needing comment>
...
Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. [citation needed]
...
Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.
Actually, no. That last point is clearly wrong. There are several experiments that directly and indirectly establish the rotation of the Earth. Sorry.
Now, what is it exactly that you don't understand in the text above?
1. The parts that are wrong.
2. The conclusions you're drawing.
<More repeated stuff>
Cheers!
Allow me to quote you:
How come that some people have to speek up so often, when it is obvious that it would be much better for them if they would just keep their mouth shut? What do you think?
I still think you should heed your own advice.
-
Well I have a different interpretation of Jesus Christ & what he was teaching. Does that make me less Christian then you ?
[/quote]
I have no idea what "different" means, so I don't know how to answer your question. =)
-
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)
Cheers!
Your zigzag hypothesis is wrong. There would be no zigzag.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/hrzn_zpsgcohetj4.jpg)
-
Could you please explain exactly what being a Christian means ?
Too easy Charles... being sufficiently self-delusional that one accepts the existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena.
You're welcome.