Funny boy, read, watch and learn :
If there is no rotation of the earth the earth has to be flat, everything explained here :
1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
2. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899)
3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101)
4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)
The final proof : (http://)
The final proof II : (http://)
The final proof III : (http://)
The final proof IV : (http://)
Enjoy the truth!
Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
29silhouette, your needle stuck in a groove...Ironic, coming from the one who posts a video with the same audio dialogue looping over and over.
ZigZag argument has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, whatsoever...Actually, it does. Think about it.
Your funny attempt to refute my Star-Trails argument is equally idiotic!!! LOLNo, the idiocy is all in your argument.
PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER, FINALLY!!!I was never apart.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
You don't observe it because you're looking at it very near from sea level and without telescopes, but if you stand at the top of the Alps, with a powerful telescope, you can clearly see one Sun disappearing on its trajectory as at the same time a second Sun appears from the opposite direction... this happens because while one Sun moves to its trajectory on other face of this cubic Earth another Sun starts its trajectory on this face of the cube... you have not one, neither two, but four Suns doing their trajectory around four faces of this cubic Earth... the Sun takes 24 hours to move from one side of the face of the cube to the opposite side of the face of the cube, when another Sun enters this face of the cube to its 24 hours journey... it's quite simple actually. (but there are not only four Suns, but six, and the movement is gradient).
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
You don't observe it because you're looking at it very near from sea level and without telescopes, but if you stand at the top of the Alps, with a powerful telescope, you can clearly see one Sun disappearing on its trajectory as at the same time a second Sun appears from the opposite direction... this happens because while one Sun moves to its trajectory on other face of this cubic Earth another Sun starts its trajectory on this face of the cube... you have not one, neither two, but four Suns doing their trajectory around four faces of this cubic Earth... the Sun takes 24 hours to move from one side of the face of the cube to the opposite side of the face of the cube, when another Sun enters this face of the cube to its 24 hours journey... it's quite simple actually. (but there are not only four Suns, but six, and the movement is gradient).
what? 6 suns? :|
So why hasn't anyone ever looked through a telescope after sunset and saw the sun still up there in the distance? that would prove beyond all doubt that the earth is flat, and so easily too. i'm sure someone did that already and the sun just wasn't there anymore, or else we would've seen the whole YouTube talking about it.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
29silhouette, your needle stuck in a groove...
ZigZag argument has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, whatsoever...
Your funny attempt to refute my Star-Trails argument is equally idiotic!!! LOL
PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER, FINALLY!!!
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
29silhouette, your needle stuck in a groove...
ZigZag argument has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, whatsoever...
Your funny attempt to refute my Star-Trails argument is equally idiotic!!! LOL
PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER, FINALLY!!!
Hey, welcome back silk pajamas, I've missed your unique sense of geometric spatial awareness....
You are completely wrong of course, if you try keeping things to scale I'm sure it will all become clear.
The stars are really, really really REALLY, fucking REALLY far away, you might think it's a long way to the corner shop, but that's just peanuts compared to space.... space is big, mind bogglingly huge, you can't even begin to comprehend how huge space really is..... the NEAREST star is 4 light years away.. trust me, that's further than from your home to the nearest pub.
29silhouette, your needle stuck in a groove...
ZigZag argument has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, whatsoever...
Your funny attempt to refute my Star-Trails argument is equally idiotic!!! LOL
PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER, FINALLY!!!
Hey, welcome back silk pajamas, I've missed your unique sense of geometric spatial awareness....
You are completely wrong of course, if you try keeping things to scale I'm sure it will all become clear.
The stars are really, really really REALLY, fucking REALLY far away, you might think it's a long way to the corner shop, but that's just peanuts compared to space.... space is big, mind bogglingly huge, you can't even begin to comprehend how huge space really is..... the NEAREST star is 4 light years away.. trust me, that's further than from your home to the nearest pub.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.
Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.
Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
.
Please clean up that post, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Grammatically it is a disaster, and as I am no native English speaker it is hard to understand.
The only thing I understood is that you think we can't see height, which is a clear lie from you. Our depth perception has nothing to do with it, which you seem to think.
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.
Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
.
Please clean up that post, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Grammatically it is a disaster, and as I am no native English speaker it is hard to understand.
The only thing I understood is that you think we can't see height, which is a clear lie from you. Our depth perception has nothing to do with it, which you seem to think.
What I wrote is grammatically perfect but I'll move away some words so you understand more clearly:
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically is because the Sun does not get smaller at all, but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
Since you are not an English native speaker, if you still do not understand I advise you to take a few more English lessons.
.
yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.
Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
.
Please clean up that post, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Grammatically it is a disaster, and as I am no native English speaker it is hard to understand.
The only thing I understood is that you think we can't see height, which is a clear lie from you. Our depth perception has nothing to do with it, which you seem to think.
What I wrote is grammatically perfect but I'll move away some words so you understand more clearly:
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically is because the Sun does not get smaller at all, but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
Since you are not an English native speaker, if you still do not understand I advise you to take a few more English lessons.
.
Thank you, a lot cleaner and easier to understand.
So the sun does not get smaller because our vertical viewing angle narrows? Why does it do that? And that would mean that everything we see would be taller than it actually is, not just the sun. We don't see that.
What we do see is that the sun does in fact disappear vertically, it's bottom get obscured first.
Our optical angle is about equal horizontally and vertically, since our eyes are focusing at the same point. And one individual eye has equal optical angle in every direction. And I don't see how this would manipulate our image of the sun (and only the sun!) depending on it's position in the sky.
And yet again you speak of our depth perception as if it had something to do with this phenomenon. Maybe it has, but you seem to think that depth perception is horizontal perception, which makes you wrong from the beginning of that statement.
An example of your bad grammar:Quoteyet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye
So if you close an eye and then close it? I understand that you meant the other eye, but it doesn't make it right.
You don't say horizontally and depth... there's just horizontally, left to right or right to left, and vertically, up and down...
Your quoting of my words is partial... stop messing around and use that time for some English lessons, otherwise communication is not possible.
Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
Why do you have some of the planets orbiting the Sun in the opposite direction as others in your visualization of the planets in the solar system? They all orbit in the same direction and rotate in the same direction, too (with the exception of Uranus, which has axial tilt greater than 90°).
Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.93 million mile ? Have you done any investigating as to how that figure was derived. Numerous mathematical calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture. Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again. You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance. RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected.
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.
It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.
And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.
This is exactly what we DO observe : (http://)
Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.
Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
.
Please clean up that post, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Grammatically it is a disaster, and as I am no native English speaker it is hard to understand.
The only thing I understood is that you think we can't see height, which is a clear lie from you. Our depth perception has nothing to do with it, which you seem to think.
What I wrote is grammatically perfect but I'll move away some words so you understand more clearly:
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically is because the Sun does not get smaller at all, but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.
Since you are not an English native speaker, if you still do not understand I advise you to take a few more English lessons.
.
Thank you, a lot cleaner and easier to understand.
So the sun does not get smaller because our vertical viewing angle narrows? Why does it do that? And that would mean that everything we see would be taller than it actually is, not just the sun. We don't see that.
What we do see is that the sun does in fact disappear vertically, it's bottom get obscured first.
Our optical angle is about equal horizontally and vertically, since our eyes are focusing at the same point. And one individual eye has equal optical angle in every direction. And I don't see how this would manipulate our image of the sun (and only the sun!) depending on it's position in the sky.
And yet again you speak of our depth perception as if it had something to do with this phenomenon. Maybe it has, but you seem to think that depth perception is horizontal perception, which makes you wrong from the beginning of that statement.
An example of your bad grammar:Quoteyet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye
So if you close an eye and then close it? I understand that you meant the other eye, but it doesn't make it right.
You don't say horizontally and depth... there's just horizontally, left to right or right to left, and vertically, up and down...
Your quoting of my words is partial... stop messing around and use that time for some English lessons, otherwise communication is not possible.
.
You really don't think the distance to the sun matters?
Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : (http://)
Enjoy it!!!
P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!
Well, that was a waste of time to watch. How long did it take you to put that thing together?
I see you're still making the same mistake you were making before. You have the Sun and stars way too close when making your "zigzag" argument. If the Sun were about the diameter of the Arctic Circle (roughly 3,000 miles) distant, then we would see it zig-zagging due to parallax. But it's not nearly that close, so we don't. How about running a similar visualization, but put the Sun 30,000 times further away, where it really is, and see how much "zig-zag" you'd see. I thought we'd already cleared that up. Oh well.
As for the star trails part, can you write out what you were trying to say about the direction of the trails and how it's opposite the way you think they should be? It didn't make any sense when watching - I even skipped back once to hear it again, and I don't want to waste any more time. That's one of the reasons why I don't like videos for this type of thing: unlike text, it's not easy to refer back to (and carefully parse out, if necessary) what's been said earlier to compare with what's said later.
Published on Sep 14, 2015
In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :
If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?
Hi Alpha!How do you know? Has anyone even said anything about it? Don't you remember saying this:
1. How come that you are the only person who didn't understand my STAR-TRAILS argument?
i haven't noticed any attempt of refuting my STAR-TRAILS argument so far. How come? Let me guess? There is no possible way of refuting such mind boggling irrefutable argument? Not even one lousy attempt?More likely it's because no one knew what the heck the argument was.
When you are out of options, playing stupid is an option again? Good old Alpha's tactic, but it doesn't help you to dispel obviousness of the veracity of my absolutely irrefutable STAR-TRAILS argument, does it?I didn't dig through the commentary below the video. Thanks for the transcript.
Have you overlooked this explanation (of the STAR-TRAILS argument) which i put below my video:
Yeah, that's pretty much the gibberish I remembered. It still doesn't make much sense. At least looking at it, it's possible to read and re-read what you said to try to make some sense of some of it.QuotePublished on Sep 14, 2015
In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :
If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?
2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument)Just how much parallax do you think you'd get moving side to side by 6,000 km when looking at an object 150,000,000 km away (using geodetective's numbers)? Here's a clue: it's really small.
just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here) : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg)How about providing a transcript of your point, or at least describing what your point is, so there's no need to wade through another, probably completely useless, video.
Published on Sep 14, 2015
In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :
If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?
Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.
ONCE AGAIN:QuotePublished on Sep 14, 2015
In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :
If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?
2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here) : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg)
...puking out some fucking nasty ass shit...
Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.I can read the earlier post, simply repeating it doesn't clarify anything. It's still gibberish.
ONCE AGAIN:Quote<repeat of earlier quote.>
2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here) : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg)No further information? How about a written synopsis of what that video is supposed to show?
http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg)There are blue streaks in both of those photos. You can't tell which way the camera or light was moving just looking at the photos. They're just streaks.
http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg)
"If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!" This is what you would see if you were looking north at the meridian, but for whatever reason, you have avoided showing this part of the sky. Why? You never answered that question.So what's the story? Was this a deliberate (failed) attempt at deception, or just ignorance about what you're arguing about?
You do show the part of the northern circumpolar sky below the pole (6:58 is a good example of this). There is a time when some of the circumpolar sky just above the pole is shown briefly in the zoom out sequence ending at around 7:12. Why cut it off so soon and not show the expected right to left motion above the pole? Are you trying to hide this because it blows your idea out of the water? That's dishonest.
Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.I can read the earlier post, simply repeating it doesn't clarify anything. It's still gibberish.
ONCE AGAIN:Quote<repeat of earlier quote.>Quote2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here) : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg)No further information? How about a written synopsis of what that video is supposed to show?Quotehttp://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg)There are blue streaks in both of those photos. You can't tell which way the camera or light was moving just looking at the photos. They're just streaks.
http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg)
Kind of like this:
(http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/northpole_malin.jpg)
Which way are the stars rotating in this photo? If you weren't familiar with the night sky, you wouldn't know. They're just streaks.
I'm stating that you omitted footage from that video that show your assertion is wrong. Whether that was intentional or not is the question.Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.I can read the earlier post, simply repeating it doesn't clarify anything. It's still gibberish.
ONCE AGAIN:Quote<repeat of earlier quote.>Quote2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here) : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg)No further information? How about a written synopsis of what that video is supposed to show?Quotehttp://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg)There are blue streaks in both of those photos. You can't tell which way the camera or light was moving just looking at the photos. They're just streaks.
http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg)
Kind of like this:
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/northpole_malin.jpg (http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/northpole_malin.jpg)
Which way are the stars rotating in this photo? If you weren't familiar with the night sky, you wouldn't know. They're just streaks.
1. Alpha, are you alluding that i have faked the results of this experiment?
If so, why don't you try this experiment yourself and show us how and why this experiment is a scam?What experiment? I've taken star trail pictures before, if that's what you're talking about. I've also spent enough time under the stars to know which direction the stars move. Hint: it's always consistent with the Earth rotating west to east. Always.
Anyone can verify validity of this experiment, ANYONE!!! - Come on guys, do it yourself if there is a shred of doubt in your mind about the correctness of the performance (or about the correctness of an interpretation of it's results) of this experiment!
It is already obvious that you don't have an answer to this ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!!!Your argument is entirely refutable. Go out and watch the stars for a few hours.
2. Alpha, i am offering to you something else to crack:The Moon moves across the sky from east to west due to the rotation of the Earth from west to east. At the same time, it is more slowly moving from west to east in its orbit, so it moves from west to east against the stars. That's the reason each moonrise is about 50 minutes later than the last. Not "proof" of anything[nb]See other recent threads for the discussion about why science doesn't traffic in "proofs".[/nb], but that's as close as you're going to get.
I will show you that the motion of the Moon is the proof in itself AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!
But, before i do that i am challenging you to show us ONE SINGLE PROOF (of ANY KIND whatsoever) that the Moon travels in an OPPOSITE direction of her "apparent" motion in the sky!!!
ONE SINGLE PROOF, that is all we ask of you!
Can you do that?
1. No marvel that you have no answer to my STAR-TRAILS argument.I can't even tell what your "star-trails argument" is. Can you describe succinctly and coherently what it is the stars are doing that you think is contrary to a rotating earth and distant stars?
2. No marvel that you have no sane answer ("small parallax" is not an answer to the question at all) to my ZIGZAG argument.Sorry you don't like the answer. It is what it is, though, whether you like it or not. The Sun is simply too far away to exhibit enough parallax to overcome the diurnal motion across the sky (or around the sky in the polar regions).
3. No marvel that you have no answer to my challenge to show us ONE SINGLE PROOF that there is any justification for unnaturally-artificially reversing direction of Moon's motion in the sky to West-East (instead of East-West direction).Artificial? You can see the Moon moving from west to east among the stars[nb]Well, you can see it if you'll actually look.[/nb], same as it always has. No one has reversed the direction of the Moon.
4. Following quotes will explain why the Moon can't be stationary or travel East-West (daily) within HC theory :Who are those people? How do they think anyone was able to "reverse the direction of the Moon" and change its speed, anyway?
"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall
“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer
5. Following illustrations will explain why the Moon can't travel in an opposite direction (monthly), also:I don't see how either of those drawings has anything to do with the rotation of the Earth. It looks like they're concerned with the position of the Moon with respect to the Earth in its orbit. Even so, what are you getting at?
http://i.imgur.com/lfq6UXW.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/lfq6UXW.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/D0irxSJ.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/D0irxSJ.jpg)
I had presented this problem in my video THE FLAT EARTH - THE MOON - part 1 : (http://)I'd rather read about it. Can you give a summary of what it is you're trying to say in the video?
<silly animated gif>
<another silly animated gif>
<silly animated gif>
<another silly animated gif>
No answers? Got it!
Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :
Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.
Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?
Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?
Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :
Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.
Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?
Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?
That thinking is so brain damaged my head hurts trying to understand how you could ever think that., but I'll try and keep my answer simple and direct.
Tell me what time of the year, and in what place is the solar day is NOT 24 hours.
Take your time. I'll wait...
Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :That old thing is so mind-bogglingly simple to explain that I'm surprised you even bring it up again (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636385;topicseen#msg1636385).
Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.
Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity),Problem? It's a problem for you, not the HC model, which explains it easily.
which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth,You forgot the tilt of the Earth's axis wrt the Ecliptic as a factor, too. That's a bigger factor than the slight variation in orbital motion.
different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe".Nope. The rotation speed of the Earth is, of course, fixed. The difference in the apparent speed of the Sun through is due to the factors already mentioned. Don't you pay attention to your own arguments?
So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?Because the Earth's orbital speed changes throughout the year due to its elliptical (not circular) orbit and because its axis is not perpendicular to the orbital plane. We've discussed this before. Don't you remember (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636605;topicseen#msg1636605)?
Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?Not only easier, but already answered. Both of these are entirely consistent with the very simple and elegant heliocentric model.
QuoteSo, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?Because the Earth's orbital speed changes throughout the year due to its elliptical (not circular) orbit and because its axis is not perpendicular to the orbital plane. We've discussed this before. Don't you remember (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636605;topicseen#msg1636605)?
But this is the EoT, and its cause is logical, well understood, and easily explained in the heliocentric solar system. We already discussed this at great length (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636605;topicseen#msg1636605), remember?QuoteSo, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?Because the Earth's orbital speed changes throughout the year due to its elliptical (not circular) orbit and because its axis is not perpendicular to the orbital plane. We've discussed this before. Don't you remember (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636605;topicseen#msg1636605)?
Let's clarify something :
1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?
2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?
I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!
Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :
Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.
Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?
Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?
That thinking is so brain damaged my head hurts trying to understand how you could ever think that., but I'll try and keep my answer simple and direct.
Tell me what time of the year, and in what place is the solar day is NOT 24 hours.
Take your time. I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, because your question is stupid which is perfectly in accordance with your IQ. On top of that you are a rude jerk, so even if your question made some sense i wouldn't answer to that question, because you don't deserve my answer in the first place. Firstly, you have to learn how to behave as a civilized, decent person, then you can begin to dream of making conversation with intelligent, and well educated people...
In addition:
If you can’t be bothered to be a witty, sarcastic jerk, you can just be a regular, mean jerk. This kind of jerk is intolerant and impatient (to a higher degree than the other type of jerk), rude, and unsarcastically mean. The next time someone gives you something or does something for you, don’t say thank you or show gratitude; you should even go so far as to complain about what they gave you or how they should accomplish things faster. Don’t be grateful; if you are grateful, people will think that they can win your favor with good deeds; that’s manipulation. You can’t let anyone win your favor; that would show weakness, and you have to be strong to show that you are of great importance. Be disrespectful to everyone, and elders and authority figures especially. Respect can also be linked to weakness, since respecting someone can be taken as giving in and obeying that person. Don’t obey; you are your own person, and you should play by your rules alone. This form of jerk is harder to achieve, since a lot of people will end up disliking you, and this type of jerk is more rotten to the core, but accomplish it and it will make you feel in complete control of your life. There is no one above you.
Let's clarify something :
1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?
2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?
I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!
I dedicate my brand new video to you (and all your colleagues - NASA shills) : (http://)
Alpha, i am absolutely sure that you are absolutely sure that the earth is flat!
It is more than obvious (and it has been obvious for a long period of time) that everything you say has very concrete purpose : to intentionally mislead, deceive and derail honest thinkers. That is why there is no doubt (in my mind at least) whatsoever what kind of a game you are playing.
You didn't answer (again) CONCRETELY to any of my very plain and simple questions that i have put forward to you in this thread.
Since you are very intelligent and very good educated person, there is no possibility that you do what you do unintentionally/accidentally.
No, no, no, this is purely intentional behavior, and i don't believe that you ever thought (not even for a moment) i could be so stupid not to realize such an obvious fact.
Did you miss these (bolded) words :QuoteLet's clarify something :
1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?
2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?
I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!
Date | Duration in mean solar time | |
| September 16 | 24 hours − 21.3 seconds = 23h 59m 38.7s | |
| December 22 | 24 hours + 29.9 seconds = 24h 00m 29.9s |
P.S. Yes, time flies, and you still sing your deceitful song!
I dedicate my brand new video to you (and all your colleagues - NASA shills) : (http://)
Enjoy the truth
and don't forget : Time is short, and eternity is long!
<irrelevant biblical quote>
You don't honestly think that this guy will understand the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day do you?
He barely understands parallax....
Here are the lengths of the shortest and longest apparent solar days[nb]Jean Meeus (1997), Mathematical astronomy morsels (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell) 346. ISBN 0-943396-51-4 (as cited in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time))[/nb]:
September 16 24 hours − 21.3 seconds = 23h 59m 38.7s December 22 24 hours + 29.9 seconds = 24h 00m 29.9s
Since the apparent solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same meridian, it's moving across the sky more quickly throughout the day around Sept 16 (the apparent solar day is shortest then) than it is around Dec 22 (apparent solar day is longest then). Since the Sun travels 360° around the sky in a solar day, it travels 15.0037° per hour on the shortest day and 14.9948° per hour on the longest, a 0.0089° per hour difference - not much, but that's not the point. Is that any clearer for you?
Here are the lengths of the shortest and longest apparent solar days[nb]Jean Meeus (1997), Mathematical astronomy morsels (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell) 346. ISBN 0-943396-51-4 (as cited in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time))[/nb]:
September 16 24 hours − 21.3 seconds = 23h 59m 38.7s December 22 24 hours + 29.9 seconds = 24h 00m 29.9s
Since the apparent solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same meridian, it's moving across the sky more quickly throughout the day around Sept 16 (the apparent solar day is shortest then) than it is around Dec 22 (apparent solar day is longest then). Since the Sun travels 360° around the sky in a solar day, it travels 15.0037° per hour on the shortest day and 14.9948° per hour on the longest, a 0.0089° per hour difference - not much, but that's not the point. Is that any clearer for you?
All correct of course, but I'm pretty sure cikljamas was alluding to another zigzag variation. But he is so confused it's hard to know what he is saying half the time.
THE SPEED OF THE SUN :
66,6 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 6393,6 km
6393,6 * 2 * 3,14 = 40151 km / 24 = 1672 km/h = 27,88 km/min
90 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 8640 km
8640 * 2 * 3,14 = 54259 km / 24 = 2260 km/h = 37,67 km/min
113,4 * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 10886,4 km
10886,4 * 2 * 3,14 = 68366 km = 2848 km/h = 47,47 km/mi
ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH :The effect was orders of magnitude smaller than what Airy was expecting, due to the design of his experiment. The problem is described clearly in this paper (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2029). This was brought to your attention seven months ago (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662297;topicseen#msg1662297). Please stop bringing up the same old debunked arguments.
1. The test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711 -1787). READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.Several of those I'm familiar with were all looking for motion through the luminiferous Ether. They failed because the luminiferous Ether doesn't exist.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever." READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899)
2. STAR-TRAILS ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT :
If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!!
-- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?
3. ZIG-ZAG ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT :
The path of the sun in the sky always describes arcs in one direction. This very fact (the sun circles exclusively in one direction) has been perfectly clearly demonstrated and very strongly emphasized in Rory Cooper's animation of my ZIGZAG argument.
This very fact is the proof of the correctness of my argument, because if the earth were spinning globe we would witness a ZIGZAG phenomena (which doesn't exist in reality)!!!
A blatant fact that ZIGZAG phenomena doesn't exist constitutes the core of my proof (ZIGZAG argument)!!!
How many times i have to stress this before all heliocentrists become able to figure this out?
Only one scenario can account for all that : the earth centered universe!
In order to make this simple geometrical concept more understandable for you, i suggest you to concentrate to the second scenario-explanation (so that you don't have to take into account those 180 degrees turns (which observer has to make (gradually) every time after reaching each turning point) of an observer at the edge of the Arctic circle :
Our second scenario is this, i repeat :
Just imagine that you are at the edge of the Arctic circle, looking towards (let's say) NORTH and maintain your position (looking straight to the NORTH, all the time) for 24 hours.
If the earth rotated, the sun would seem to go continually from your right side (hand) towards your left side (hand),
but if the sun circled around you (as it is in reality), then you would see the sun going first half of the circle from your right hand towards your left hand, and second half of the circle from your left hand towards your right hand.It's no different whether you're turning along with the Earth, and the Sun is fixed, or if the Earth is fixed and the Sun is circling. You can't tell from this alone.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SEE AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE IF YOU MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION (LOOKING STRAIGHT TO THE NORTH) FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS :
THE SUN IS GOING FIRST HALF OF THE CIRCLE FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TOWARDS YOUR LEFT HAND [behind you], AND SECOND HALF OF THE CIRCLE FROM YOUR LEFT HAND TOWARDS YOUR RIGHT HAND!!!!!
Run-of-the-mill aircraft inertial navigation systems routinely detect the rotation of the Earth, as do other precision gyroscopes, Foucault Pendulums, gravimetry and geodesy. I think the accelerometers in common smartphones are even sensitive enough to detect the centrifugal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth, but you might want to check on that.
I'll see your link and raise you:
4. THE MOTION OF THE MOON IS THE PROOF IN ITSELF AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH :
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719693#msg1719693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719693#msg1719693)
I don't see how either of those drawings has anything to do with the rotation of the Earth. It looks like they're concerned with the position of the Moon with respect to the Earth in its orbit. Even so, what are you getting at?The only response you gave to this question was a couple of irrelevant and inane animated gifs.
5. Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.
Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe".
THE SPEED OF THE SUN :
66,6 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 6393,6 km
6393,6 * 2 * 3,14 = 40151 km / 24 = 1672 km/h = 27,88 km/min
90 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 8640 km
8640 * 2 * 3,14 = 54259 km / 24 = 2260 km/h = 37,67 km/min
113,4 * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 10886,4 km
10886,4 * 2 * 3,14 = 68366 km = 2848 km/h = 47,47 km/min
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652962#msg1652962 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652962#msg1652962)
6. EOT PROBLEM : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935)
Why the pagan (Celtic?) names for those dates? What is special about them? Why is Jan 3 closer to Feb 2 (30 days) in the drawing than Dec 23 (11 days) is? Why is Aug 1 closer to Jul 3 (33 days) than Jul 3 is to Jun 23 (10 days)? You only spray painted 266 days of the year. What about the other 99?
7. EOT PROBLEM NO 2 :
(http://i.imgur.com/7y06ULe.jpg)
Should the earth travel at slower or faster (in her alleged orbit around the sun) in order to pass longer distance in the same period of time (133 days)? Other way around, should the earth travel at slower or faster speed (in her alleged orbit around the sun) in order to pass shorter distance in the same period of time (133 days)?
The correct answer to the first question : The earth should travel at greater orbital velocity in order to pass longer distance in the same period of time!!!
The correct answer to the second question : The earth should travel at slower orbital velocity in order to pass shorter distance in the same period of time.
But, according to HC theroy the earth travels slower when passing longer distance (SLOW SUN), and when passing shorter distance the earth travels at greater speed!You seem to forget that the Sun moves across the sky slowest (SLOW SUN!!) when the Earth moves fastest in its orbit.[nb]This is because the Earth rotates the same direction as its orbital motion. If you don't see why, go back and review the CWRU diagram (http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr306/Coords/sidereal-v-solar-day.gif) provided earlier.[/nb] This may seem counterintuitive at first, but makes sense when you think about it. Try to spend more time thinking about this stuff and less time doctoring pictures in really loopy ways and pontificating. It will prove more productive.
Yes, but this doesn't mean what you probably think it does.
8. If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?
Of course it is not reality[Citation needed], but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.Negatory, good buddy! The apparent motion of celestial bodies is due to the change in angle between the line from the center of the Earth to you (which defines "up" and "down"), and the line from the center of the Earth to the object, which steadily changes due to earth's rotation (which is 360° in a day, regardless of what your latitude is, even at the pole), not the distance traveled (which is negligible compared with the distance to any celestial body).
If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.
A) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?Nope, but the atmosphere is not independent from earth's daily rotation, so the question is moot.
B) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html)No, if the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would exactly zero. That's what "along with" means, after all. The air is moving right along with with the ground, remember. Since the difference is zero, there is no flow. Why is this hard to grasp?
Too many links. This website is too slow. Didn't read. I presume these are all yours, and if they're like the others you've cited here, they're chock full o' errors.
ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED TILT OF THE EARTH :
1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
2. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899)
3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101)
4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)
If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.Wrong. If we take, for illustration, the extreme case where the earth's axis was tilted so far that the Sun could be overhead as far as the poles, then when it was over one of the poles, the entire opposite hemisphere would receive zero sunlight, and be in darkness, while the near hemisphere would receive all the sunlight. That would be a major change in seasons. As it is, with the axis tilted "only" 23.5°, at the solstices, one hemisphere receives a disproportionate share of sunlight compared to the other. This causes the seasons.
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :Nah... this oversimplified scenario ignores two major points.
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality)[wanna bet?] case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t)
INUIT ARGUMENT :Do you have any evidence that the position of the Sun has changed significantly, or did you just "hear it somewhere"?
If the position of the Sun has changed so significantly due to the shift of the Earth's axis[Citation needed], then it must be the case with the stars, also.
How do we know that it hasn't happened in that way (a change of the Sun's path in the North, and a possible change of the position of the stars)?If the Earth's tilt had changed. Do you have any evidence that it has? Precession is a well-known change in the direction of the axis, but it's amount of tilt doesn't change due to that. Other effects, such as nutation do affect the angle of tilt slightly, but are significantly smaller.
There is a very simple method of verification:
If the Earth's tilt had changed, then the northern center of the rotation of the stars could not have remained (any longer) in the same place (within HC theory)!!!
But Polaris is still in the same place, and all the stars still rotate around Polaris, don't they?No, it's not, and no, they don't. Polaris lies close to the axis of rotation (which is what the stars do appear to rotate around) now, but is not on it, and the axis will get slightly closer to Polaris for the next few decades, then start to move away due to precession. Since Polaris is currently about 0.75° from the pole, it traces an arc in the sky about three times the diameter of the Moon each day. Further, Polaris hasn't always been as close to the Celestial Pole anyway. About 3000 years BCE, Thuban, a moderately bright star in Draco was even closer to the NCP than Polaris is now or will be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession) for more information.
So, i would say that this is a really good way how we can corroborate that the motion of the Stars, and the motion of the Sun, are two different, separate and independent motions!That's an interesting idea, but it's wrong. The Sun moves across the sky slightly slower than the stars simply because we're orbiting around it. Period.
On top of that, if the earth's axis had shifted then the same consequence would have occured within Antarctic circle (temperature would have increased during the southern summer) as well. But what we see is that in the Arctic circle temperature rises, but on the edge of the Great South Wall temperature decreases[Citation needed].Precession doesn't affect the tilt of the Earth's axis wrt the ecliptic, just the direction.
I have never seen so much stupidity in one place. Alpha, you must have been totally drunk while you were writing these utterly stupid posts! I would have never expected so much bullshit from you, but of course, no one can be heliocentrist and a sane person in the same time, so no marvel that whatever you say (regarding astronomy) is utter stupidity, that is absolutely logical, after all. Goodby Alpha! I wish you the best life!
5. Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.
Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe".
THE SPEED OF THE SUN :
66,6 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 6393,6 km
6393,6 * 2 * 3,14 = 40151 km / 24 = 1672 km/h = 27,88 km/min
90 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 8640 km
8640 * 2 * 3,14 = 54259 km / 24 = 2260 km/h = 37,67 km/min
113,4 * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 10886,4 km
10886,4 * 2 * 3,14 = 68366 km = 2848 km/h = 47,47 km/min
I have never seen so much stupidity in one place. Alpha, you must have been totally drunk while you were writing these utterly stupid posts! I would have never expected so much bullshit from you, but of course, no one can be heliocentrist and a sane person in the same time, so no marvel that whatever you say (regarding astronomy) is utter stupidity, that is absolutely logical, after all. Goodby Alpha! I wish you the best life!
Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?This is getting stale. You already asked this six months ago and had it answered. The answer hasn't changed.
Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?Because they have no reason to. The heliocentric model explains and predicts what we see very reliably and accurately; it beats every other model by 1.61 km. It certainly beats yours, which can't even explain daily phenomena like sunsets.
Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:Again, from the same reply...
<quotes out of context>
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.
Some scientists admit the truth in their own words.Your calling the heliocentric model of the solar system dogma doesn't mean it is. The meaning of 'dogma' in the pejorative way you apply it is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma) This clearly doesn't apply because there are very adequate grounds in the form of centuries of carefully-made and recorded observations and accurate predictions, including interplanetary spacecraft trajectories. A scientist who proposes using another model would be expected to demonstrate how this other model fits the things we already see, measure, and accurately predict (things like retrograde apparent motion of the planets, orientation of the rings of Saturn, stellar parallax, etc.) better or more simply. If the answer is "I just know", then his "cred" in the scientific community would, justifiably, suffer.
<several quotes taken out of context>
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment.QuoteAs for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.If textbooks say something that is clearly at odds with what can be seen and experienced it will be noticed by enough people to be questioned. "The masses", by which you obviously mean "everybody who does not agree (perhaps secretly) with me", are not as universally stupid as you think they are.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075)The very next post after that one from more than half a year ago are where those quotes included here came from. Why are you bringing this old crap up again? Bored? Did you think the answers would be different?
A) OCEAN BEDS argument: Not only that the Ocean Basin/Floor is not CONVEX shaped, it is not even FLAT shaped, but CONCAVE, exactly as we would expect from something that we call A BASIN!!! Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925) http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478) http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807)Again, already answered:
B) LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html)If anyone wants to look at any of these and summarize them here, that would be nice. Be advised that the stuff cikljamas posts on energeticforum makes no more sense than what he posts here, so it's likely a waste of time.
C) PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html)
D) SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329)
E) GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185)
(http://i.imgur.com/9U2g34Z.jpg).The 8" times distance in miles squared approximation works pretty well up to a distance of a few hundred miles. After that, it breaks down and a more accurate formula is needed. One mistake most flat-earthers make when determining when something should not be visible is to ignore the distance from F to the tangent point - the distance from observer to horizon due to the height, EF, of the observation in the figure above. You need to calculate this distance from height EF, and then the remaining distance from the tangent point to object separately.