GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

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?

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 09:09:50 AM

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

All you need to do is some research before making these arguments. Then you wouldn't come off as being so ignorant.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 09:09:50 AM

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/

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/

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°.



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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> - 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?

   

Quote from: cikljamas on November 26, 2014, 08:09:29 AM

Hovind vs Ross : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> - 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?

   

Red herring. When will you learn?

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 27, 2014, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 26, 2014, 08:09:29 AM

Hovind vs Ross : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> - 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?

   

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°.



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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 10:12:06 AM

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°.



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?

Quote

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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Why am I not the least bit surprised that you posted this old video of Hovind before he was nailed by the Feds?   

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

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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Albert Pike visions : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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!

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 02:50:02 PM

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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Albert Pike visions : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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?

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 02:50:02 PM

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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Albert Pike visions : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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.