GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

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

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

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.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 23, 2015, 01:24:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 23, 2015, 01:24:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 23, 2015, 01:24:53 PM

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:

Quote

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

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.

Quote

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

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.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 24, 2015, 05:55:03 PM

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?     

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.

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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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

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?

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

Do you remember your insane calculation for the heliocentric midnight-polar-Sun parallax:

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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:

 
 
 

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:


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:


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/uk43suv.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] 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:







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:


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.

Quote

What's the diameter of that antenna dish?

1m.

Quote

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.

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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/dooSr0F.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.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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:

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.