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 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
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.htmlHowever, 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:
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.?
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
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">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.
And pope Francis doesn't know any of this... OMG, what a moron, what a shame for the catholic church, what an apostasy...