The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cikljamas on November 21, 2014, 01:21:42 AM

Title: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 21, 2014, 01:21:42 AM
1. The 1959. Centennial Celebration in Chicago was Darwinism's finest hour. One of the most honored speakers on this occasion was Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley.[/b] Julian Huxley's speech was a glittering oration on the majestic grandeur of Darwin's achievement, coupled with a vision of its totalizing implications for the future. Here is excerpt from his speech:

Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself. This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. . . .
In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not
created, it evolved.
So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. . . .Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.
Read more:  http://www.energeticforum.com/254728-post33.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/254728-post33.html)

2. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science". Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/255678-post304.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255678-post304.html)

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein.
It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

3. Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.

The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)

4. Virtually no one begins with the conspiracy and develops a belief in the FET. A zetetic starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this. As a consequence they assume the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated

P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
contradicts the FET

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
is fabricated evidence

P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then
there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it

P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.
The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space."

-President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA.

5. The Soviet Union did not have a spare capsule at that time and in Moscow it was decided to orchestrate a huge bluff, a cosmic lie.

Radio Moscow claimed that a Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, had been sent up into space on the morning of 12 April, 1961 with the space-rocket Vostok. According to the official announcement, he had already landed and was in fine health. The whole world believed this except for the Western intelligence services. They had not managed to register any radio communication between Gagarin and the space centre.

This hoax was sloppily orchestrated. (They should have asked NASA how to do it...) Polish newspapers announced already on the morning of 12 April that a Soviet cosmonaut had been in space. Newspapers in other countries did not report Gagarin's flight until 13 April.

In a book written for the West, Soviet propagandists claimed that simple peasants recognized Yuri Gagarin soon after he landed in a field and enthusiastically shouted: "Gagarin, Gagarin!" But nothing about his "space journey" had been reported at that time, no pictures of him had been published and his name had not been mentioned. The message from radio and TV was sent out 35 minutes after the alleged journey. Were the peasants psychic?

The newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya claimed that Gagarin was wearing a blue flightsuit when he landed. In his memoirs, Gagarin himself claimed he was dressed in an orange flightsuit.

At his press conference, Gagarin read from notes when he "related" his journey. During the press conference, he made several crucial mistakes. Gagarin stated that weightlessness was no problem. Everything seemed just normal. We now know that this is not the case. The cosmonaut German Titov, for example, had difficulties with his balance and had heart problems.

Gagarin then made his most serious mistake, despite the fact that he was constantly assisted by experts, who often spoke about discoveries in space. He said: "Then I saw South America".

This is impossible. At that time it was night in South America, which meant that it could not be seen at all. According to the official reports, Gagarin began his "space journey" at 9:07 Moscow time. He was supposed to have flown over South America at 9:22 Moscow time. In Chile, the time would have been 2:22, in Brazil 3:22. He could never have reached South America in 15 minutes.

Foreign journalists wondered: "When will the photographs that Gagarin took in space be published?" Gagarin was silent, thought for a moment and answered: "I didn't have a camera with me!"

6. Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Flat Earth Theory are the "conspiracy theories" . . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Flat Earthers "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

7. "I don’t argue or enter into debates, because the issue here is exactly what you would bring to the debate, which is the wealth of erroneous information that allowed our situation to become as dire as it is in the first place. Your argument would consist of phony statistics, historical fables, the newspaper’s latest lies, and profit-driven 'science.' My argument is simple. Discover who controls everything you’ve been told, only believe what you can verify for yourself through original documentation, science and logic, and then look for a political connection between the sources of all the erroneous information. Find the motives behind the lies. If you did that, there would be no debate, and we would all agree on whose head should roll, as the saying goes." - Jolly Roger

8. We have been taught that the height of stupidity and naivety was when our ignorant ancestors believed the Earth to be flat, and that if any man somehow still thinks the Earth to be the immovable center of the universe, that they must be the most primitive kind of ignoramus.   Nowadays the label “Flat-Earther” has become literally synonymous with “moron” and is a common cliché derogatory term for insulting someone’s intelligence.  Upon seeing a book titled “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” your ingrained instinct is likely to laugh, mock the messenger, and deny the very possibility.  The fact of the matter is however, that everything is actually just as it appears.  The Earth is flat and motionless just as it seems, the Sun/Moon are the same size, and all the celestial bodies revolve around us. This stable geocentric universe, proven true by experience and experiments, which reigned undisputed for thousands of years adequately explaining all Earthly and celestial phenomena, was violently uprooted, spun around, and sent flying through infinite space by a cabal of Sun-worshipping theoretical astronomers.   Early Masonic magicians like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, along with their modern Masonic astro-not counter-parts like Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, hand-in-hand with NASA and world Freemasonry have pulled off the greatest hoax, propagated the most phenomenal lie, and perpetuated the most complete indoctrination in history.
Over the course of 500 years, using everything from books, magazines, and television to computer-generated imaging, a multi-generational conspiracy has succeeded, in the minds of the masses, to pick up the fixed Earth, shape it into a ball, spin it in circles, and throw it around the Sun!  In schools where every professor’s desk is adorned with a spinning Earth-globe, we are lectured on the “heliocentric” theory of the universe, shown images of ball-planets and videos of men suspended in space.  The illusion created, connivingly convincing, has entranced the world’s population into blindly believing a maleficent myth.  The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.

FUCK OFF NASA : (http://)

TRUTH IN MOVIES : (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 21, 2014, 02:04:23 AM
How are we meant to respond to this rant?

I'll take one bit:

Quote
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein.
Eh?  Who was he before?

Quote
This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
When you say "people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy", I presume you mean "scientists and engineers"?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on November 21, 2014, 03:04:21 AM
The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.

FUCK OFF NASA : (http://)

TRUTH IN MOVIES : (http://)

Yes, it is really surprising that 99.9% of the people never question what they have been told but cannot personally verify. I understand that sometimes there is no point to check everything, but how can you argue ardently against those who question it without actually having verified it yourself? As far as I know the Earth might be even 10 times bigger than what we have been told. However, everyone takes it for granted that the real size and shape of the Earth are well-known.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on November 21, 2014, 03:10:15 AM
Excellent read, cikljamas. It certainly shows it all up for what it was and still is today.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 21, 2014, 03:13:47 AM
Excellent read, cikljamas.
Which  bit did you like best?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 2929292 on November 21, 2014, 03:28:12 AM
Most of the rant was fine, however evolution is quite clearly a lie and the earth was clearly created. Other than that , good job.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 21, 2014, 04:44:07 AM
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

It was a pretty monumental prediction. What is your point? It was only the beginning of the evidence that supports GR. Much more has come since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)

3. Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.

Gravitational lensing is not touted as a great method for determining the distance to a star. 

The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)

So the fact that science can and will change theories when new information is presented makes you suspicious? Shouldn't it do the opposite?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 22, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
Excellent read, cikljamas. It certainly shows it all up for what it was and still is today.

Interesting (well, not really LOL) that sceptimatic is invariably attracted to any of the true  whack-jobs on this site.    ;D

As they say; like moths to the flame.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 09:25:49 AM
@ Saros, Sceptimatic, 2929292, thanks for your replies and nice words!

Guys, would you agree with me on this:

1. The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000 miles, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

Now, if you decided to claim (and tried to persuade others) that the Earth is round, what would be your only possible choice, what would you do with above truth (37,500 miles)?

Your only possible choice would be to claim that the circumference of the Equator is 25 000 miles (40 000 km), there would be no other way for you...

So you (REs) did just that!

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).

@Ausgeoff, you are full of shit again, how come? I thought that you have changed in last few days...

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rj8NyHL1SpE/UqR1FcFI2jI/AAAAAAAABcQ/VsT9QNznItg/s1600/whtbj+laugh.gif)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 09:33:17 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 09:36:32 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 09:48:09 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 22, 2014, 09:48:48 AM
@ Saros, Sceptimatic, 2929292, thanks for your replies and nice words!


The mere fact that you "thank" these three whack-jobs, and their "nice" words is proof positive that your desperation for acceptance of your own screwball notions knows no bounds.

One loony-tunes, one slow learner, and one god-botherer.    ;D   What a triumvirate of high-powered intellectual giants!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 10:03:11 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2014, 10:22:08 AM
Anything else?
Yeah, start making sense.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 10:23:50 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?

Yeah. Your point.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 22, 2014, 10:24:02 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?
2*pi*r is the formula you are using. The distance from the north pole to the equator is not a radius. You would just need the correct radius of the earth. Please note this.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 12:05:13 PM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?

Yeah. Your point.

The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?

Yeah. Your point.

The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...

6000 is not the radius. Nobody says that. Please learn what you are arguing against first.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius)

Maybe you just don't understand what a sphere is. Is the radius of a basketball to you the distance on the surface between the top most part and a part on the side?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 12:23:20 PM
The funniest part is that the distance between the north pole and the equator isn't even the radius on the flat earth model that you are referencing. So much fail.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 12:26:26 PM
6000 is not the radius. Nobody says that. Please learn what you are arguing against first.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius)

Maybe you just don't understand what a sphere is. Is the radius of a basketball to you the distance on the surface between the top most part and a part on the side?

You mean, FEs say that the radius is 5400 miles?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: BJ1234 on November 22, 2014, 12:36:50 PM
I thought you already had a thread about problems with the equator?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 12:44:50 PM
6000 is not the radius. Nobody says that. Please learn what you are arguing against first.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius)

Maybe you just don't understand what a sphere is. Is the radius of a basketball to you the distance on the surface between the top most part and a part on the side?

You mean, FEs say that the radius is 5400 miles?

I have no idea where you got that figure from. Not only do flat earther's not say that, but neither did you when you wrote this formula for a circle:


6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?

This implied that you think 6000 is the radius for a flat earth and you were making an argument saying that round earthers also say this. You then went on to say that the distance from the north pole to the equator is the radius for both. Let's look clearly at how much you fail:

(http://i61.tinypic.com/2wcra1d.jpg)

In this image that I threw together, the red lines are the radii that you suggested for both models when the real radii for both is the green line.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 12:52:35 PM
Just in case you say what I think you might say, in the image above, the green line on the round earth (blue marble) goes from the south pole to earth's core.

Here is what a radius is on a sphere:

(http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/english/vmd/images/r/radiusofasphere.gif)

But you knew that right? Of course you did.  ::)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 01:56:23 PM
Just in case you say what I think you might say, in the image above, the green line on the round earth (blue marble) goes from the south pole to earth's core.

Here is what a radius is on a sphere:

(http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/english/vmd/images/r/radiusofasphere.gif)

But you knew that right? Of course you did.  ::)

So much words about nothing, of course that i did know that, wasn't i clear enough in my first respond to your series of funny objections? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 02:01:33 PM
Just in case you say what I think you might say, in the image above, the green line on the round earth (blue marble) goes from the south pole to earth's core.

Here is what a radius is on a sphere:

(http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/english/vmd/images/r/radiusofasphere.gif)

But you knew that right? Of course you did.  ::)

So much words about nothing, of course that i did know that, wasn't i clear enough in my first respond to your series of funny objections? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641529#msg1641529)

Is that supposed to make sense. Your rebuttal there was that you would have to use a different formula. This is false, you would just need to use a different radius, as in the correct radius which I already explained. Nice try.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 22, 2014, 02:41:07 PM
OMG!!!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 02:42:53 PM
OMG!!!

I hope that's a eureka. Cause you're lost.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on November 22, 2014, 05:42:23 PM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?

Yeah. Your point.

The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Well, here's an idea for you to check to see if the 24,900-mi length of the equator is "forged".  According to Google, Altamira and Uruará, in the State of Pará, Brazil are at 3.2° S, 52.2° W and 3.71° S, 53.74° W, respectively, and 112.38 miles (180.85 km) apart as the crow flies.These two towns are approximately east and west of each other, nearly on the equator, and connected by a relatively straight road.

http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z (http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z)

Uruará is west of Altamira by 1.54 degrees, which is 1/233.75 of 360 degrees. Treating the whole 112.4 miles as due E-W (it's not quite, but the E-W component is about 95% of it) on the equator (again, it's not quite, but close), then the circumference of the Earth is

112.4 miles * 233.75 = 26273.5 miles.

This is a lot closer to 24,900 miles than 37,680 miles. 95% of 26,273.5 miles (to account for the extra distance due to the 1/2° change in latitude) is 24,959.8 miles, pretty much in line with the round-earth estimate. The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km. The straight-line distance would have to be more than 100 km longer, making the distance between towns about 300 km by road, if the equator is the length you propose.

Why don't you see  if you can find the distance by road between these two towns somehow - maybe contact a Brazilian consulate - and see if your 37,000+ mile equator is even close?

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 23, 2014, 03:21:40 AM
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000, it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!

???

miles, anything else bothers you?

what about miles? My problem is that you said the circumference of earth is 37,500 miles. The round earth claim is that the earth is 24,901 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=circumference+of+earth). The round earth claim is that the distance from the north pole to the equator is 1/4 of the circumference.

24,901 miles / 4 = 6225.25 miles

So what's the problem?

6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...

Anything else?

Yeah. Your point.

The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Well, here's an idea for you to check to see if the 24,900-mi length of the equator is "forged".  According to Google, Altamira and Uruará, in the State of Pará, Brazil are at 3.2° S, 52.2° W and 3.71° S, 53.74° W, respectively, and 112.38 miles (180.85 km) apart as the crow flies.These two towns are approximately east and west of each other, nearly on the equator, and connected by a relatively straight road.

http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z (http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z)

Uruará is west of Altamira by 1.54 degrees, which is 1/233.75 of 360 degrees. Treating the whole 112.4 miles as due E-W (it's not quite, but the E-W component is about 95% of it) on the equator (again, it's not quite, but close), then the circumference of the Earth is

112.4 miles * 233.75 = 26273.5 miles.

This is a lot closer to 24,900 miles than 37,680 miles. 95% of 26,273.5 miles (to account for the extra distance due to the 1/2° change in latitude) is 24,959.8 miles, pretty much in line with the round-earth estimate. The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km. The straight-line distance would have to be more than 100 km longer, making the distance between towns about 300 km by road, if the equator is the length you propose.

Why don't you see  if you can find the distance by road between these two towns somehow - maybe contact a Brazilian consulate - and see if your 37,000+ mile equator is even close?

Quote
"The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km."

So, let's use this value: 200 km.

360/1,5 = 240

240 * 200 = 48 000 km

48 000 km is almost right in between 40 000 km (official version), and my estimation (60 000 km).

Now, if i used radius of 5400 miles (instead of 6000 miles) we would get 33,912 miles which is 54,259 km!

5400 miles = 2 * 2700 miles (the alleged (according to many Zetetics) distance between the Earth and the Sun)

So, what do you think?

Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 23, 2014, 08:56:39 AM
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)

My version of the above experiment: (http://)

My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)

My version of the above experiment: (http://)

My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...

Good thing that is not how sundials work or you might actually be right.

http://www.accuratesundials.com/site/591582/page/140934 (http://www.accuratesundials.com/site/591582/page/140934)

Each sundial's gnomon (the triangular piece) is aligned to the axis of the Earth's rotation and it's numbers are laid out based on latitiude. 

The "gnomon" in your experiment is not in the proper position.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 23, 2014, 09:23:00 AM
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?

/sub
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 23, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?

/sub
What else can he do?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 23, 2014, 09:33:59 AM
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?

/sub
What else can he do?

Humbly admit he is wrong and that the world is round. It's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 23, 2014, 11:29:29 AM
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?

/sub
What else can he do?

Humbly admit he is wrong and that the world is round. It's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Not going to happen when God himself told him he's 100% correct.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2014, 12:06:31 PM
Why is it that every time clickijamas presents an argument and we show him how horribly wrong he is he just moves on to another argument? Is he admitting that the argument he presents is wrong?

/sub
What else can he do?

Humbly admit he is wrong and that the world is round. It's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Not going to happen when God himself told him he's 100% correct.

Maybe that was the devil.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 23, 2014, 01:53:41 PM
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)

My version of the above experiment: (http://)

My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...

Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 23, 2014, 01:59:48 PM
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)

My version of the above experiment: (http://)

My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...

Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?

Isn't it amazing that a simple post can show how ignorant you are?

Seriously, maybe you missed the response about how sun dials work?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on November 23, 2014, 02:01:50 PM
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)

My version of the above experiment: (http://)

My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...

Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?
How do you explain observations of sunrise and sunset across the world?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on November 23, 2014, 02:47:33 PM
Nested quotes in the below have been flattened, and intervening questions removed for readability.

The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is roughly 6000 [miles], it means that the circumference of the Equator is roughly 37.500 miles (60 000 km)!
6000 (roughly) * 2 * pi = 37680 ....This is correct for the Flat Earth, and if the Earth were a sphere then you would have to use different formula in order to get RE's result which is 24,901...
The point is that they (REs - conspirators) couldn't have forged the distances between the North Pole and the Equator (it would have been much greater problem than forging the distances in southern hemiplain), so we have to conclude that they have had to forge the circumference of the Equator which makes much more sense than the other way around...
Well, here's an idea for you to check to see if the 24,900-mi length of the equator is "forged".  According to Google, Altamira and Uruará, in the State of Pará, Brazil are at 3.2° S, 52.2° W and 3.71° S, 53.74° W, respectively, and 112.38 miles (180.85 km) apart as the crow flies.These two towns are approximately east and west of each other, nearly on the equator, and connected by a relatively straight road.

http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z (http://www.google.com/maps/@-3.4995413,-52.8928186,10z)

Uruará is west of Altamira by 1.54 degrees, which is 1/233.75 of 360 degrees. Treating the whole 112.4 miles as due E-W (it's not quite, but the E-W component is about 95% of it) on the equator (again, it's not quite, but close), then the circumference of the Earth is

112.4 miles * 233.75 = 26273.5 miles.

This is a lot closer to 24,900 miles than 37,680 miles. 95% of 26,273.5 miles (to account for the extra distance due to the 1/2° change in latitude) is 24,959.8 miles, pretty much in line with the round-earth estimate. The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km. The straight-line distance would have to be more than 100 km longer, making the distance between towns about 300 km by road, if the equator is the length you propose.

Why don't you see  if you can find the distance by road between these two towns somehow - maybe contact a Brazilian consulate - and see if your 37,000+ mile equator is even close?

Quote
"The distance by road will be somewhat longer because it isn't perfectly straight, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 200 km."

So, let's use this value: 200 km.

360/1,5 = 240

240 * 200 = 48 000 km
It's 1.54°, not 1.50°.

360°/1.54° is 233.75
233.75 * 200 km = 46750 km

Quote
48 000 km is almost right in between 40 000 km (official version), and my estimation (60 000 km).
No, it's 40% of the way from 40,000 and 60,000. The difference between 48,000 and 60,000 is half again the difference between 40,000 and 48,000. "almost right in between" is a stretch, even if 48,000 were right, which it isn't. The difference between 46,750 and 60,000 is almost twice the difference between 40,000 and 46750. Using straight-line (actually great circle) distance, instead of road distance, makes the calculated equator even less; the distance by road was a check for obvious "forgery" of that 180 km straight-line distance.

Quote
Now, if i used radius of 5400 miles (instead of 6000 miles) we would get 33,912 miles which is 54,259 km!
Why would you do that? You originally said that the distance was 6,000 miles and couldn't be "forged", and also that 37680 miles was the correct length for the equator on a flat earth [bolded in your quotes above].

Quote
5400 miles = 2 * 2700 miles (the alleged (according to many Zetetics) distance between the Earth and the Sun)
"Alleged". Got it. Those distances are all over the map, so to speak. What is this one based on? And what does the alleged height of the Sun have to do with this, anyway? You're just trying to pick a number that helps (but doesn't actually solve) your too-long equator.

Quote
So, what do you think?

It sounds like you realize the equator really isn't nearly as long as you originally claimed.
Quote
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line. 
There's a simple experiment you can do to demonstrate that this statement is false.

Why do you think this is true? Because you read it somewhere? What is this quote from, anyway?

Quote
Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).[/i]
Try your matchstick and orange experiment with the matchstick at the top of the orange so it's pointing straight up when the orange is on a table, and illuminate the orange from high enough above it so that entire shadow of the matchstick falls on the surface of the orange. Rotate the orange and watch the top of the shadow trace a circle on the surface of the orange. A circle is not a straight line, so the original assertion that the  shadows would have  fallen in a straight  line is false.

Quote
It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)
Since the premise is false, the experiment is meaningless.

[Edit] Fix typos, nested reply.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 23, 2014, 03:26:15 PM
Have you tried this simple experiment: 

2. The easiest way and the simplest experiment that every one of you can do in order to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat is this:

Now if the moving daylight has been caused by the rotation of  the  earth,  the  shadows  of  that  ball  in  the  garden,  or of the knob  of  the  shorter upright  stick  on  the housetop,  would have  fallen in a straight  line.  Test  the  truth  of  this  by   an experiment  with  an  orange,  or  a  larrger  ball,  in a  dark  room illuminated  by  one  lamp.  Place  an  upright  stylus  near  the centre  of  a  flat  and  stationary  table,  and  carefully  carry  the light  half-way  round.  You  will  get  the  sundial  curve. Then  fix  a match  in  the  orange,  and  place  the  light  in  the centre  of  the  stationary  table,  and  squarely  rotate  the orange.  If  you  do  so  honestly  and  properly,  you  will  get  a short  straight  line,  according  to  the  proportions  of  your experiment.Thus  the  sun-dial,  the  shadows  of  our  lamp-posts  in  the city  squares,  and  the  shadows  of  our  tall  trees  in  the  city  parks,  all  testify,  often  daily,  to  the  great  fact  that  we  are living  on  a  plane  and  stable  earth,  with  the  hght  of  heaven daily  revolving  around.  Truly  “   the  heavens  declare  the glory  of  God  ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork  : day unto  day uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth knowledge.”   (Psa.  xix.  i ,   2).


It is much easier to do than "Kanchenjunga-Makalu" experiment...  :)

My version of the above experiment: (http://)

My experiment is 100 % proof that the Earth is flat! Do you see why? If not, i will tell you later, but first, try to figure it out for yourself...

Isn't that amazing how such simple experiment can prove (without the shadow of a doubt) that the Earth is flat?

Isn't it amazing that a simple post can show how ignorant you are?

Seriously, maybe you missed the response about how sun dials work?

If i did not understand something then i wouldn't be so proud not to asked for clarification. I understand how sun dials work, but i am not sure whether you understand the true meaning of my experiment or not? Although it is so obvious that i consider it quite unnecessarily to give any kind of explanation. It is more likely that you just pretend you don't understand it.

Try your matchstick and orange experiment with the matchstick at the top of the orange so it's pointing straight up when the orange is on a table, and illuminate the orange from high enough above it so that entire shadow of the matchstick falls on the surface of the orange. Rotate the orange and watch the top of the shadow trace a circle on the surface of the orange. A circle is not a straight line, so the original assertion that the  shadows would have  fallen in a straight  line is false.

Why should i do that? My experiment is absolutely decisive! That is why i am not too worried about the final outcome of the equator issue. If we can prove the flatness of the surface of the Earth with such a simple experiments, then there is no reason to be overly concerned about the unsolved issues like "equator problem", although i would lie if i said it doesn't bother me at all, since sooner or later we must take a stand on these issues...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 23, 2014, 03:29:56 PM
 I'd be happy to hear you wriggle your way out of this so bring on your explanation.

While you are at it, also explain why the sun seems to shine upon the entire flat earth in your video while the globe has a day side and night side, as it should be.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 23, 2014, 05:12:09 PM
While you are at it, also explain why the sun seems to shine upon the entire flat earth in your video while the globe has a day side and night side, as it should be.

This fact has always been a sticking point in the flat earth hypothesis:  How can the sun be always above the surface of the earth, but at the same time, be not visible from 50% of its surface?

Simple geometry proves this to be impossible.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on November 23, 2014, 07:21:45 PM
Try your matchstick and orange experiment with the matchstick at the top of the orange so it's pointing straight up when the orange is on a table, and illuminate the orange from high enough above it so that entire shadow of the matchstick falls on the surface of the orange. Rotate the orange and watch the top of the shadow trace a circle on the surface of the orange. A circle is not a straight line, so the original assertion that the  shadows would have  fallen in a straight  line is false.

Why should i do that?

Oh, I don't know... maybe to find out what your model is really telling you, or something. If you're not interested in that, there's nothing much I can do about it.

Quote
My experiment is absolutely decisive!

I'm sure you're 100% convinced of that. Doesn't mean you're right, though.

Quote
That is why i am not too worried about the final outcome of the equator issue. If we can prove the flatness of the surface of the Earth with such a simple experiments, then there is no reason to be overly concerned about the unsolved issues like "equator problem", although i would lie if i said it doesn't bother me at all, since sooner or later we must take a stand on these issues...

If you could stick your matchstick in the north pole of your globe and spin it under your single source of light, you'll see generally the same pattern as your flat map, except it wouldn't extend as far on the globe as the flat map (it can't reach the equator, for instance). But this does have the advantage of having day and night consistent with what we actually see, unlike your flat map.

At any rate, there's no hurry - I'm away on holiday travel for a while and probably (I hope!) won't be on here much, or at all, for a bit.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: QuQu on November 23, 2014, 10:44:16 PM
cikljamas, go immediately to the nearest NASA or CIA office. The chip in your brain is not working as expected.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 01:34:49 AM
I'd be happy to hear you wriggle your way out of this so bring on your explanation.

Wriggle my way out of something? Hahahaha...

(http://i.imgur.com/ogDj5rV.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/lMHwHq8.jpg)

Now, watch it again, and again, and again: (http://)

Or would you prefer to try to do same kind of experiment for yourself, and share your videotaped evidence with us?

Now, i would be happy to see you wriggle your way out of this!!!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on November 24, 2014, 01:44:02 AM
There are 16 hour day lengths which show on a sundial.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 24, 2014, 02:03:55 AM
   
cikljamas obviously doesn't know much about 18-hour sundials LOL....


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)


Top view of an equatorial sundial. The hour lines are spaced equally about the circle,
and the shadow of the cylindrical gnomon moves uniformly about. The height of the
gnomon is 2.5 units and the outer radius of the dial is 6.0 units. This animation depicts
the motion of the shadow from 3AM to 9PM on mid-summer's day, when the sun
is at its highest declination. Sunset and sunrise occurs at 3AM and 9PM on that day
near the latitude 57.5°, roughly the latitude of Aberdeen or Gothenburg.


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 03:02:03 AM
Take a model of a globe, put it on the table, and demonstrate to me, how you can get shadows which extend more than 90 degrees on the globe if the sun is situated directly (perpendicularly) above the tropic of cancer, or perpendicularly above the tropic of capricorn and if your matchstick is stuck at 40 degrees N (northern summer) or 40 degrees S (southern summer) ...Then we'll have to talk about something, until then try to think about something, just to check it out if you are still able to think about anything at all, or all your brain cells already have been washed out (irretrievably) & died out long time ago!

(http://i.imgur.com/lMHwHq8.jpg)

1. Latitude and longitude of North Dakota is 45° 55'N to 49°N and 97°W to 104°W.

2. Latitude and longitude of Maine is 43° 4'N to 47° 28'N and 66° 57'W to 71° 7'W.

3. Latitude and longitude of Michigan is 41° 41' N to 47° 30' N and 82° 26' W to 90° 31' W.

4. Latitude and longitude of Texas is 25° 50' N to 36° 30' N and 93° 31' W to 106° 38' W.

Well, to be maximally honest (as always) i just check it out once more, and i must admit that it is possible to produce shadows which extend more than 90 degrees even on the globe, however, these few additional degrees are still too faraway from what we can observe in reality using sundial and/or observing shadows of vertical objects like trees!!!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 05:21:18 AM
What is very interesting about this "sundial case" is stunning similarity to "the equation of time case" http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435)

As we go further north (in northern hemiplain), the days are longer, but the extension of a shadows would be shorter and shorter if we lived on a globe. For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours. So, the difference between reality and globular assumptions is "only" 4 hours and 30 minutes!!!

In latitude of North Dakota, maximal extent of usage of sundial would be (on the globe) between 6 a. m. and 7 p. m. So, the difference between reality and globular assumptions is (at this latitude) at least 3 hours!!!

What this all means?

It means that these two references (1. climbing up towards north & 2. widening range of a shadow on a sundial) would be in INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL RELATION if we lived on the rotund Earth!!! Again!!!

(http://)

http://www.energeticforum.com/264064-post330.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264064-post330.html)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 07:24:28 AM
Well that was fun. You admitted that shadows can extend more than 90° on a globe and then you made yet another new argument.

This time your entire argument was based on mining a web page for a specific quote "The sun on this dial can never shine on this dial before 6AM and after 6pm". Disregarding the fact that the quote only pertains to a specific, much less used type of sun dial, the vertical south dial.

Other sun dials work from sunrise to sunset, especially the most common type, the horizontal sun dial.

So basically all this talk about 3 or 4 hour discrepancies... I don't know how you made this conclusion without having a blind fold on.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 07:37:32 AM
Well that was fun. You admitted that shadows can extend more than 90° on a globe and then you made yet another new argument.

This time your entire argument was based on mining a web page for a specific quote "The sun on this dial can never shine on this dial before 6AM and after 6pm". Disregarding the fact that the quote only pertains to a specific, much less used type of sun dial, the vertical south dial.

Other sun dials work from sunrise to sunset, especially the most common type, the horizontal sun dial.

So basically all this talk about 3 or 4 hour discrepancies... I don't know how you made this conclusion without having a blind fold on.

Have you ever used your brain in your whole life???

Don't you see that in this video ( (http://)) the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn (since the globe is turned upside down) and the matchstick is stuck at 40 degrees S, and that this matchstick cannot cast it's shadow more than 90 degrees??? Don't you see that? Are you blind or something else? Make your own experiment and show it to me, then we will continue our discussion, until then why don't you top up some oil in your coughing engine...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 08:21:39 AM
So I tried this out with a globe and I noticed, like you that you can achieve more than 90° at sunset or sunrise. It was very little like you said but then I thought of something and started to move the light source away from the globe and noticed that slowly, but surely the shadow was moving further and further past 90°. I have an inkling that at scale, 93 million miles would show what we observe in real life.

Essentially, in order to produce results that look like real life your experiment must be set up to look more like real life. Crazy, I know.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 24, 2014, 09:08:50 AM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 10:52:58 AM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case! But the Earth is not rotund, how come that you have forgotten it again?

Next few excerpts will be of a great help for those who don't afraid to use their own brains:

Quote
1. Observational fact
The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.

So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

Quote
2. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.

3. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639362#msg1639362 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639362#msg1639362)

4.
(http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 10:56:06 AM
This tilt thing is driving you bonkers man.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 24, 2014, 11:01:16 AM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 11:05:07 AM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?

More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 24, 2014, 11:08:07 AM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?

More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!
Wait, before you were claiming it wouldn't cast any shadows for 4 hours?  You are all over the place.

Rotund Earth Theory - I like it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 11:13:15 AM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?

More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!

If the earth were flat then night would be an impossibility.

In any case I told you how to produce the effects that science claims. Place the sun 93 million miles away. I wasn't able to make the experiment to scale myself but I did confirm that increasing the distance increased the angle.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 02:31:54 PM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?

More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!

If the earth were flat then night would be an impossibility.

In any case I told you how to produce the effects that science claims. Place the sun 93 million miles away. I wasn't able to make the experiment to scale myself but I did confirm that increasing the distance increased the angle.

Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...

You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)

In addition:
(http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
Quote
For example, in latitude of London (51°30′N, 0°08′W) length of the day light at July 1th is 16 h, 33 minutes, but the maximal extent of usage of sundial at that latitude would be 12 hours.
Are you claiming that there are over 4 hours a day when the sun does not cast a shadow?

If the Earth were round, then that would be the case!
How, on any shaped earth, could the sun be visible and not cast a shadow?

More precisely, if the Earth were rotund then the sun couldn't cast shadows at such wide range (of angles) as it does on the flat Earth!

If the earth were flat then night would be an impossibility.

In any case I told you how to produce the effects that science claims. Place the sun 93 million miles away. I wasn't able to make the experiment to scale myself but I did confirm that increasing the distance increased the angle.

Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...

You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)

How many times do you have to be shown wrong in the same thread. Are you sceptimatic?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 24, 2014, 02:52:06 PM
You flunked out of this also:

(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)

You flunked out of all these also:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045)

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 24, 2014, 02:55:27 PM

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)


I couldn't even make it 10 seconds into that video. Completely wrong.  Are you that confused that you can't handle the notion that under the Earth's North pole is a magnetic south pole? Your articles in your video explain it just fine. A magnet has a north and south pole. Magnetic field lines move from the magnetic north pole to the south pole.

What is the confusion? When the wiki article says "North magnetic pole", it is referring to a magnetic pole in the north. The name does not mean the north pole of a magnet. Same goes for the south magnetic pole. It's just a magnetic pole in the south. Doesn't mean it is a south pole of a magnet.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 24, 2014, 02:58:32 PM
You flunked out of this also:

(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)

You flunked out of all these also:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045)
This argument of your was already destroyed earlier this year. We established you know nothing about photography.

So maybe instead of posting old arguments, you could answer some of ours? There is quite a few you chose not to answer.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 03:25:28 PM
He just ignores rebuttals and then moves on to the next argument over and over again. Apparently, old arguments that I have not seen no less.

I'm with sokural, instead of bringing up new arguments, answer ours. Let's start with how it's impossible for night to exist on a flat earth.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 04:34:47 PM
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 24, 2014, 06:57:26 PM
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.

I note that cikljamas also chose not to address the question my 18-hour sundial image that I posted earlier.  I wonder why?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)


And he's still repeatedly posting that 100-year old pseudo-scientific drivel of Wilbur Glenn Voliva.   ;D

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2014, 07:20:18 PM
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.

I note that cikljamas also chose not to address the question my 18-hour sundial image that I posted earlier.  I wonder why?

Because its all about you  ::)

Quote
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)


And he's still repeatedly posting that 100-year old pseudo-scientific drivel of Wilbur Glenn Voliva.   ;D

Fallacy.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 24, 2014, 07:44:08 PM
By the way clicky, did you happen to notice that the gnomon on sundials is not perpendicular to the ground like your matchstick is. Think about that.

I note that cikljamas also chose not to address the question my 18-hour sundial image that I posted earlier.  I wonder why?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)


And he's still repeatedly posting that 100-year old pseudo-scientific drivel of Wilbur Glenn Voliva.   ;D

What does an animation of an 18 hour sundial prove? Clickijamas was trying to show that if the earth is round, the shadow of a perpendicular stick doesn't go below the line of latitude that it's on. He wasn't saying sundials don't show more than 12 hours. His problem is the assumption that sundials use perpendicular sticks.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 24, 2014, 11:05:10 PM
What does an animation of an 18 hour sundial prove? Clickijamas was trying to show that if the earth is round, the shadow of a perpendicular stick doesn't go below the line of latitude that it's on. He wasn't saying sundials don't show more than 12 hours.

I quote cikljamas verbatim:  It means that not one sundial on the round earth could measure more than 12 hours of time.

And I'm a little uncertain as to why you're seemingly helping cikljamas "prove" his case.  Everything he says is absolute bullshit.  Haven't you figured that out yet?

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 25, 2014, 02:02:47 AM
In another thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435) i gave an explanation which perfectly fits with this "sundial case" and explain it away completely:

...i thought he wants to say that the sun is always (at any time of the day) in the south, and the truth is that it is not. But if the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!

Well, here we have to give additional clarification regarding above (bold) words: If the Sun stayed always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N what consequences would this have for our "sundial case"??? It (rotundity of the globe) would cause exactly that kind of consequences which i have proved (with my experiment) that it really would be the case if the Earth were rotund!!!

Another example that has been taken out from here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948)

...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be.


You get it?

You flunked out of this also:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)

Quote
Everything he says is absolute bullshit.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rj8NyHL1SpE/UqR1FcFI2jI/AAAAAAAABcQ/VsT9QNznItg/s1600/whtbj+laugh.gif)

Since these words came out from your mouth, i consider them as a compliment!

Nice lesson about insults:

If someone calls you ugly it’s because their own looks are important to them. If someone calls you an amateur it’s because their own importance is important to them. If someone says you have a nasaly voice it’s because how they sound is important to them. Insults like these come from vanity.

With insults – the more harm the insulter is trying to do the higher the value of insult they will give. That is, the higher value is to the insult giver not necessarily the insult receiver.

So… next time you get insulted don’t just ignore it – consider what it tells you about the giver.

So, when ausGeoff says that everything i say is "absolute bullshit", what it really means is that everything i say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!

Thanks ausGeoff!

@ ausGeoff, Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...  ;)

Oh, i forgot to add: ...and enjoy the music...  ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 25, 2014, 05:46:20 AM
What does an animation of an 18 hour sundial prove? Clickijamas was trying to show that if the earth is round, the shadow of a perpendicular stick doesn't go below the line of latitude that it's on. He wasn't saying sundials don't show more than 12 hours.

I quote cikljamas verbatim:  It means that not one sundial on the round earth could measure more than 12 hours of time.

And I'm a little uncertain as to why you're seemingly helping cikljamas "prove" his case.  Everything he says is absolute bullshit.  Haven't you figured that out yet?

I am not trying to help him prove his case Geoffrey. I'm just trying to make clear what he claimed and what he did not claim. In the case of the part you bolded, you are completely misinterpreting it. Again, he is not saying that sundials don't have more than 12 hours on them. He is saying that if the earth is round, then the sun will not MEASURE more than 12 hours on them.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 25, 2014, 06:06:51 AM
In another thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435) i gave an explanation which perfectly fits with this "sundial case" and explain it away completely:

...i thought he wants to say that the sun is always (at any time of the day) in the south, and the truth is that it is not. But if the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!

Well, here we have to give additional clarification regarding above (bold) words: If the Sun stayed always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N what consequences would this have for our "sundial case"??? It (rotundity of the globe) would cause exactly that kind of consequences which i have proved (with my experiment) that it really would be the case if the Earth were rotund!!!

Another example that has been taken out from here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641948#msg1641948)

...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be.


You get it?

I don't know how linking to another thread where you were shown wrong repeatedly, just like this thread equates to flunking out. Take that up with Alpha2Omega.

As far as this thread goes, we are talking about your video where you tried to show that the shadow on a round earth never goes below the line of latitude that it is on. This can be shown to be wrong because you made 2 mistakes.

1. Your gnomon was perpendicular to the surface. A gnomon needs to be parallel with the earth's tilt. Like all of the image search results on this page:

Pictures of sundials (https://www.google.com/search?q=sundial&newwindow=1&safe=off&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DYt0VMe4ItHPiALH74HYBw&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1595&bih=820#newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=sundial)

2. Your light source in the video is not far enough away from the globe. At earths scale this would need to be 93 million miles away.

As far as all this other talk about where you view the sun and where you don't. I invite you to play around with this interactive model for as long as it takes you to understand hc theory.

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf
 (http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf)

Notice, how if you put the observer at 45° N and then put the earth on the right, the sun is below the observer, yet the shadows go below the line of latitude that the observer is on.

You could argue (by neglecting something highly important) that it makes no sense that the suns rays come from a place that the sun does not appear to be, but you would be neglecting the suns enormous size compared to earth and the distance that it is from earth. This means that rays that hit the earths surface (even in locations that are far from each other) are not perfectly parallel, but they are close to parallel. Despite these rays being nearly parallel, we see shadows that are not even close to parallel with each other because of the curvature of earth.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 25, 2014, 09:01:43 PM
So, when ausGeoff says that everything i say is "absolute bullshit", what it really means is that everything i say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!


And this sort of bizarre "logic" illustrates precisely why cikljamas has such an ill-informed and limited understanding of actual geophysics and astrophysics.    ;D

—Thanks for the continued LULZ my friend.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 26, 2014, 12:43:42 AM
So, when ausGeoff says that everything i say is "absolute bullshit", what it really means is that everything i say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!


And this sort of bizarre "logic" illustrates precisely why cikljamas has such an ill-informed and limited understanding of actual geophysics and astrophysics.    ;D

—Thanks for the continued LULZ my friend.

Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!!
  :-*

Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)

W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)

The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)

When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep NWT

When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep MKJV

When he made ready the heavens I was there: when he put an arch over the face of the deep BBE

When he fixed the Heavens firm, I was there, when he drew a circle on the surface of the deep” JB

I was there when he set the sky in place, when he stretched the horizon across the ocean GNB

When he prepared the Heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth KJV

When he established the Heavens, I was there,when he drew a circle on the face of the deep RSV


The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the Earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to Heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole Earth RSV / KJV

The visions that passed through my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw a tree in the middle of the World; it was very tall. The tree grew taller and stronger, until its top reached the sky and it could be seen from the very ends of the Earth JB

Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and,look! a tree in the midst of the Earth, the height of which was immense. The tree grew up and became strong, and its very height finally reached the Heavens, and it was visible to the extremity of the whole Earth. NWT
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: LuggerSailor on November 26, 2014, 02:49:21 AM

Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!!
  :

Biblical BS omitted for clarity - It's true, it's written in the buy bull, the buy bull says it's true! [/whine]

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: ....

The visions that passed through my head as I lay in bed were these: ...

Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and,look! ...

Ooh, dreams trump science then!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2014, 06:34:16 AM

Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!!
  :-*

Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)

W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)

The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)

<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>

You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 26, 2014, 07:34:07 AM
I don't mention this in distaste cikljamas. I only mean to be informative and to help you see why your arguments, while clever, are wrong. I think I've fully explained your mistake with gnomon to satisfaction but I also want to make more clear what is meant when I say that the sun's rays, when they hit the earth, are nearly parallel.

Observe the following image:

(http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/images/sunlight_parallel.jpg)

In this image a sun ray is depicted touching the tops and bottoms of each earth as each earth is represented to get further and further away from the sun. Notice what happens to those sun rays as earth gets further away. The angle (represented by an orange arc to the left of each earth) gets smaller and smaller.

So how small is this angle (in the above image we are talking about the difference in rays between 2 spots that are the entire earth diameter from each other) when the sun is 93 million miles from the earth?

Well let's take a look at this image to get some sense of the scale:

(http://sciencevspseudoscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/moon_sun_scale.png)

This image utilizes black space to give a sense of the scale but instead of using 100's of rows of black space, it just shows how much a moon unit is (distance from earth to moon) and then mentions that you 395 moon units to get to the sun.

With the information we have, let's determine what the difference in angle is between two sun rays (depicted by orange lines) that are an earths diameter apart:

(http://i62.tinypic.com/vn0c9c.png)

Let 2Θ be the angle be that angle. Θ will need to be multiplied by 2 because we need a right angle to do the trig so we have cut earth in half to get a right angle.

Earths radius = diameter of earth / 2 = 3959 miles
Earth to sun distance = 93,000,000 miles

Use this calculator: http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp (http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp)

Θ = angle showing difference in rays between top of earth and center of earth = 0.002439°
2Θ = angle showing difference in rats between of earth and bottom = 0.004878°

So between the top of earth and the bottom of earth there is a .004878° difference in the angle of sun rays. That's about 1/200 of a degree and that's utilizing the whole expanse of the earth!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 26, 2014, 08:09:29 AM

Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!!
  :-*

Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)

W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)

The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)

<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>

You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?

Now that you said that, watch this:

Hovind vs Ross : (http://)

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!

@rottingroom, you should read this thread again: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s)

In addition:

Flat earth and the setting sun, an artists perspective : (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 26, 2014, 08:39:51 AM

Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!!
  :-*

Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)

W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)

The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)

<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>

You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?

Now that you said that, watch this:

Hovind vs Ross : (http://)

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!

@rottingroom, you should read this thread again: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s)

In addition:

Flat earth and the setting sun, an artists perspective : (http://)

Why do you back off of your claims and try to distract by moving on to something else? In this thread so far you've made the claim that sundials do not show shadows that go below their respective line of latitude and this was shown to be wrong because you didn't realize that gnomons are not perpendicular sticks. Then you moved onto a claim about how the sun should not be in a southern arc if the shadows of a sundial are below it's respective line of latitude. A contradictory claim to the first one but nevertheless, still explained by the gnomons configuration and further explained by the fact that all rays from the sun are nearly parallel. After all this, you simply link to another thread where you don't understand the implications of earths tilt and why that produces the seasons, which is a totally new argument, but related to sunrays.

To help you understand that we can refer again to the same interactive earth-sun model that I linked you too before and then after that I will describe an image that more clearly explains this.

Here is the link again:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf (http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf)

Angle of Incidence
Now in the top right part of the applet, place the stick figure at 45° N in the northern hemisphere. Now make a comparison between what happens when you move the earth (use the left part of the applet) from the left (June) to the right (December).

As you can see when the earth is on the right it is summer. It is June and the sun's altitude gets to a peak of around 68°. Use the bottom right part of the applet and switch the view from sunlight angle to sunbeam spread. Notice how the energy of the sun is concentrated into a smaller beam.

When the earth is on the left it is winter. It is December and the sun's altitude gets to a peak of around 21°. Again, usse the bottom right part of the applet and switch the view from sunlight angle to sunbeam spread. Notice how now, the energy of the sun is dispersed into a larger, widened beam.

Here is a picture that shows this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Oblique_rays_04_Pengo.svg/800px-Oblique_rays_04_Pengo.svg.png)

In this image we can see that two sunbeam's that are equally wide are hitting the earth in drastically different ways. They are hitting the surface at different angles and the seasons, determined by the tilt, account for this. Beam a is traveling a longer distance from the sun, a longer distance through a tilted atmosphere and hitting the surface at a larger angle than beam b. Besides the fact that this means that the beam a is dispersed into a larger area than beam b, beam a is also dealing with the angle causing more of the sun's energy to reflect off of the surface.

Without being confusing.... Sun rays are nearly parallel but they do not hit the surface of earth a nearly similar angles because the earth is curved, which means the surface angles differ greatly.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2014, 08:57:38 AM

Modern astrophysics is absolute bullshit and i proved it beyond any (i mean ANY) reasonable doubt!!!
  :-*

Dope dealer Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes Galileo : "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" : #t=12m02s (http://#t=12m02s)

W.L.Craige -What New Atheism really is : (http://)

The Amazing Atheist Meets William Lane Craig on CNN : (http://)

<snip irrelevant apocryphal section>

You know William Lane Craig believes the Big Bang occured and everything else that constitutes modern astrophysics?

Now that you said that, watch this:

Hovind vs Ross : (http://)

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!

@rottingroom, you should read this thread again: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.40#.VHX3uPJW_1s)

In addition:

Flat earth and the setting sun, an artists perspective : (http://)

I have watched it.  Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points.  Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind.  Michael Shermer did the same.

Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study.  Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole.  You should note that.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 26, 2014, 09:46:58 AM

I have watched it.  Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points.  Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind.  Michael Shermer did the same.

Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study.  Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole.  You should note that.

So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)

@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2014, 09:48:58 AM

I have watched it.  Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points.  Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind.  Michael Shermer did the same.

Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study.  Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole.  You should note that.

So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)

@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...

Only insofar as you both present arguments that if you do not carefully consider them, could be construed as valid, but once you dig deeper, they fall apart.

Thanks for the set up by the way.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 26, 2014, 10:02:21 AM

I have watched it.  Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points.  Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind.  Michael Shermer did the same.

Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study.  Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole.  You should note that.

So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)

@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...

Only insofar as you both present arguments that if you do not carefully consider them, could be construed as valid, but once you dig deeper, they fall apart.

Thanks for the set up by the way.

You welcome!  ;D

I confess that it appears to me to be almost as unnecessary, as gilding gold or painting the lily, to give further evidence that the Earth is not a Planet!

I could very easily add many more proofs to similar effect, but I forbear; the fact is I am embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet, and my difficulty has not arisen from any lack of matter, but as to how I may best select and condense it...

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 26, 2014, 10:26:01 AM

I have watched it.  Hovind's only tactic is to present so many arguments that you cannot possibly respond to all of them, giving the impression that he has made good points.  Everything that Ross responds to, he clearly and succinctly rebuts Hovind.  Michael Shermer did the same.

Hovind is only convincing because his shotgun arguments are so well rehearsed, but he lacks the support of any credible scientific study.  Even Answers in Genesis won't touch his arguments with a ten foot pole.  You should note that.

So, he is basically another version of cikljamas, ha?

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)

@rottingroom, make a video, and show it to me...

Presenting a plethora of arguments can be difficult to respond to in person, but here on tfes, we have a forum and an abundance of time and space to demolish your arguments, as you have seen.

As far as the video is concerned, I want to point out what you need to make a faithful experiment in this case. Firstly your matchstick needs to be parallel with earths tilt and not perpendicular to the earths surface. If this alone is not helping you to see that the shadows would change drastically then there is no hope for you. Second of all we need a scale model of the sun and earths distance to size relationship.

So supposing that we use a globe that is 1 ft wide, this would mean that we would need a flood light (sun) 2.23 miles away from our globe and we'd need our flood light (sun) to be 205.57 ft wide. I'm not sure how you are expecting that to happen but I'm also not sure why you think I should bother making you a video. My goal here is to show that your video is irrelevant and I have done so to my satisfaction and hopefully yours. You are welcome to repeat your experiment with the proper angle for the gnomon and by moving your light (gonna need a brighter light) away from the earth, but you must also keep in mind, that putting your light directly above the tropic of capricorn or cancer is irrelevant at the distances involved. A sun ray that reaches the earth at the equator is nearly parallel to a sun ray that reaches the earth at a pole so it is fallacious to do the experiment with all the light coming from a single point on the ecliptic plane.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 05:23:20 AM
Firstly your matchstick needs to be parallel with earths tilt and not perpendicular to the earths surface.

So, when this happen how are you going to align your gnomons (it sounds like morons) with Earth's tilt? (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 06:37:34 AM
Firstly your matchstick needs to be parallel with earths tilt and not perpendicular to the earths surface.

So, when this happen how are you going to align your gnomons (it sounds like morons) with Earth's tilt? (http://)

If humanity survived and we were still concerned with using sundials then quite a few things would happen. First of all, the northern hemisphere would always be in darkness so no need for a sundial there. Everywhere else (the southern hemisphere) it would be likely that no matter what position you put the gnomon, its shadow would cast in the same direction. So there too, sundials would be useless.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 07:02:05 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/bKcpOmC.jpg)

So, these gnomons are parallel with Earth's tilt???
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 07:18:17 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/bKcpOmC.jpg)

So, these gnomons are parallel with Earth's tilt???

Yes. These are all in the northern hemisphere so the farther north the sundial is, the higher the gnomon is tilted. In the southern hemisphere you would use the same gnomons for the opposite latitudes only the sundial would be turned upside down. So a sundial suited for 45°N would work just as well for 45°S as long as it is positioned in the opposite direction.

This just lends more credence to the earth being a globe where astronomical objects behave in the opposite way in the opposite hemisphere including opposing seasons, opposing rotation of stars, opposing sundial positions, etc...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 09:05:28 AM
Rottingroom, don't you see that by inclining gnomons like this we get even much worse case against the RE hypothesis?

With such inclined gnomons, the range of a shadows on the round Earth would be narrowed even more than it is shown in my experiment!

Have you ever asked yourself: if the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 09:09:50 AM
Rottingroom, don't you see that by inclining gnomons like this we get even much worse case against the RE hypothesis?

With such inclined gnomons, the range of a shadows on the round Earth would be narrowed even more than it is shown in my experiment!

Have you ever asked yourself: if the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 09:12:06 AM
Rottingroom, don't you see that by inclining gnomons like this we get even much worse case against the RE hypothesis?

With such inclined gnomons, the range of a shadows on the round Earth would be narrowed even more than it is shown in my experiment!

These gnomons you claim to be a problem work exactly as advertised.  If you think this is a knock against spherical geometry I trust you can demonstrate so mathematically?  I look forward to your proof.

Quote
Have you ever asked yourself: if the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

You should probably specify what a typical solar day is since the North Pole spends as much time in darkness as in sunlight.  Are we talking about magnetic north or true north?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 09:16:36 AM
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?

Not only that i don't see any problem regarding my argument which is perfectly correct, i can even see an elephant in your room. I will point in that direction once again, look at him (an elephant in your room) :

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 09:25:52 AM
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?

Not only that i don't see any problem regarding my argument which is perfectly correct, i can even see an elephant in your room. I will point in that direction once again, look at him (an elephant in your room) :

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

Interesting that you should bring that up as the proper sundial for a pole is entirely different.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Polar_dials (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Polar_dials)

All you need to do is some research before making these arguments. Then you wouldn't come off as being so ignorant.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 09:29:25 AM
First of all, that is incorrect, I verified this myself. Secondly, you're ignoring my entire other argument about how sun rays are nearly parallel. Do you see your problem yet?

Not only that i don't see any problem regarding my argument which is perfectly correct, i can even see an elephant in your room. I will point in that direction once again, look at him (an elephant in your room) :

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

Well using a horizontal sundial with a 1 meter tall gnomon on May 27th, 2015 at 12:25pm yields a shadow length of 2.58m.

http://planetcalc.com/1875/ (http://planetcalc.com/1875/)

Is the Earth round yet?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 09:47:58 AM
Guys, are you working for NASA?

Never
A
Straight
Answer

How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?

It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!

My question was exactly this:

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

What is your exact answer to the above question???

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 09:55:36 AM
Guys, are you working for NASA?

Never
A
Straight
Answer

How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?

It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!

My question was exactly this:

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

What is your exact answer to the above question???
Perhaps you can tell me what was ambiguous about my answer? 


Well using a horizontal sundial with a 1 meter tall gnomon on May 27th, 2015 at 12:25pm yields a shadow length of 2.58m.

http://planetcalc.com/1875/ (http://planetcalc.com/1875/)

Is the Earth round yet?

The 2.58m figure is a radius; maybe that is what confused you?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 10:12:06 AM
Cikljamas, is your argument not that sundials do not work the way we believe and was the basis of your argument not that sundial shadows will never exceed 180° if the earth is round? We've shown that it does all over the world but if you find a location where this isn't the case (like the poles) and if polar sundials don't pretend to show otherwise, then what does that say for your argument concerning conspiracy? Look at the range of this polar sundial and notice that its range is far less than 180°.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg/440px-Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg)

Again, your argument is that there is global sundial conspiracy.... So if sundials are being used to show exaclty what is expected if the earth is round, then where is the conspiracy?

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 27, 2014, 11:21:56 AM

Hovind vs Ross : (http://)

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!


These citations are so funny...

The academically-unqualified, young-earth creationist, and professional liar Mr Kent E Hovind (Register Number: 06452-017) is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence in Florida for fraud and tax evasion.  Last month, he was again indicted by a Federal grand jury—on two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt.

You really need to check your citations a little more carefully cikljamas before you make yourself look even sillier.  Unless of course you believe the words of a convicted felon?

    ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 11:23:49 AM

Hovind vs Ross : (http://)

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!


These citations are so funny...

The academically-unqualified, young-earth creationist, and professional liar Mr Kent E Hovind (Register Number: 06452-017) is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence in Florida for fraud and tax evasion.  Last month, he was again indicted by a Federal grand jury—on two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt.

You really need to check your citations a little more carefully cikljamas before you make yourself look even sillier.  Unless of course you believe the words of a convicted felon?

    ;D

Red herring. When will you learn?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 11:28:27 AM

Hovind vs Ross : (http://)

Kent Hovind Bible flood evidence : (http://) - In this video Kent Hovind holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands (the globe) -- Isn't that absolutely tragic? You see what i mean, this is not just about GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, it is about absolutely tragical TOTAL-MIND-BOGGLING CONSPIRACY!!!


These citations are so funny...

The academically-unqualified, young-earth creationist, and professional liar Mr Kent E Hovind (Register Number: 06452-017) is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence in Florida for fraud and tax evasion.  Last month, he was again indicted by a Federal grand jury—on two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt.

You really need to check your citations a little more carefully cikljamas before you make yourself look even sillier.  Unless of course you believe the words of a convicted felon?

    ;D

Red herring. When will you learn?

Red Herring or Genetic Fallacy? Either way....
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 27, 2014, 11:51:43 AM
No "red herring" guys...

If you're gonna quote somebody as an authority, it's best to check his credentials—particularly as a teller of the truth—if you wanna use him as someone who supports your claims.  A guy spending a decade in the big house for multiple fraud ain't all that reliable in my opinion LOL.

Or do you both agree that Kent Hovind is a credible source of information to cite?

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 12:15:25 PM
No "red herring" guys...

If you're gonna quote somebody as an authority, it's best to check his credentials—particularly as a teller of the truth—if you wanna use him as someone who supports your claims.  A guy spending a decade in the big house for multiple fraud ain't all that reliable in my opinion LOL.

Or do you both agree that Kent Hovind is a credible source of information to cite?

Whether or not he went to jail for tax evasion says nothing about his knowledge on the origin of the universe.  Don't you get that?  Here is another analogy: If I cited Robert Downey Junior as an expert on acting, would you disqualify him in that field based on having served time in jail?  I sincerely hope your answer is no.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 12:16:01 PM
No "red herring" guys...

If you're gonna quote somebody as an authority, it's best to check his credentials—particularly as a teller of the truth—if you wanna use him as someone who supports your claims.  A guy spending a decade in the big house for multiple fraud ain't all that reliable in my opinion LOL.

Or do you both agree that Kent Hovind is a credible source of information to cite?

No I don't think that Kent Hovind is a credible source but I wasn't mentioning such as a counter argument. You did.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 12:17:40 PM
Cikljamas, is your argument not that sundials do not work the way we believe and was the basis of your argument not that sundial shadows will never exceed 180° if the earth is round? We've shown that it does all over the world but if you find a location where this isn't the case (like the poles) and if polar sundials don't pretend to show otherwise, then what does that say for your argument concerning conspiracy? Look at the range of this polar sundial and notice that its range is far less than 180°.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg/440px-Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg)

Again, your argument is that there is global sundial conspiracy.... So if sundials are being used to show exaclty what is expected if the earth is round, then where is the conspiracy?

Quote
Guys, are you working for NASA?

Never
A
Straight
Answer

How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?

It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!

My question was exactly this:

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

What is your exact answer to the above question???

Well, since we can't get from you a direct answer to the above question, here is the right answer:

If the Earth were round (and if the Earth rotated on it's axis) the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would be an IMMOVABLE SPOT IN THE SKY ALL DAY LONG!!!

Other way around: If the Earth is flat, the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would circle in very wide circle(s) around and above us and our sundial and we would see the Sun very low at the horizon!!!

Kent Hovind The Real Reason he went to jail great 15 minutes : (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 12:24:49 PM
Cikljamas, is your argument not that sundials do not work the way we believe and was the basis of your argument not that sundial shadows will never exceed 180° if the earth is round? We've shown that it does all over the world but if you find a location where this isn't the case (like the poles) and if polar sundials don't pretend to show otherwise, then what does that say for your argument concerning conspiracy? Look at the range of this polar sundial and notice that its range is far less than 180°.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg/440px-Sundial_-_Melbourne_Planetarium.jpg)

Again, your argument is that there is global sundial conspiracy.... So if sundials are being used to show exaclty what is expected if the earth is round, then where is the conspiracy?

Quote
Guys, are you working for NASA?

Never
A
Straight
Answer

How come that you still don't see an elephant in your room?

It is not a rabbit, it's an elephant!!!

My question was exactly this:

If the Earth were rotund, how wide range of a shadows one could perceive at the North Pole when looking at whatever kind of a sundial during typical polar day?

What is your exact answer to the above question???

Well, since we can't get from you a direct answer to the above question, here is the right answer:

If the Earth were round (and if the Earth rotated on it's axis) the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would be an IMMOVABLE SPOT IN THE SKY ALL DAY LONG!!!

Other way around: If the Earth is flat, the range of a shadows at the North Pole should be 360 degree during typical polar day, but the Sun would circle in very wide circle(s) around and above us and our sundial and we would see the Sun very low at the horizon!!!

Kent Hovind The Real Reason he went to jail great 15 minutes : (http://)

The axis of the Earth's rotation is never synchronized with ecliptic plane, so I don't understand how you can contend this.  The sun would always have some sort of analemma at the North Pole.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 12:32:54 PM
Cikljamas, why do you think the sun would be in an immovable position from the north pole if the earth is round? For it to be immovable the earths rotation would need to be tilted 90° and it would be immovable from everywhere that the sun is visible.

I have no idea how you are coming up with this.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 27, 2014, 12:59:16 PM

Kent Hovind The Real Reason he went to jail great 15 minutes : (http://)

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

Are you truly claiming he was jailed solely for being a young-earth creationist who believes in the existence of some imaginary New World Order conspiracy?  Seriously?

And am I correct in assuming that you accept Hovind's opinions—with all that absurd gobbledegook he spewed forth before he was justly incarcerated?  If that's the case, then I can certainly understand why you'd believe the earth is flat.  And a hundred other of your misconceptions about 21st-century science.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 01:03:10 PM
Cikljamas, you need to look again at your globe. Imagine you are standing on the pole and that you see the sun in the distance where it should be in the heliocentric model. Now turn the globe and you'll see that the sun would not look as if it doesn't move. You would essentially be spinning and because of the earths tilt you would see the sun shifting up and down by a few degrees while moving 360° around you.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 27, 2014, 01:13:06 PM
Can't you imagine yourself standing on the North Pole during typical polar day? What is the rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole? 24 hours per day! Don't you realize how is it slowly? How about geometry? If you were placed directly at the North Pole, the Earth's rotation wouldn't be noticeable at all (with respect to that point/spot), and you couldn't notice any apparent circular motion of the Sun also, because you would be located directly at the spot through which passes the line of Earth's axis! Why i have to explain to you such a simple geometrical principles? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that you still don't see an elephant in your room?

Before you jump on this : "24 hours per day" is just a funny way to say ZERO!!!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on November 27, 2014, 01:16:57 PM
Can't you imagine yourself standing on the North Pole during typical polar day? What is the rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole? 24 hours per day! Don't you realize how is it slowly? How about geometry? If you were placed directly at the North Pole, the Earth's rotation wouldn't be noticeable at all (with respect to that point/spot), and you couldn't notice any apparent circular motion of the Sun also, because you would be located directly at the spot through which passes the line of Earth's axis! Why i have to explain to you such a simple geometrical principles? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that you still don't see an elephant in your room?
Everything about the rotation of the earth and its size etc. relative to the sun is well documented.  Please show a link to this science which you disagree with.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 01:46:25 PM
Can't you imagine yourself standing on the North Pole during typical polar day? What is the rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole? 24 hours per day! Don't you realize how is it slowly? How about geometry? If you were placed directly at the North Pole, the Earth's rotation wouldn't be noticeable at all (with respect to that point/spot), and you couldn't notice any apparent circular motion of the Sun also, because you would be located directly at the spot through which passes the line of Earth's axis! Why i have to explain to you such a simple geometrical principles? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that you still don't see an elephant in your room?

Good point.  There is a point on Earth, two actually where there is zero rotational velocity yes, but it is a one-dimensional point, so nothing is able to experience the zero velocity.  I doubt we could even observe it.  Not even a proton could occupy this point. So although your point is taken metaphysically, it is inapplicable to the case of anything physical because we can never be located solely on this unrotating point.  The sun will always have an analemma partially attributed to the rotation of the Earth.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 01:55:34 PM
Perhaps a ballet dancer could stand right there on that point and observe the sun not moving. Or maybe a Harlem globetrotter could stand upside from his finger right on the spot as if the earth were a giant basketball.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 02:50:02 PM
Rama Set
I am just thinking this through now: would the analemma of the sun at the point of axis rotation be completely dependent on the earth's orbit and not rotation?

Rottingroom
I would think it would be nearly vertical and you'd only see half of it
If you took an analemma photograph

Rama Set
Yeah, I was just reading that at the North Pole it is completely vertical and you only see the top half.

Rottingroom
Anyways if you were standing at the north pole there would no rotational velocity, and you'd just be spinning once in a day but that doesn't mean the sun wouldn't go 360° around you.

Rama Set
Yeah. Is it worth pointing out that the point of zero velocity is one dimensional, so even if you were standing on it you would still be turning?

Rottingroom
Yes you'd still be turning.
I don’t know if he would understand that. Maybe a merry go round example.
Stand in the middle, zero velocity but spinning.

Rama Set
He is right that there are two points that are not spinning. But they would not be measurable and effectively do not exist. Unless there is some way to measure a 1D object?

Rottingroom
How does that matter though?
How does it matter in reference to the suns position in the sky?

Rama Set
His example is not wrong but it is completely metaphysical. If you could observe from the two non-rotating spots, the sun would only move across the sky due to its elliptical orbit. However, this is a physical impossibility so we will always see the sun rotate in the sky from our FOR.

Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting

Rama Set
Yeah.

Rottingroom
One could not get directly in that spot though
It is absurdly small

Rama Set
It's one dimensional. Not even a lepton could occupy it.

Rottingroom
Hah

Rama Set
Actually they may be point like. Proton!

Rottingroom
Perhaps you could put a Foucault's pendulum right there and show that it will just sit there while the earth rotates underneath it.

Rama Set
I think it is the impossible. The calibration would be limited by the uncertainty principle.

Rottingroom
Even then though, I can't see how the pendulum could turn but I'm probably underestimating the difficulty in finding the sweet spot.

Rama Set
Yeah. I don't know what kind of tolerance you would get.

Rottingroom
But isn't this the point of swinging the pendulum? To avoid the tolerance. Therefore couldn't we swing it in
the direction of the sun and it would just stay that way?

Rama Set
There was a Foucault set up at Amunsden Scott station. It precesses at 15 degrees per hour.

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html)

Oh, yes it should do that I think.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 28, 2014, 04:24:43 AM
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting

Thanks Rottingroom!

We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!

Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:

Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)

Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 05:39:09 AM
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting

Thanks Rottingroom!

We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!

Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:

Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)

Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!

By what stretch of the imagination have you proved that the earth is flat?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2014, 05:39:38 AM
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting

Thanks Rottingroom!

We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!

Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:

Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)

Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!
He said interesting, not correct.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 06:09:15 AM
To summarize what's happened recently:

Cikljamas claims that a point exists at the north and south pole where, if the earth is round there is no rotational velocity and that from that point, if the sun could be observed, then it would not rotate around you in a day. We agree with this point, however small and necessarily one-dimensional it is. However, physically it is one-dimensional and by that account it is one-dimensional even conceptually by geometric standards. Everywhere around that point, every object that can be positioned there is casting a shadow of 360° throughout the day. A one dimensional object, if it could exist there would not cast a shadow because as one dimension it could not exist above the surface. The dimension it has, if physical would be a width. Rama Set and I explored the idea and even suggested a way to find the point would be to set up a Foucault's Pendulum above it and let it swing, to which it was discovered that such an experiment had been performed at the south pole and that it was found that that pendulum precessed at 15°/hr. If you can multiply then you'll find that 15° * 24 hrs = 360° in one day. Meaning that the point both exists and implies, considering how the pendulum works at this point and all the points around it, that the earth is round.

Let me make the point that if you seriously think that the existence of such a point implies that the earth is flat, then it follows that you also think that it is impossible for any 3-dimensional object to rotate on any axis, for every 3d object that rotates, however short a duration, has 2 of these one-dimensional axis points.

So, yes, the exercise is interesting, like I said... but it does not help your argument. From what I can tell it only hurts it.

Edit: I also want to add that even if you ignore that this concept also exists at the south pole and only consider the north as it would be necessary for it to be so if the earth is flat and geocentric, then this exact point of rotation would not exist at all. It could be implied to just be the center of the circle about which the sun orbits over the earth but as you can imagine that since the sun's path changes, this point would be moving daily. Which certainly helps you naught, since the pendulum can work in this manner from this exact point on even the darkest of arctic days.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 28, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!

If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!

Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?

First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).

You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!

As for the pendulum garbage argument:

http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)

http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 08:29:09 AM
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!

If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!

Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?

First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).

You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!

As for the pendulum garbage argument:

http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)

http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Globespin.gif/220px-Globespin.gif)

This is how the earth rotates. This suggests that the sun would move from the left to the right in the northern hemisphere and from the right to the left in south.

Here is a video of the sun during an entire summer in the northern hemisphere moving from the left to the right.

(http://)

Are you still confused?

If you have any arguments about the pendulum then please respond to them directly. Copy and paste the parts that are relevant if you have to.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 28, 2014, 09:04:23 PM

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines. Eugenics [...]

A couple of points to reconsider...

Mr Kent Hovind is not a "doctor" of any sort.  He obtained his alleged 4 "doctorates" from mail-order diploma mills not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or US governmental agency.

He's serving 10 years in Club Fed for tax evasion and financial fraud.  And is facing a further two grand jury indictments for another two similar offences.  Mr Hovind might not be seeing the light of day for another few years yet.

And depopulation, "chemtrails", vaccines, and eugenics have nothing whatsoever to justify his jail sentence.  Those four notions are nothing more than fairy stories perpetrated by the most loony tunes of the conspiracy theorists.


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 29, 2014, 04:42:59 PM
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!

If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!

Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?

First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).

You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!

As for the pendulum garbage argument:

http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)

http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)

A small addition to the above (ZIGZAG) argument:

This argument goes for any "MIDNIGHT SUN" situation, that is to say, wherever (at any degree of latitude within the Arctic circle) & whenever you see (on the film or in the reality) that the Sun makes a full (24 hours - polar day) circle above us, you should be aware that what you have really seen is 100 % proof of the flatness of the Earth!!!

That is so because with our ZIGZAG argument we have proved that there is no rotation of the Earth!

What are the necessary implications of this proof?

Let me quote myself (North South thread, post #212):

All i have to do is to challenge you on one single issue:

1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!

Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!

As simple as that!

I don't even have to do anything more than to prove to you that the Earth doesn't spin on it's "axis", and just for the record: i already have done that.

As soon as it becomes obvious that the Earth is immovable everything else immediately fall to pieces...

As soon as you get rid of the Earth's rotation you have to answer to the next question:

How in the world on the rotund but this time UNTILTED globe we could have (anywhere-at any degree of latitude) for instance 15 or 16 hours of daylight???
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 29, 2014, 04:49:55 PM
Do you seriously think you have anything to add if you cannot look at your globe and see that the rotation of earth implies that the sun would move from left to right in the northern hemisphere?

This is so simple.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 29, 2014, 04:50:33 PM
I agree. If you ignore everything everyone else posts and instead live in your own world. Then, yes, you are correct.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on November 29, 2014, 05:02:47 PM
I agree. If you ignore everything everyone else posts and instead live in your own world. Then, yes, you are correct.
Well, it's a start. At least you admit you're living in your own world and not onit.
You're starting to grasp it; now don't let this slip. There's hope for you.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 29, 2014, 05:06:24 PM
I agree. If you ignore everything everyone else posts and instead live in your own world. Then, yes, you are correct.
Well, it's a start. At least you admit you're living in your own world and not onit.
You're starting to grasp it; now don't let this slip. There's hope for you.
Is this really the best you can do?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 29, 2014, 06:15:45 PM
...and to answer your additional jibber jabber cikljamas, you have not proven that earth does not rotate nor have you proven that it does not tilt. So going on to ask how a non-tilted planet can produce 15-16 hours of daylight is silly.

If you think that the metaphysical existence of 2 rotational axis points means the earth cannot be a rotating ball then you've also disproven the existence of the globe you made your video with. You've also disproved the existence of merry-go-rounds, tires and any spinning and rotating three dimensional or two dimensional object.

By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 29, 2014, 11:26:59 PM
Here is a video of the sun during an entire summer in the northern hemisphere moving from the left to the right.

(http://)


Fixed URL.    :)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 29, 2014, 11:48:46 PM
I have to note that cikljamas totally avoided addressing my earlier comments about one of his "heroes"...

Mr Kent Hovind is not a "doctor" of any sort.  He obtained his alleged four "doctorates" from mail-order diploma mills not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or US governmental agency.

He's serving 10 years in Club Fed for tax evasion and financial fraud.  And is facing a further two grand jury indictments for another two similar offences.  Mr Hovind might not be seeing the light of day for another few years yet LOL.

And his claims of depopulation, "chemtrails", vaccines, and eugenics are in no way connected with his jail sentence.  Those four notions are nothing more than fairy stories perpetrated by the most loony tunes of the conspiracy theorists.

—So c'mon cikljamas... put your money where your mouth is and address my claim about Hovind.   If you can, that is.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 30, 2014, 03:40:53 AM
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!

If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!

Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 100 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?

First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).

You can call it ZIGZAG argument!!!

As for the pendulum garbage argument:

http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265238-post542.html)

http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265258-post545.html)

One correction: it's not "two diameters of the sun", it is just one diameter of the sun per day!!!

Hand waving won't help!!!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338)

Quote
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?

Bull shit!

@ausGeoff, whether Kent Hovind is innocent or not, it neither proves that the form of the surface of the earth is rotund or that it is not! If you contend contrary than what i just have said, please elaborate it.

(http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/09/waving-bear.gif)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 05:39:46 AM
Here is a video of the sun during an entire summer in the northern hemisphere moving from the left to the right.

(http://)


Fixed URL.    :)

the youtube url's you keep fixing work just fine on both my computer and phone.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 05:43:00 AM
One correction: it's not "two diameters of the sun", it is just one diameter of the sun per day!!!

Hand waving won't help!!!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638338#msg1638338)

Quote
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?

Bull shit!


What do you mean bullshit. I'm asking for clarification about what you mean. Not to link back to other threads where you were already shown wrong. You also still seem to think the sun goes from right to left on a rotating earth from the northern hemisphere. You have a globe don't you? Maybe you should look at it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 30, 2014, 06:15:47 AM
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting

Thanks Rottingroom!

We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!

Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:

Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)

Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!


CIA killed Aaron Russo : (http://)
Bill Cooper predicted 911 (it cost him his life) : (http://)
Bill Cooper's....Last prediction : (http://)
10 years before 9/11/01 watch to the end! : (http://)
COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : (http://)
9/11 Jumpers - 18 minutes : (http://)
Oliver Stone on Obama and 9/11 Truth : (http://)
Signs of the End of the World : (http://)
Fox News Cuts off Girl Telling the Truth About Russia : (http://)
Dr. Oz No Flu Shots For My Kids! : (http://)
Bill Gates : "Now if we do a really god job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent..." : Bill Gates Exposed: Funds Chemtrails, and Supports Depopulation 2/7/2012 (http://#ws)

And here is an explanation of one of Bill's modus operandi: Bill Gates Depopulation Program Explained (http://#ws)


Quote
By the way by zigzag you wouldn't possibly be talking about how the sun moves up and down in the video I presented would you?

Quote
Bull shit!

What do you mean bullshit. I'm asking for clarification about what you mean. Not to link back to other threads where you were already shown wrong. You also still seem to think the sun goes from right to left on a rotating earth from the northern hemisphere. You have a globe don't you? Maybe you should look at it.



What that (the Sun going up and down on the horizon) has got to do with the core of a ZIGZAG argument?

Yes, the Sun goes up and down above the flat Earth since the Sun goes farther away from us and comes closer to us, but if the Earth were globular and if she rotated on it's axis, although the same phenomena would occure (the Sun would go up and down) this fact wouldn't have any impact and wouldn't cause any change (AT ALL) regarding the essence of the ZIGZAG argument!

Rottingroom, you have got a whale in your room, and you still don't notice him?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 06:20:42 AM
Okay so if that isn't what you mean by zig zag argument then explain. I'm not going to watch all these links. Just explain yourself for clarity.

Also, again, you do realize that on a globe rotating counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere the sun would move left to right? I assume you now understand this since you keep not responding to this.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on November 30, 2014, 07:52:51 AM

@ausGeoff, whether Kent Hovind is innocent or not, it neither proves that the form of the surface of the earth is rotund or that it is not! If you contend contrary than what i just have said, please elaborate it.


So now cikljamas is claiming that one of his heroes, Mr Kent Hovind, has been in jail for nearly ten years for crimes he didn't commit—according only to cikljamas?  He uses Hovind's name as an appeal to authority apparently without realising the guy's been in the big house for a decade.  Whoops!

I'm guessing that by now he's sorry he ever mentioned that Hovind "holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands" in the video.  Which of course was an earth globe.  Poor old cikljamas seems not to know whether he's arguing from a religious standpoint or a scientific standpoint now LOL.

Whatever, he's now running around in circles desperately trying to reformulate his own ideas of things, and recover from the self-inflicted, illogical mess he's got himself into.  Which is kinda funny, and kinda sad to watch.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 30, 2014, 08:14:25 AM
Rottingroom
Actually kudos to him cause this is very interesting

Thanks Rottingroom!

We know that the general shape of the surface of the Earth is flat and we have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt!

Now, if you think that this granddaddy of all deceptions of modern time is just an innocent lie which doesn't cause any major consequences in all possible realms and aspects of human life, then you should see this:

Albert Pike agenda : (http://)
Albert Pike visions : (http://)

More Reasons Why Dr Kent Hovind is in Jail(1/3) Depopulation. Chemtrails. Vaccines.Eugenics (http://)

Very important implications of this the most fundamental lie of all lies that has ever been invented by human mind, are absolutely disastrous for humanity and for the future of human beings and for the sustainability of this beautiful Earth!


CIA killed Aaron Russo : (http://)
Bill Cooper predicted 911 (it cost him his life) : (http://)
Bill Cooper's....Last prediction : (http://)
10 years before 9/11/01 watch to the end! : (http://)
COMPLETELY BEYOND IMAGINATION : (http://)
9/11 Jumpers - 18 minutes : (http://)
Oliver Stone on Obama and 9/11 Truth : (http://)
Signs of the End of the World : (http://)
Fox News Cuts off Girl Telling the Truth About Russia : (http://)
Dr. Oz No Flu Shots For My Kids! : (http://)
Bill Gates : "Now if we do a really god job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent..." : Bill Gates Exposed: Funds Chemtrails, and Supports Depopulation 2/7/2012 (http://#ws)

And here is an explanation of one of Bill's modus operandi: Bill Gates Depopulation Program Explained (http://#ws)

It's a shame you believe everything you see on youtube, but if I handed you a science textbook you would say it's wrong.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 30, 2014, 09:52:37 AM
Let me help you to put in a perspective some real data regarding our ZIGZAG argument :

If the Earth were round and rotated around it's axis, the rotational speed of the Earth at the distance of one thousand km from North Pole would be 261 km/hr (163 miles/hr)!

What consequences would that produce in the context of our ZIGZAG argument?
Quote
If the Earth were round, at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

One correction: it's not "two diameters of the sun", it is just one diameter of the sun per day!!!

So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?

Just to remind you:

Alleged orbital speed of the Earth : 108 000 km/hour
Alleged Earth-Sun distance : 150 000 000 km
Alleged diameter of the Sun : 1 400 000 km

How much whales do you see in your tight room now?

1. Try to apply above reasoning to a daily motion of the Sun across the sky
2. Try to apply above reasoning to a nightly motion of the Stars (especially zenith stars) which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun!!!

Do you recognise the true proportions of a heliocentric lunacy???

ausGeoff, i didn't say, and i didn't inted to say that Kent Hovind had used the globe as a satanic symbol deliberately. He had held this satanic symbol in his hands without notion of it's true symbolic meaning! That was my point, and you have been aware of it all along, haven't you? Anyway, now you can be double sure!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 10:16:16 AM
Okay so you will continue ignoring the fact that you are wrong about the left to right movement. Moving on.

You also are confusing with this zig zag thing but I think what you are trying to say is that because the orbital speed is greater than the rotational speed then the orbital speed should have a more noticeable effect on the suns position than the rotational speed?

I have no idea why you think that follows. A human being is on earth and rotation causes the angle at which you see the sun to change.

Let me give you an elementary example. While driving a car at 60 mph you can look at an object out the side window. Something at least 1/2 mile from you. You'll notice that it seems the object is going by rather slowly even though you know full well that it is going by at 60mph.

Now get out of the car and look at the same object. Turn slowly around 180° (like rotating) and what did you see? The object appeared to move out of your view much faster than it did when you were in the car, yet your head rotated much slower than 60 mph.

Keep making new arguments cikljamas.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2014, 10:23:38 AM

@ausGeoff, whether Kent Hovind is innocent or not, it neither proves that the form of the surface of the earth is rotund or that it is not! If you contend contrary than what i just have said, please elaborate it.


So now cikljamas is claiming that one of his heroes, Mr Kent Hovind, has been in jail for nearly ten years for crimes he didn't commit—according only to cikljamas?  He uses Hovind's name as an appeal to authority apparently without realising the guy's been in the big house for a decade.  Whoops!

I'm guessing that by now he's sorry he ever mentioned that Hovind "holds the biggest satanic symbol in his hands" in the video.  Which of course was an earth globe.  Poor old cikljamas seems not to know whether he's arguing from a religious standpoint or a scientific standpoint now LOL.

Whatever, he's now running around in circles desperately trying to reformulate his own ideas of things, and recover from the self-inflicted, illogical mess he's got himself into.  Which is kinda funny, and kinda sad to watch.

An authority on a topic can be in jail for tax evasion and still retain their authority.

Hovind is not an authority on geology and evolution because he ignores, misconstrues and misrepresents evidence, not because he committed tax evasion and got caught.

As an analogy: Robert Downey Jr. is an excellent actor. He was an excellent actor even though he went to jail. His time in jail said nothing about his acting abilities.

Mike Tyson was an excellent boxer. That he went to jail said nothing about his prowess as a boxer.

Is this sinking in yet?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on November 30, 2014, 10:37:26 AM
Quote from: cikljamas
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: cikljamas
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?

I don't think so. I think I understood what he is saying. Rotational velocity is slower than orbital speed therefore orbital speed should have greater effect on positions of things around earth from earth. Why he thinks this is beyond me.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on November 30, 2014, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: cikljamas
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?

I don't think so. I think I understood what he is saying. Rotational velocity is slower than orbital speed therefore orbital speed should have greater effect on positions of things around earth from earth. Why he thinks this is beyond me.

Maybe because 108 000 km per hour is 413 TIMES greater speed than 261 km per hour?

Quote
A human being is on earth and rotation causes the angle at which you see the sun to change.

A human being is on earth while hurtling around the Sun also, and why would orbital speed of the Earth (which is 413 TIMES greater than rotational speed) be less noticable than it's rotational speed? Do you really think that due to the geometrical difference between linear and circular motion, we should perceive apparent motion of the celestial objects in such drastically different manner?

Modern astronomers claim that their ancient predecessors could not have noticed stellar parallax through centuries, due to enormous distances between the Earth and the stars, doesn't that help you to understand my point?

When the Earth rotates, what kind of motion an observer (which is placed let's say at the Equator) makes with respect to our stationary and 150 000 000 km distant star (the Sun)?

He is in fact submitted to the linear motion  (from right to left), isn't he? Is this kind of motion geometrically any different comparing it with orbital motion of the Earth and with the perspective of a hypothetical observer who stands at the North Pole and watch the Sun while hurtling 108 000 km per hour?

Same goes for zenith stars!

Regarding circumpolar constellations i have to ponder on this subject for a while...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 02:06:45 PM
Did you miss my example with the car vs turning 180°? It illustrates your error perfectly.

As far as your continued misunderstanding of the suns motion in the sky with respect to the northern hemisphere of earth turning counter clockwise.... BEHOLD!!!


(http://images.clipartpanda.com/shade-clipart-sun_happy.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Gegenuhrzeigersinn.png/220px-Gegenuhrzeigersinn.png)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on November 30, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
Quote from: cikljamas
So, if the alleged orbital speed of the Earth isn't great enough to cause shift of the Sun's position in the sky (in 24 hours) for more than just one Sun's diameter, then what consequences we should expect from incomparably slower alleged rotational motion of the Earth?
Is he trying to claim that all points on Earth won't travel 360 degrees in 24 hours?

I don't think so. I think I understood what he is saying. Rotational velocity is slower than orbital speed therefore orbital speed should have greater effect on positions of things around earth from earth. Why he thinks this is beyond me.

Maybe because 108 000 km per hour is 413 TIMES greater speed than 261 km per hour?
Perhaps (it's really closer to 414, but, whatever...), but so what? Tangential velocities, even if they seem "big" on a human scale, mean virtually nothing when great distances are involved, as here. Angular velocity does matter, always. That 261 km/hr tangential velocity at somewhere near the poles rotates you through 360° in 24 hours. That 108,000 km/hr rotates you only 1° around the Sun in those same 24 hours. 360° is 360 TIMES 1°. Which do you think will be more noticeable?

Quote
Quote
A human being is on earth and rotation causes the angle at which you see the sun to change.

A human being is on earth while hurtling around the Sun also, and why would orbital speed of the Earth (which is 413 TIMES greater than rotational speed) be less noticable than it's rotational speed? Do you really think that due to the geometrical difference between linear and circular motion, we should perceive apparent motion of the celestial objects in such drastically different manner?
Yes. It really does work that way.

Quote
Modern astronomers claim that their ancient predecessors could not have noticed stellar parallax through centuries, due to enormous distances between the Earth and the stars, doesn't that help you to understand my point?
No. Stellar parallax requires large telescopes and fairly sophisticated equipment to measure because it's small. The ancients didn't have any of that.

Quote
When the Earth rotates, what kind of motion an observer (which is placed let's say at the Equator) makes with respect to our stationary and 150 000 000 km distant star (the Sun)?

He is in fact submitted to the linear motion  (from right to left), isn't he? Is this kind of motion geometrically any different comparing it with orbital motion of the Earth and with the perspective of a hypothetical observer who stands at the North Pole and watch the Sun while hurtling 108 000 km per hour?
There is no mystery here if you know a little trig. It's easy enough to calculate.

The equatorial radius of earth 6378.1 km and the perihelion distance 147,098,290 km. [nb]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)[/nb]

The parallax angle would be

a = 2 tan-1(6378.1 km / 147098290 km)
 =  2 tan-1(4.3359 X 10-5)
 =  2 * 0.0024843°
 = 0.0049686°
 = 17.887 seconds of arc. After 12 hours.

Meanwhile, the sun is moving across the sky at about (1/4)° (900 seconds of arc) per minute due to rotation of the Earth, and against the background stars at about (1 / 1440)° (2.5 seconds of arc) per minute due to the motion of the Earth in its orbit. So the parallax in 12 hours is much smaller by a factor of 50 TIMES than the apparent motion in 1 minute. This will be pretty hard to detect unless you're really looking for it and have very good equipment.

Quote
Same goes for zenith stars!
What about Zenith stars? Stars are so far away that parallax due to the 150,000-km orbit of the Earth isn't detectable without good equipment; parallax due to the 12,756.2-km diameter would be totally lost in the noise with even the best equipment.

Quote
Regarding circumpolar constellations i have to ponder on this subject for a while...
Ponder if you want. They've been well understood for centuries if not millennia. I doubt you'll come up with anything that works better than a spinning spherical earth. Even if you do, you'll have to see how that agrees with other observations.

I've been away for a while. What's all this about a ZIGZAG model?

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on November 30, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
I've been away for a while. What's all this about a ZIGZAG model?

I've been asking him that for two days and he won't clarify. He just keeps adding more arguments and ignoring all the rebuttals. My best guess is that he is talking about how the sun zigs and zags up and down at the north pole during a day due to the tilt.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on November 30, 2014, 08:53:45 PM
I've been away for a while. What's all this about a ZIGZAG model?

I've been asking him that for two days and he won't clarify. He just keeps adding more arguments and ignoring all the rebuttals. My best guess is that he is talking about how the sun zigs and zags up and down at the north pole during a day due to the tilt.

Yeah, I saw some references, but no explanation of what it meant that could be discerned, but I was sprinting thru the thread.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 01, 2014, 03:08:21 AM
Quote
If the Earth were round at the North Pole (during northern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

In reality, at the North Pole the Sun crosses the sky from LEFT TO RIGHT in very wide circles and very low at the horizon!!!

If the Earth were round at the South Pole (during southern summer) we would observe very slow (two diameters of the Sun per day) motion of the Sun IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

In reality, southern from equator (no matter how far you go south) the Sun crosses the sky from RIGHT TO LEFT!

Now, guys, try to imagine what would happen if the Earth were round, and if you stood at the spot which is, let's say, 1000 km away from the North Pole? What kind of spectacle would you be able to see from that specific point?

First 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from left to right, next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from right to left (going back to the start point), next 6 hours the Sun would cross the sky from the start point to the left, and last 6 hours the Sun would go from left to right (back to the start point again).

You can call it a ZIGZAG argument!!!

Now, the only question is how much would Sun zigs and zags up & down, right & left if the Earth were round and tilted according to HC idiotic assumptions?

Well, it is not hard at all to illustrate to you what is the real deal here:

All you have to do is to follow a description of this simple comparation:

Imagine that you are a microbe who stands on a "giant" (1 mm diameter) wheel which is placed 150 meters (a football field counting the end zones is 108 meters long) away from the source of light which diameter is 1,4 meters!

150 000 000 km / 1000 km = 150 000 km
150 000 mm = 150 m
150 000 / 150 000 = 1 mm

Now, how about the stars?

Polaris is allegedly 3, 680 000 000 000 000 MILES away from us
3, 680 000 000 000 000 = 5, 888 000 000 000 000 km

5, 888 / 150 = 39,25
39 000 000 * 0,15 = 5, 850 000 km

So, you are still a microbe who stands on a "giant" (1 mm diameter) wheel which is now placed 5 850 000 km away from you!!!

What would be (what would you see) a visual consequence of your zigs and zags up & down, right & left on your 1 mm "giant" wheel?

Answer me!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 01, 2014, 04:35:36 AM
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?

It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.

Going back to my car example let's suppose you are in a spinning chair observing a cow 1/2 mile to the right of the road. The car is traveling 60 mph again and the chair spins 360° counter clockwise. Do you think that as you spin that you'll observe the cow move to the right, then left, then right again? Or do you think you'll just see it move to the right, then it would come out of view as you would be turned away from it, and then as it comes back into view it goes to the right again? The only way to view the cow in the manner you've spoken is if you had a swiveling head that moved independently of your body and it remained fixed on the cow and even then, this left to right to left motion would be slight.

You have strange ideas about how you think things should look as you observe them.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 01, 2014, 12:33:23 PM
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?

Yes, you have this right:

(http://i.imgur.com/Y0bDxAW.jpg)

It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.

Why would that be a physical impossibility? We talk about the Polar Day when the Sun is above the horizon all day long!!!

This zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight only as a consequence of an unbelievable ratio between the distance (150 m which is in reality 150 000 000 km) and a "gigantic" proportions of our hypothetical 1 mm wide wheel which represents 1000 km wide circle on the allegedly round Earth...

In the context of a reality as we know it, this zigging and zagging would be utterly striking because the Sun is only a few thousand miles from us, but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality.

That is why you have to imagine the whole paradigm from the scratch!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 01, 2014, 12:47:59 PM
You call this a whale? An elephant? A microbe indeed. I actually think you are right in that such motion likely exists. I just don't think you understand how minute it is compared to the motion of rotation.

Do you not realize that this is not applicable unless you intentionally turn your head toward the sun or have some mechanism to ensure that it remains unaffected by the earths rotation? Perhaps if you could put a camera onto a Foucault's pendulum then you might see what you are describing but other than that, this is quite preposterous.

From anywhere that you can physically stand, if you just look the same direction all day, the only relevant motion you'll see is the motion caused by rotation.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 01, 2014, 01:14:13 PM
You want to scale this to a football field? Fine.

You said 1000 km, but I'm just going to use miles. So 1000 miles of motion to the left.

convert: 100 yds (football field) = 300 ft = .0568182 miles

scale: 93,000,000 miles of distance to sun and 1000 miles of motion to the left.
to: .0568182 miles of distance to theoretical football field sun and x miles of motion to the left.

93000000/1000 = .0568182/x
93000000x = .568182 * 1000
93000000x = 56.8182
x = 56.8182/93000000
x = .00000000061904 miles to the left
Convert to inches: .000039222 inches of motion to the left

And you think you would notice this while the earth is also rotating?



Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 01, 2014, 01:41:28 PM
You want to scale this to a football field? Fine.

You said 1000 km, but I'm just going to use miles. So 1000 miles of motion to the left.

convert: 100 yds (football field) = 300 ft = .0568182 miles

scale: 93,000,000 miles of distance to sun and 1000 miles of motion to the left.
to: .0568182 miles of distance to theoretical football field sun and x miles of motion to the left.

93000000/1000 = .0568182/x
93000000x = .568182 * 1000
93000000x = 56.8182
x = 56.8182/93000000
x = .00000000061904 miles to the left
Convert to inches: .000039222 inches of motion to the left

And you think you would notice this while the earth is also rotating?

That is what i am talking about, but you cannot see the forest for the tree!

This whole idea is preposterous to you only because you don't understand the true meaning of these words, i repeat:

...but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality...


In reality the Sun is very close to us, and turns around and above us, this is your observational experience that you are used to and you can not discard it, neglect it, throw it away out of your mind , but if you want to reason in correct manner you have to forget all that you know, and start to think from the scratch, that is the only way!!!

Why is the problem to turn your head towards the sun?

I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!

If the Earth turned on it's axis, and if the Sun were stationary spot in the sky 150 000 000 km away from us, then you would see in the sky what i have explained in my ZIGZAG argument, but fortunately this is not the case. Only this zigging and zagging would be really hardly noticable because of a ratio (150 m = 150 000 000 km : 1 mm = 1000 km).

The only thing that is really preposterous is HC theory!!!

Regarding whales in your tight room, the only way not to see them is if you keep your eyes wide shut!!!

And these whales are really gigantic, absolutely colossal whales!!!

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 01, 2014, 01:52:26 PM

IF the Earth turned on it's axis, and IF the Sun were stationary spot in the sky 150 000 000 km away from us [...]

I've bolded the two words that totally refute your argument.  There is no "if" in either case.  And the sun does not "zig zag" above us.

End of story.  Sorry.
 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 01, 2014, 01:53:54 PM
The sun is not very close, observe from different places on earth.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 01, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
If the sun is really 93,000,000 miles away then we should notice it move 3/100,000 of an inch to the right, 6/100,000 of an inch to the left and then back 3/100,000 of an inch back to the right? All this while contending with the rotational motion of the earth?

Is this your proof?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 01, 2014, 03:00:15 PM
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?

Yes, you have this right:

(http://i.imgur.com/Y0bDxAW.jpg)

It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.

Why would that be a physical impossibility? We talk about the Polar Day when the Sun is above the horizon all day long!!!

This zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight only as a consequence of an unbelievable ratio between the distance (150 m which is in reality 150 000 000 km) and a "gigantic" proportions of our hypothetical 1 mm wide wheel which represents 1000 km wide circle on the allegedly round Earth...
And it is. Whether you find these ratios "unbelievable" or not matters not a whit.

Based on the calculations on the equator in my post above, solar parallax would be about 1.5 seconds of arc with a 2,000 km baseline, and about 3/4 second of arc with a 1,000-mile baseline. Your hypothetical observer illustrated above would have to be constantly turning (otherwise the Sun would "do a 360" around him over a day) and trying to discern a sub-arcsecond shift relative to background stars he can't see because the Sun's so bright (and ignoring relativistic bending of light, which would make precise measurement of shifts more difficult, even if they could be made). He simply won't discern *any* "zigzag" (parallax).

Quote
In the context of a reality as we know it, this zigging and zagging would be utterly striking because the Sun is only a few thousand miles from us, but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality.
Lets examine this statement for a moment. Let's say the Sun is circling above the tropic only, say, 5,000 km above it, and we are 500 km from the pole. The tropic is 2611 miles from the equator (assuming 10,000 km pole to equator), so our distance from the tropic would be 6,889 km (call it 6,900 km) at the nearest point, and 7,889 km (7,900 km) in the opposite direction. Our distance from the Sun would vary from:

( (6900 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 8521 km

to

( (7900 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 =  9349 km

A difference of about 10%. Forget about arc seconds or less of "zigzag" (parallax).  Why don't we see a 10% change in the apparent size of the sun through the day from this location if it's as close as you say? This effect would get larger as you approach the equator because the distance change gets larger (and larger still as you continue south). If the Earth were flat, and the Sun was 5,000 km above the equator, and the observer on it, and the equator is still 10,000 km from the pole, the distance from observer to sun would change from

( (14142 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 15,000 km (90° from it, at "sunrise", however that would happen)

to 5,000 km (directly overhead).

This is a factor of three. Does the Sun appear to grow three times in size as it rises until noon from the equator at an equinox? I didn't think so, either.

Quote
That is why you have to imagine the whole paradigm from the scratch!

We don't see an obvious change in the size of the Sun through the day. That's why this paradigm is a non-starter.

The pole-to-equator distance is pretty well established, but there is no indication that the equator is >60,000 km circumference; another obvious problem. This is not to mention sunrises and sunsets, and southern circumpolar stars. You're fretting about distances that are difficult (for you) to comprehend, and offering a model that would require obvious phenomena that we just don't see. It simply doesn't work at all.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Battery72 on December 01, 2014, 05:05:50 PM
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 02, 2014, 06:13:43 AM
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)

Because, every time we prove that the Earth is at rest someone comes up with questions like this...

First conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : Airy's failure experiment, year 1871.
Second conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : MMX experiment, year 1887.

See this conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat: Amateur rocket reaches 121,000 ft : (http://)

Jay Dee
6 months ago :

"Have you ever noticed that Earth only looks like a globe if they're using a fish eye lens? After some brief searching, I found that scientists say that you should clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth at 35,000 feet. They were almost 4 times that altitude and Earth doesn't seem to resemble any type of globe or sphere...at least in this video or any other high altitude videos I've seen that didn't use a fish eye. Thoughts?"


Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:

1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun, and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...

When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:

If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!

How intuitive is this picture to you?

It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?

But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!

Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:

"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."


Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 02, 2014, 06:28:15 AM
It's in one ear out the other with you.

We've responded with reasonable and known explanations for everyone of your contentions about how it should look if the were really round. Every single one.

Please return the favor. Stop adding arguments and respond to ours.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 02, 2014, 07:02:17 AM
@ rottingroom, everything explained here:

If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)

Because, every time we prove that the Earth is at rest someone comes up with questions like this...

First conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : Airy's failure experiment, year 1871.
Second conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : MMX experiment, year 1887.

See this conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat: Amateur rocket reaches 121,000 ft : (http://)

Jay Dee
6 months ago :

"Have you ever noticed that Earth only looks like a globe if they're using a fish eye lens? After some brief searching, I found that scientists say that you should clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth at 35,000 feet. They were almost 4 times that altitude and Earth doesn't seem to resemble any type of globe or sphere...at least in this video or any other high altitude videos I've seen that didn't use a fish eye. Thoughts?"


Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:

1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun, and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...

When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:

If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!

How intuitive is this picture to you?

It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?

But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!

Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:

"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."


Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html)

On top of that:

Before Copernican heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up at the sky and notice that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary Earth. All empirical evidence from our perspective clearly shows that we are fixed and everything rotates around us. We feel motionless and experience the sun, moon, stars and planets spinning around us. To suspend this common sense geocentric perspective and assume that it's actually the Earth revolving beneath us daily while rotating around the sun yearly is quite a theoretical leap.

"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning." -Marshall Hall, "Exposing the Copernican Deception"

"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"

Right up through the 20th century many attempts have been made to try and prove that heliocentricity is true and geocentricity is false. All such attempts have failed and only reinforced geocentricity. The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.

In order to save the dying heliocentric theory from the conclusive geocentric experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and others, establishment master-mind Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity which in one philosophical swoop banished the absolute aether/firmament from scientific study and replaced it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit. If there is no universal aetheric medium within which all things exist, then philosophically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects (such as the Earth and sun). Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein's theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable.

If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!

I'd like to know if we're really being subject to all those forces/motions, then why hasn't anyone in all of history ever felt it? How is it that all the centrifugal, gravitational, inertial and kinematic forces somehow cancel each other out perfectly so that no one has ever felt the slightest bit of motion or resistance? Why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?

"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun ... or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy ... or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"

Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; ...that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling "knowledge" today...all of it... is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on December 02, 2014, 07:12:57 AM
tl;dr

Direct observation from space has confirmed that the Earth is round and rotates, so except for cries of "conspiracy!" You are utterly incorrect.

Now perhaps you could take rottingroom's advice and stop piling on arguments in a shotgun debating approach and directly address the rebuttals made to your contentions?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 02, 2014, 07:20:15 AM
Look we've gone through 9 pages of the same thing over and over again and it is getting boring. You present an argument, we rebuttal it to satisfaction and you drop the argument and move onto the next one. If you drop your claims then that can be taken as nothing more than concession. Frankly, it's our turn so let's start with the suns size not changing as it necessarily would if it was as close as you claim, if you can explain that away to our satisfaction then we will concede and present a new argument, fair? So explain yourself and stop pasting stuff from the nooks and cranny's of geocentric websites around the net.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 02, 2014, 07:50:00 AM
Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:

1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day,

We don't observe this casually because it's small and difficult to measure, but it's there. Perhaps your notion that the Sun is close is wrong.

Quote
and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner,

This we do see if you're not right at the pole. It's very apparent when you're more than a few degrees from it.

Quote
we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

One effect is very tiny. It's difficult to see, but there, even though the other is obvious.

Quote
2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun,

What? Regardless of how far something is, if you turn away from it you won't see it any more because it's "moved" out of your field of view (of course it's your FOV that actually moved, but the effect is the same - that's why it's called "apparent" motion). If it's far away, walking left or right while facing it won't have much effect - or any effect you can detect if it's far enough.

Quote
and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...

See above.

Quote
When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:

If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!

No, this would happen if the Earth weren't rotating. But it is, so the stars appear to move across the sky as the night progresses; they appear to move across our FOV because our FOV is rotating, and their distance doesn't matter.

Quote
How intuitive is this picture to you?

A rotating spherical earth is very intuitive. Flat, fixed earth, not so much.

Quote
It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?

But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!

There's nothing at all wrong with starting from basic principles. If your thinking takes you to conclusions vastly different from what is known to work, you might want to double check what got you there. If it checks out, and your new model explains what we already observe, and makes predictions about what we should be able to observe, then publish that paper and be prepared to defend it.

Your model, a nearby small sun and all the stars circling a fixed flat earth, however, fails that first test (explaining what we do see) in several ways:

What makes the Sun appear to rise and set? Why isn't it visible from everywhere on earth all the time?

How do southern circumpolar stars work?

Why does the acceleration of gravity at the surface decrease as you approach the equator and increase as you approach either pole?

Why do Foucault Pendulums precess in opposite directions north and south of the equator?

It predicts at least one obvious phenomenon we don't see:

The distance from sun to observer would change by a factor of three, in six hours, in some situations. How come it the Sun doesn't appear significantly larger at noon than at sunrise and sunset? Why doesn't it appear to change size noticeably as you travel north or south of it?

Quote
Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:

"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."


 <link>

Would you please cite the source when you include quotes from elsewhere? At any rate, there's no evidence that I know of to suggest the premise "every object we see has an object behind it or near it" is correct. "every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us", if I understand what they're trying to say, is simply not correct.

Where did you read this?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 02, 2014, 07:54:00 AM
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 02, 2014, 08:21:36 AM
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...

Do you want us to take this comment seriously?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Göebbels on December 02, 2014, 08:27:21 AM
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...

The amount of ignorance in one small paragraph...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 02, 2014, 11:30:01 AM
All the theories collapse when you cannot see the sun and the stars in outer space : (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 02, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
All the theories collapse when you cannot see the sun and the stars in outer space : (http://)

Why do you buy into his claim that the sun cannot be seen from space? He says the moon can but not the sun but how can that be if we assume what he is saying about light not traveling through space to be true?

You know what forget that. Address our arguments!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 02, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
Your ignorance is not evidence for your argument.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: robintex on December 02, 2014, 05:29:14 PM
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...

Do you want us to take this comment seriously?

Would this be implying that the Hubble Telescope and all its pictures are fakes ?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 02, 2014, 09:04:24 PM
The Sun is not a solid celestial object [...]

Like many flat earthers, you make these claims based on a total lack of first-hand evidence.  Have you ever been to the surface of the sun to see its composition with your own eyes, or do you know of anybody who has?  Can you cite from your Flat Earth Wiki wherein it supports your claim that the sun is not solid?  I couldn't find any reference in your Wiki to the sun's composition.

Or are you simply relying on the research and the word of round earth scientists?  You refute the results of their work on the majority of other astrophysical phenomena—why do you accept their word about the sun without question?

In short, please prove that the sun is not solid.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 04:19:09 AM
Quote
1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

One effect is very tiny. It's difficult to see, but there, even though the other is obvious.

Really now?

Because you asked for it:

(http://i.imgur.com/wteVdvJ.jpg)

So, if the Earth were round and tilted 23,5 degree, the ratio between "Sun's up & down" motion AND "Sun's Zigging & Zagging" would be 1 : 3,8. Here we don't take into account the distances, but if we took into account the HC alleged distances, then there would be no Zigging & Zagging, but there would be no Up & Down Sun's apparent motions also!!!

So, you basically take into account HC distances to discard Zigging & Zagging, and when you have to explain away obvious observable phenomena (Sun's everyday Up & Down motion) then you don't take into account HC distances, ha?

Who do you think you are fooling?

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 04:38:51 AM


So, if the Earth were round and tilted 23,5 degree, the ratio between "Sun's up & down" motion AND "Sun's Zigging & Zagging" would be 1 : 3,8. Here we don't take into account the distances, but if we took into account the HC alleged distances, then there would be no Zigging & Zagging, but there would be no Up & Down Sun's apparent motions also!!!

So, you basically take into account HC distances to discard Zigging & Zagging, and when you have to explain away obvious observable phenomena (Sun's everyday Up & Down motion) then you don't take into account HC distances, ha?

Who do you think you are fooling?

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)

Left and right zig zagging as you call it: it's there but like I said, utterly slight

Up and down tilting: angle changes so that there is a new FOV.

Rotation: angle changes so that there is a new FOV.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 04:45:14 AM
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 04:56:22 AM
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?

Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 03, 2014, 04:57:58 AM

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)

So by default, you're admitting that you do accept the word of round earth scientists that the sun is not solid?

I'd say I've proved my point that flat earthers are very selective when it comes to accepting the theories of round earth scientists—or rejecting them to suit their argument on the day.  Which is simply because their is no such person as a flat earth scientist.  Every scientist in the world—all 6 million of them—accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

And I challenge you to name one single accredited contemporary scientist that accepts the flat earth model.  But I'm betting my left testicle you won't be able to.

—Prove me wrong.  If you can.  And I'll even supply the bolt cutters.   ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 05:00:05 AM

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)

So by default, you're admitting that you do accept the word of round earth scientists that the sun is not solid?

I'd say I've proved my point that flat earthers are very selective when it comes to accepting the theories of round earth scientists—or rejecting them to suit their argument on the day.  Which is simply because their is no such person as a flat earth scientist.  Every scientist in the world—all 6 million of them—accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

And I challenge you to name one single accredited contemporary scientist that accepts the flat earth model.  But I'm betting my left testicle you won't be able to.

—Prove me wrong.  If you can.  And I'll even supply the bolt cutters.   ;D

Oh boy, here we go again. What makes you think this is an effective argument? A conspiracy suggests a lack of FE scientists, so what is your point?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 05:10:59 AM
By the way, I've asked you several times to answer our questions, seeing as how we've been polite enough to answer yours. These are the types of questions I'm speaking of:


Your model, a nearby small sun and all the stars circling a fixed flat earth, however, fails that first test (explaining what we do see) in several ways:

What makes the Sun appear to rise and set? Why isn't it visible from everywhere on earth all the time?

How do southern circumpolar stars work?

Why does the acceleration of gravity at the surface decrease as you approach the equator and increase as you approach either pole?

Why do Foucault Pendulums precess in opposite directions north and south of the equator?

It predicts at least one obvious phenomenon we don't see:

The distance from sun to observer would change by a factor of three, in six hours, in some situations. How come it the Sun doesn't appear significantly larger at noon than at sunrise and sunset? Why doesn't it appear to change size noticeably as you travel north or south of it?


Radio silence?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 05:54:13 AM
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?

Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.

According to your logic, the Sun apparently goes up and down, because (due to tilt and rotation) an observer on the Earth changes an angle of observation. Right?

Now, doesn't Sun's apparent motion across the sky (heading in arc from East to West) depend on changing an angles of observation, also?

You even admit that there is a Zigging and Zagging of the Sun, only we cannot see it!

According to your logic, if we climbed up on the top of a hypothetical 1000 km high mountain, significant change of the perspective of the Sun would occur, so that we could easily observe such a dramatic change of angles (up & down), but if we travelled 1000 km towards the East or towards the West, we wouldn't be able to notice any change of the perspective of the Sun, because (according to you and Alpha2Omega) going West/East makes no difference at all, but in the same time going Up/Down makes huge difference in producing apparent motions of the Sun.

Would you be so kind to explain to our precious audience, what EXACTLY determines such a huge difference regarding "up & down" apparent motion of the Sun, and "Left & Right" apparent motion of the Sun?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 06:01:35 AM
Up and down as it pertains to the change of angle due to tilt, causes a change in angle which changes your FOV. Going up a mountain does not. How are you confused about this?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 06:13:31 AM
I would rather say that you are confused, maybe Alpha2Omega will come up with better explanation, since your words explain nothing...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 06:34:18 AM
I would rather say that you are confused, maybe Alpha2Omega will come up with better explanation, since your words explain nothing...

I don't doubt that he could. He's seems to be the Einstein to my newton.

I wrote that quickly because it is the answer and the answer is simple. I will make a diagram for you when I get to work to show you how simple it is differentiate between a rotating (or rather tilting) FOV and a linear (or side to side/up and down) FOV.

Please respond to the questions I quoted from a2o earlier.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 08:13:31 AM
(http://i57.tinypic.com/13zplsm.png)

Well here it is.

Observer A will be compared with Observer B because that is the change as a result of rotation which illustrates how the tilt causes an up and down motion.

Horizon's illustrate that Observer A has a higher sun than Observer B, so the sun moves up down in addition to moving to the right due to rotation.

Observer A will be compared with Observer C as that is the change as a result of rising in elevation on a theoretical 1000 km mountain.

Notice that the angle of view for Observer C has not changed compared to Observer A. He is seeing the sun drastically higher in the sky (he's in space) simply because the horizon has significantly lowered and not because of a change in angle. While this is a drastic change in the sun's position due to a lowering horizon relative to Observer C's position, it is not an equivalent scenario to Observer B which I will discuss in the next section. Observer C isn't seeing the sun's position in the sky change. He is simply seeing more of it [the sky].

Observer B will be compared with Observer C to illustrate how B and C are not equivalent scenario's.

Observer C sees the horizon change because the horizon is lower relative to Observer C thanks to increased elevation. We see examples of this occurring with skyscrapers and mountains where observer's on the top floor of a skyscraper will experience sunset and sunrises seconds (and sometimes minutes) before an observer on the bottom floor. Observer B on the other hand has the same horizon as Observer A, the only thing that has changed is angular FOV. Yes, he is in a location "to the left" of where he was due to rotation and that location is "higher" just like in Observer C's scenario but unlike Observer C, Observer B's configuration, or his angular FOV has changed.

A to B
A to C
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 03, 2014, 09:08:42 AM
"rottingroom" got in with illustrations while I was composing my typically long-winded reply. Brief glance looks like his illustration shows very well the point about the horizon appearing well below level if you are observing from a very high mountain.

According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?

Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.

According to your logic, the Sun apparently goes up and down, because (due to tilt and rotation) an observer on the Earth changes an angle of observation. Right?
Yes.

Quote
Now, doesn't Sun's apparent motion across the sky (heading in arc from East to West) depend on changing an angles of observation, also?
Yes.

Quote
You even admit that there is a Zigging and Zagging of the Sun, only we cannot see it!
If by "Zigging and Zagging" you mean parallax, then, yes. It's quite small and difficult to detect, but it's there.

Quote
According to your logic, if we climbed up on the top of a hypothetical 1000 km high mountain, significant change of the perspective of the Sun would occur,
Where did anyone say that?

Quote
so that we could easily observe such a dramatic change of angles (up & down), but if we travelled 1000 km towards the East or towards the West, we wouldn't be able to notice any change of the perspective of the Sun, because (according to you and Alpha2Omega) going West/East makes no difference at all, but in the same time going Up/Down makes huge difference in producing apparent motions of the Sun.
Aha! It looks like the term "up and down" is ambiguous. By "up and down" I'm referring to the Sun's Zenith angle (angle between "straight up" and the Sun) changing, not your height above datum changing.[nb]Zenith angle is easier to use here than elevation angle (the angle the Sun is above or below the local level), but they're simply complements of each other (one is 90° minus the other).[/nb]

Do note that climbing the hypothetical 1,000 km mountain would cause your sightline to the horizon to be lower since the horizon is nearby[nb]The horizon would be 30° below level from 1,000 km above the surface of a sphere with 6378 km radius[/nb]. Parallax against the distant stars would be affected only slightly - about 16% due to the lengthened baseline - so the Zenith angle would not be affected noticeably. Returning to the Parallax at the Equator analysis (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643254#msg1643254) a few days ago, we expect about 18 arcseconds of solar parallax at the equator at perihelion, based on a radius of 6,378.1 km (baseline 12,756.2 km) and distance to sun of 147,098,290 km. If we're atop a 1,000-km high mountain on the equator, this will increase the baseline by 2,000 km, so the parallax will increase from about 18 arcseconds to about 21 arcseconds. This would still be hard to detect without very specialized equipment.

Did either of us say moving east and west wouldn't affect the Sun's position in the sky? It certainly would. Moving north or south would also have a similar effect. The change in position in the sky would be by an angle equal to the angular change in position on earth. Parallax against the background stars due to the changed position on earth would be negligible, though - maybe that's what you were referring to.

Quote
Would you be so kind to explain to our precious audience, what EXACTLY determines such a huge difference regarding "up & down" apparent motion of the Sun, and "Left & Right" apparent motion of the Sun?
"Precious". Love the editorializing!

"Left and right" (meaning parallax in this context, I presume) is dependent on the length of the baseline (sum of the diameter of earth (12,750 km or so) plus height above datum times cosine of the latitude) and the distance to the Sun (150,000,000 km give or take).

"Up and down" (meaning the Zenith angle) is the angle between a line from the center of rotation (center of the Earth) through the observer[nb]This establishes the local vertical (and, thus, the Zenith).[/nb] and a line from the observer in the direction of the Sun.  The lengths of these lines do not matter; only the angle between them.

The upshot is that the distances involved cause a very small parallax effect, and the angular position of the Sun relative to zenith is absolutely dominated by rotation, which is independent of the distances.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 10:23:30 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/WIAYMQ5.jpg)

Our guy, all the time is looking towards the Sun, which means that he has to adjust his orientation every few hours, otherwise he wouldn't be able to see the Sun especially during SECOND HALF of the circle, that is to say, during SECOND HALF of the alleged rotation of the Earth (the Sun would be behind his back)!  Right?

So, what happens, when our guy reaches one out of two designated TURNING POINTs?

The Sun's path (alleged "apparent" motion of the Sun), by necessity, changes direction!!!

No doubt, about that!!!

Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!

The easiest way to check this out:

1. Stand in front of a light bulb, be at least two meters away from the bulb so that the bulb can be always ahead of you (not above you)!

2. Make one step RIGHT AND AHEAD

3. Make next step LEFT AND more AHEAD

4. Make next step LEFT AND BACK

5. Make next step RIGHT AND more BACK (to the starting point)

6. All the time look at the bulb

7. Repeat it as long as you need to, until you figure out what would really happen (what would our guy really see in the sky) if the Earth really rotated on it's axis, instead of being at rest!!!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 10:50:31 AM
Have we not expressed that this parallax (zig zag) does occur but at such large distances it is, as I put it, utterly slight? Do you not see that we have agreed that it should and does happen?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 11:49:32 AM
What is "utterly slight"? Half a circle (which takes 12 hours (to be accomplished) in the proximity of the N.P. during Northern Summer) of the Sun's path across the sky is "utterly slight"? Are you nuts, or what?

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 11:52:10 AM
What is "utterly slight"? Half a circle (which takes 12 hours (to be accomplished) in the proximity of the N.P. during Northern Summer) of the Sun's path across the sky is "utterly slight"? Are you nuts, or what?

A rather negligible distance compared to 93,000,000 miles is it not? For your argument to gain any traction you'd need to prove that the sun is much closer and I'm afraid that trigonometry doesn't help your cause here.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 03, 2014, 01:26:20 PM

Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
Arctic Midnight Sun (http://#ws)

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 03, 2014, 01:27:48 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/WIAYMQ5.jpg)

Our guy, all the time is looking towards the Sun, which means that he has to adjust his orientation every few hours, otherwise he wouldn't be able to see the Sun especially during SECOND HALF of the circle, that is to say, during SECOND HALF of the alleged rotation of the Earth (the Sun would be behind his back)!  Right?

So, what happens, when our guy reaches one out of two designated TURNING POINTs?

The Sun's path (alleged "apparent" motion of the Sun), by necessity, changes direction!!!

No doubt, about that!!!
Against the background stars, considering only parallax and and ignoring orbital motion (which is actually far, far, far greater), yes.

But why should we ignore orbital motion? By "far, far, far", I mean that in 12 hours the sun appears to drift eastward among the distant stars about 1/2 degree. In keeping with your earlier drawing where the dashed line through N.P. represents 1,000 km, parallax will be about 3/4 of one second or arc., smaller by a factor of 2400 (a.k.a. rottingroom's "utterly slight").

But the apparent motion with respect to the Earth, which is what we really notice, is a full 360° in 24 hours, which again swamps the eastward drift due to orbital parallax after that already really swamped parallax due to motion about the pole. In this drawing, at the beginning of the first half of the circle, our fellow is facing the Sun with North to his left, so he's looking East. Six hours later, halfway through the first half of the circle, the Sun has smoothly moved to his right and now North is to his back, so he's looking due South (the Sun will also be highest in the sky here).  Six hours after that, at the left "Turning Point", N is to his right, and the Sun has smoothly moved (still to his right as he faces it) to be due West of him. By the middle of the second half of the circle, he's facing due North, looking over the North Pole to where the Sun (which is at its lowest point) has smoothly moved (still to his right). Six hours later, the Sun has smoothly moved (to his right) to its original position and the cycle begins anew. Smooth left-to-right motion all the way around the tilted (because you're not exactly at the pole) circle the Sun traces through the sky as you face it.

Quote
Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
This is not a good experiment because the distances can't be realistically simulated. See above and below.

Quote
The easiest way to check this out:

1. Stand in front of a light bulb, be at least two meters away from the bulb so that the bulb can be always ahead of you (not above you)!

2. Make one step RIGHT AND AHEAD

3. Make next step LEFT AND more AHEAD

4. Make next step LEFT AND BACK

5. Make next step RIGHT AND more BACK (to the starting point)

6. All the time look at the bulb

7. Repeat it as long as you need to, until you figure out what would really happen (what would our guy really see in the sky) if the Earth really rotated on it's axis, instead of being at rest!!!
The flaw with this experiment is you're standing about 2 m from the light bulb and taking steps, moving left and right by about 1/2 m each time. With a 1 m baseline, the parallax of something 2 m away is going to be huge. What do you think the results will be if, instead of 2 m from your bulb, you're 150,000 m from it? Tell you what... the  Moon is about 400,000,000 m from us. Scale the experiment up and move left and right by a total of 3 km. How much did the Moon appear to move relative to the distant stars?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 04:26:37 PM
This is not a good experiment because the distances can't be realistically simulated.

I took the liberty of coming up with an easily repeatable scaled simulation. If I can find the time I can even take a video of the simulation myself. All you would need is an American Football Field, a basketball and a camera. The ball will be the sun and the camera will be Earth's location. Earth's location will be at the endzone (0 yd line) and we can simulate parallax by moving the camera some amount of inches to the left.

Determine where to put the ball:

Sun distance = 93,000,000 miles
Sun diameter = 864,938 miles
Basketball diameter = 9.46972 inches = 0.000149459 miles
Basketball distance from camera = d

(d/.000149459) = (93,000,000/864,938)
d = .01607015416 miles = 84.504 ft = 28.2835 yds

So the basketball needs be placed on the 28 yard line.

Determine how much we need to move the camera.

Distance to ball = 28.2835 ft = .00535672 miles
parallax = p

(.00535672/p) = (93,000,000/864,938)
p = .0004981968 miles = 3.15 in

So roughly speaking:

(http://i57.tinypic.com/2v8mjr7.png)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 03, 2014, 06:40:49 PM
I was in a hurry and I one calculation was wrong. 15 inches is incorrect. I will fix it when I get home from dinner.
That's not all...  29.75 is the circumference of a basketball, not its diameter.

Here's how I see it: cikljamas was proposing using a globe to illustrate his point. Let's say we use a standard 12" desk globe.

Earth's diameter is about 8,000 miles, represented by the 1-foot diameter of the globe. The Sun is at a distance of 93,000,000 miles, which is 11,625 times the diameter of the Earth, so, to be at scale, whatever represents the Sun must be well over 2 miles away from our 1' globe (and more than 100' in diameter to be at scale). In one day, the earth would progress almost 200 times its own diameter (200 feet to scale) in its orbit.

If you want to use the (roughly) 10" basketball as the Sun, then scale everything down by a factor of 120 or so, and the distance to the Sun is a more manageable 100 feet or thereabouts, but now the diameter of the scaled earth is about 0.1", and his 1,000-km baseline is about 1/12 of that.

The biggest problem, though, is you're proposing to bring a basketball onto an American Football field, of all things! That's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - you just don't do that!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2014, 07:28:53 PM
The biggest problem, though, is you're proposing to bring a basketball onto an American Football field, of all things! That's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - you just don't do that!

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/52eeaac89727c9e918bac2a1e02734c1/tumblr_n0br6hFLlt1rmjplho4_500.gif)
[/quote]
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 07:44:05 PM
Oh cool a2o. You couldn't be patient and let me fix my own mistakes. Thanks a lot.

I used a basketball because it's something that people would be likely to have in their garage. Anyways, I've fixed all the math and the diagram, dick heads.

PS. Go pack
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: markjo on December 03, 2014, 07:57:37 PM
For those too lazy to do the math: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/ (http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 03, 2014, 08:06:22 PM
For those too lazy to do the math: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/ (http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/)

Well according to that the camera should be moved .0433 inches for an earth radius for a basketball that is on the 28 yd line but that is for the entire earth radius. For the 1000 km baseline cikljamas suggested we'd need to move the ball 1/12 of that which is 0.00360833333 or roughly 4/1000 of an inch.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 03, 2014, 10:43:04 PM
Why is it that cikljamas—whom I assumed was a flat earther—invariably uses a round earth model to illustrate the points he makes?

Or is my assumption about his flat earth status incorrect?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 03, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.

I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?

You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?

It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 04, 2014, 01:38:33 AM
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.

I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?

You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?

It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
I didn't enter this thread because I was enjoying seeing the way you were putting your stuff forward against opposition. I'm 100% with you but I go about my global destruction in a different way. I am fully behind what you're trying to achieve but as you well know, as you said, you're not really up against people who are going to accept anything you say.
If you actually proved it where it actually couldn't be questioned in any way, it would be questioned because the goal isn't about those people being re-educated, it's all about them making sure that people don't gain a momentum in finding out the real truth. It's weird in one way, because not all of them are shills, just half of them.

If it helps you in any way, I'm as hated by the flat Earth theorists as much as I am with the globalists and simply cast off as a nut or a troll, but don't think nobody is enjoying your input - there are quite a few that will be. Me for one - I'm just not on your level where this stuff your putting out is concerned and that's how I learn.
I like to go my own way on the basics of stuff in other ways. Very few help me but I'm not bothered, because I will just keep plugging away.
Either way, we are both in the same boat - as in, no matter what we say, it will be instantly dismissed by those that are planted on here. I don't really need to tell you this, as I think you know the score on it all.

Keep plugging away because it's not these people you need to convince. It's the people looking in who have open minds and who want to question the bullshit they've been fed all their lives.
You are a big help on this matter as well as a few others on here. People like legion, yendor, hoppy, jroa, Earthisaspaceship and a good few others, so stick to your guns. I know it can be frustrating taking on so many at a time, but the ones that are trying to attempt ridicule all the time, just put them on the backburner and deal with the one's you feel are worth dealing with. That's what I do.

Just have a laugh with the others and type some utter crap to their questions - it helps to relax you.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 04, 2014, 03:08:58 AM
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 04, 2014, 03:19:22 AM
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2014, 04:14:36 AM
Why is it that cikljamas—whom I assumed was a flat earther—invariably uses a round earth model to illustrate the points he makes?

Or is my assumption about his flat earth status incorrect?

Because he is trying to point out inconsistencies with the RE model. It would be impossible to do otherwise.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 04, 2014, 04:21:20 AM
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
But I am concerned for you scepti.  We all are.  We care deeply.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 04, 2014, 04:35:29 AM
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
But I am concerned for you scepti.  We all are.  We care deeply.
Well no need to. I'm on the right medication. Unindoctrinated thinkerol, it's good stuff. Try some.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 04, 2014, 05:15:56 AM
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.

I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?

You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?

It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?

That stupid? If your goal is to prove re wrong by showing the inconsistencies in it then you need to disprove the parts of it that constitute the model. This means your examples and visualizations need to be faithful to the scale that re claims but you haven't done that. You've attempted to point out flaws by misrepresenting the scale, which is either because you don't understand or because you're deliberately attempting a slight of hand.

Transversely, we'd like some "official" fe models to contend with ourselves. Some numbers that could be tested. There are some but they are sparse and where they don't exist there remains a stench of enlightened agnosticism. So because there is no confidence in a fe model our contentions with the slim pickings are easy to derive at. We can just say that if the earth was flat, then it would look different. We can just use the power of trigonometry to show that the numbers don't add up or the very basic principle that if the earth is flat then the sun cannot set.

It's too bad you are going though cikljamas, I enjoy arguing against flat earthers and with even more enthusiasm as long as their is some technical proficiency in the discussion.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2014, 06:29:03 AM
will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 04, 2014, 07:19:05 AM
@ Sceptimatic, you are such a nice guy, thank you very much for your kindness! You are one of a kind! As long as there are guys like you, there is some hope for this world! God bless you!!!

@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.

If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:

1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)

Why don't you believe your eyes? DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft on a balloon : (http://)

Flat Earther
2 months ago
 
Flat, flat, flat, no curvature, flat, flat and flat again.
NASA is lying. Open ur eyes.
Spherical earth is a lie to destroy religion.


will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.

You don't say!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 04, 2014, 07:36:22 AM
After all the arguments presented it is clearer than ever that the earth is round, tilted rotating and orbiting the sun.

By the way london can get a long day because of earths tilt. That is 69% of the day and if you look at your tilted globe then you'll notice that in London's summer, roughly 69% of the time of one rotation is spent in light.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 04, 2014, 09:03:30 AM
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?

Quote
If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.

If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:

1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Where has assertion 1 been proven?

Since assertion 2 depends on assertion 1, if assertion 1 is false then assertion 2 is meaningless.

If the Earth is at rest then <something>.

If the Earth is not at rest, then the condition isn't met and whatever <something> says is moot.

Quote
Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

That's a lot of ifs. If the first if were satisfied, then you'd have a point. Since it's not, you don't.

Quote
<more irrelevant stuff>
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2014, 09:48:19 AM
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!
Did you miss the part where Foucault's pendulum (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html) proved earth's rotation and Stellar Aberration (http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm) proved earth's orbit around the sun?

will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.

You don't say!
I do and I did.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 04, 2014, 09:54:58 AM
Quote
Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

That's a lot of ifs. If the first if were satisfied, then you'd have a point. Since it's not, you don't.

That says it all! I would just add this: You have our blood on your hands : #t=3m38s (http://#t=3m38s)

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Herbert Spencer 

Our massive Equatorial bulge is a myth proclaimed by our geological gas bags because if true our equator should be constantly shifting due to the movement of huge masses on the surface which change latitude. Gigantic icebergs, dust storms, and the shipping of ores from one place to another changing the line of heaviest mass which should always form the equator. This is the same problem that Newton faced.
Rene

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one.
A. Hitler
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 04, 2014, 10:40:58 AM
Quote
Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

That's a lot of ifs. If the first if were satisfied, then you'd have a point. Since it's not, you don't.

That says it all!

I think it does, too. Glad you agree.

Quote
I would just add this: You have our blood on your hands :

What's that supposed to mean? You think I'm a liar and a murderer?

Quote
<youtube link>

As always, I'm not going to open any youtube link unless you explain what it's about and convince me it's worth watching; they frequently aren't.

Quote
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Herbert Spencer 

You seem to be practicing that pretty effectively. Your models fail so quickly upon the slightest serious examination that it just looks like they fail prior to investigation. How do those sunsets and southern circumpolar stars work in your flat earth model?

Quote
Our massive Equatorial bulge is a myth proclaimed by our geological gas bags because if true our equator should be constantly shifting due to the movement of huge masses on the surface which change latitude. Gigantic icebergs, dust storms, and the shipping of ores from one place to another changing the line of heaviest mass which should always form the equator. This is the same problem that Newton faced.
Rene

What?

Quote
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one.
A. Hitler

Are you really suggesting that if Hitler said this, it must be true? Don't you see the irony here?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 04, 2014, 02:09:40 PM
@ Sceptimatic, you are such a nice guy, thank you very much for your kindness! You are one of a kind! As long as there are guys like you, there is some hope for this world! God bless you!!!

@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.

If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:

1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)

Why don't you believe your eyes? DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft on a balloon : (http://)

Flat Earther
2 months ago
 
Flat, flat, flat, no curvature, flat, flat and flat again.
NASA is lying. Open ur eyes.
Spherical earth is a lie to destroy religion.


will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.

You don't say!
Forget NASA, look at all the verified evidence.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Skepsis on December 04, 2014, 04:45:34 PM

Hi,
I'm a newcomer to this site so excuse me if I seem to be pushy or asking questions that have already been answered. I just do not understand the theory. Scientific disagreements aside.
For me logical thinking can solve this problem in a matter of minutes. Maybe I'm missing something but why would these higher powers, government or other, spend all this time planning an elaborate hoax to convince the people that the Earth is flat?
This makes no sense to me. I'm sure you would agree that a lot of people would have to be involved in this... But for what? What's the upside? You might answer money and power but those things can be acquired in much simpler ways. Another question I wanted to ask is, is this society of the belief that the government has caused events such as 911 and other disasters?  Also does anybody running this have an actual degree in advanced mathematics or physics from any respectable college or university? Thanks so much for your time I appreciate you answering my questions however stupid they may seem to you.
Regards
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 04, 2014, 06:29:47 PM

Hi,
I'm a newcomer to this site so excuse me if I seem to be pushy or asking questions that have already been answered. I just do not understand the theory. Scientific disagreements aside.
For me logical thinking can solve this problem in a matter of minutes. Maybe I'm missing something but why would these higher powers, government or other, spend all this time planning an elaborate hoax to convince the people that the Earth is flat?
This makes no sense to me. I'm sure you would agree that a lot of people would have to be involved in this... But for what? What's the upside? You might answer money and power but those things can be acquired in much simpler ways. Another question I wanted to ask is, is this society of the belief that the government has caused events such as 911 and other disasters?  Also does anybody running this have an actual degree in advanced mathematics or physics from any respectable college or university? Thanks so much for your time I appreciate you answering my questions however stupid they may seem to you.
Regards

Welcome, Skepsis.

In your post(s), did you mean to ask if there's an elaborate hoax by "higher powers" to convince the people that the Earth is spherical (you said flat)? The only hoax I know that's trying to convince people that the Earth is flat is here and her estranged sister site, tfes.org, and neither would qualify as a "higher power" IMO. There are doubtless some others, too.

Also, and I'm not a moderator or admin or anything, but it's generally considered impolite to copypasta the same post in multiple forums.  If you're not sure where to post something, lurk for a while and see where things seem to fall. The "Flat Earth General" forum specifically says "Conspiracy topics belong here", so, realistically, there is where your post should go - especially since you bring up 9/11 (PLEASE DON'T) [oops... I just said 9/11 myself] [oh, no...  I said 9/11 again!] [aaaghhh... a third time!!!] Since this thread in Flat Earth Debate has "GLOBAL CONSPIRACY" as its title, I can see why you landed here, though.  This is symptomatic of the organization here, but, still...

At any rate, I'll leave your questions to those who support the notion that the Earth is flat. Maybe they can address it.

You can learn and sometimes see good challenges to conventional thinking. Enjoy your time here!


[Edit] Correct thread title
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 05, 2014, 12:40:40 AM
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?


Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 05, 2014, 12:46:33 AM
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?


Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
The fact of sunrise and sunset times at every location prove the earth is round. Nobody is shouting.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 05, 2014, 01:18:25 AM
A LIAR IS A THIEF, A THIEF IS A MURDERER

“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either."  Thomas Paine, "Age  of Reason".

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”

The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...

Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!


Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.

20th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theocentric (God-centered). Before the "earth-movers" arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html)

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.


Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.

Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336)

1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!
Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)

CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

Bible vs science:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695)

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics." Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315)

HC theory is much more dangerous than an atomic bomb:

 "The clash of the scientist who wanted to make the bomb and then wanted to stop versus the politician who couldn't wait to use it is really quite a dramatic event in itself," Lanouette said.

In June 1945, Szilard helped to author the Franck Report, warning that even if the atomic bomb helped to save lives during the present war, it could ultimately lead to a nuclear arms race and perhaps even a nuclear war with far more devastating results.

After the war, Szilard continued his efforts to stem the rising tide of nuclear weapons. He often spoke in public, and authored a number of satires, including one in 1947 titled "My Trial As a War Criminal."

That short story describes how, after the Russians won World War III, they rounded up all of the people who worked on the atomic bomb, including Szilard, and put them on trial as war criminals.

"It was his way of pointing out that scientists do have responsibilities for their effects," Lanouette said.

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
 John 8:44 ESV

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. John 10:10 ESV
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 05, 2014, 01:32:32 AM
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?


Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
The fact of sunrise and sunset times at every location prove the earth is round. Nobody is shouting.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!!  What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 05, 2014, 04:26:52 AM
How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!!  What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!

And yet, as if by some magical inference, the flat earthers know absolutely [sic] that the sun and the moon are each 32 miles in diameter, and orbiting at an altitude of 3,000 miles above a flat earth.  Despite their having not one single ilota of empirical evidence to support this claim.

So... Saros.  Can you cite your scientific evidence that proves the sun's and the moon's properties, or are you just making a wild guess?  Which scientists agree with your opinions about the claimed flat earth?  !,000 maybe?  One?  None?  Why is there no mention at all of a flat earth in any of the standard encyclopedic reference sources?  Why can you not produce a map or a model of your flat earth?

Would you dare to claim that this image is bogus, and if so, what specifically leads you to that conclusion:


(http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/Jupiter.jpg)


A true-color image of Jupiter taken by the Cassini spacecraft.
The Galilean moon Europa casts a shadow on the planet's cloud tops.


And logically, if Jupiter is spherical—as are all the other planets in our solar system—what reasons would you propose for earth being, purportedly, the only flat planet?  Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest it too is spherical?


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 05, 2014, 06:48:35 AM
How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!!  What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!

And yet, as if by some magical inference, the flat earthers know absolutely [sic] that the sun and the moon are each 32 miles in diameter, and orbiting at an altitude of 3,000 miles above a flat earth.  Despite their having not one single ilota of empirical evidence to support this claim.

So... Saros.  Can you cite your scientific evidence that proves the sun's and the moon's properties, or are you just making a wild guess?  Which scientists agree with your opinions about the claimed flat earth?  !,000 maybe?  One?  None?  Why is there no mention at all of a flat earth in any of the standard encyclopedic reference sources?  Why can you not produce a map or a model of your flat earth?

Would you dare to claim that this image is bogus, and if so, what specifically leads you to that conclusion:


(http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/Jupiter.jpg)


A true-color image of Jupiter taken by the Cassini spacecraft.
The Galilean moon Europa casts a shadow on the planet's cloud tops.


And logically, if Jupiter is spherical—as are all the other planets in our solar system—what reasons would you propose for earth being, purportedly, the only flat planet?  Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest it too is spherical?

Look, I never said that I agree with the calculations provided by traditional flat Earthers and with the flat Earth wiki 100%. I don't think anyone who believes the Earth is not round should have an alternative detailed and complex belief system. Instead they should simply question and remain open-minded. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that trying to measure the size of the stars, the Sun and the Moon and the distance to them is as retarded as trying to measure the size of a rainbow! By the way, in that photo you can't tell Jupiter is round, you can't tell it is solid either. You just see some light with a certain pattern through a telescope. How is it a round sphere in space, especially when you see just a circle? How exactly did you figure that out? Did you actually go there? Stop believing in fairy tales and for once try to be skeptical to official dogma.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 05, 2014, 07:37:37 AM
Look, I never said that I agree with the calculations provided by traditional flat Earthers and with the flat Earth wiki 100%.
So you're admitting that—in your opinion as a flat earther—that there are errors of fact in the Flat Earth Wiki?  How then can the FES claim that the Wiki is their "bible" if it contains errors?  And why do they invariably refer to it as a source of credible information if it's other than that?  How does one separate the errors from the facts?  Do all/any other flat earthers accept that it contains errors?

Quote
I don't think anyone who believes the Earth is not round should have an alternative detailed and complex belief system. Instead they should simply question and remain open-minded.
If one doesn't accept the scientific status quo—about anything—then to have any credibility themselves, they must produce an alternative, working hypothesis.  They just can't say "oh, the earth is not spherical", and leave it at that.  One cannot question another's claims unless they have evidence supporting their own counter-claims.  Simple logic.

Quote
By the way, in that photo you can't tell Jupiter is round, you can't tell it is solid either. You just see some light with a certain pattern through a telescope. How is it a round sphere in space, especially when you see just a circle?
Uh... you do realise that the image is just a still capture from a video don't you?  We don't see precisely that same view of Jupiter all the time.

Quote
Did you actually go there? Stop believing in fairy tales and for once try to be skeptical to official dogma.
Of course I didn't "go there".   Duh.   Have you been to Jupiter for evidence that it's—according to you—possibly a flat disc?  I thought not.  Goose, meet gander.

And there is no such thing in the science world as "official dogma".  There's science and there's scientific theories.  And dogma is usually and implicitly understood to be an official system of principles or tenets concerning morals, faith, or ethics—as of a religion or church.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2014, 07:47:08 AM
Look, I never said that I agree with the calculations provided by traditional flat Earthers and with the flat Earth wiki 100%. I don't think anyone who believes the Earth is not round should have an alternative detailed and complex belief system.

So why do you have different standards for the different sides.

Quote
Instead they should simply question and remain open-minded.

Sounds like good advice for everyone.

Quote
Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that trying to measure the size of the stars, the Sun and the Moon and the distance to them is as retarded as trying to measure the size of a rainbow!

Someone here has in their signature a nice quote:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."

Quote
By the way, in that photo you can't tell Jupiter is round, you can't tell it is solid either. You just see some light with a certain pattern through a telescope. How is it a round sphere in space, especially when you see just a circle? How exactly did you figure that out? Did you actually go there? Stop believing in fairy tales and for once try to be skeptical to official dogma.

What do you think this gif shows?

(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spinning-jupiter.gif)

Also, there are spacecraft that have orbited Jupiter, clearly observing it's rotundity.  As to it's composition, I am not sure if we have sent probes down there, but there is a thing called spectroscopy which you might want to look in to.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 05, 2014, 08:15:39 AM
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept? You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!!  What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!

Good point Saros! Although, this kind of argument still stands :


1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact![/b] Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141)

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)

CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

Now, somebody could ask "how about the Antarctica and South Celestial Pole"?

WILL I SEE THE SOUTHERN LIGHTS AND THE SOUTHERN CROSS IN ANTARCTICA?
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season. The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season.
Read more: http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions (http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions)

Above sentence could be interpreted in two ways:

1. There isn't any darkness at all (as it should be if the Earth were round)
2. There is certain amount of darkness, but it is not dark enough

Let's see one another report about the same issue:

December starts the high Antarctica tourist season, with its warming temperatures and longer daylight that stretches to twenty hours a day, especially appreciated by photographers who can keep shooting until past midnight. Read more : http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm (http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm)

So, what happens after midnight passes?

We have to go back (again) to the age when there was much more honesty in this world, so to be able to find the right answer to the above question:

"In latitude 74° S., longitude 171° E., on January 22nd, 1841, it was the most beautiful night we had seen in these latitudes. The sky was perfectly clear and serene. At midnight (12 o'clock) when the sun was skimming along the southern horizon, at an altitude of about 2°, the sky over head was remarked to be of a most intense indigo blue, becoming paler in proportion to the distance from the zenith."

Captain James Weddle was in latitude 74° 15´ 0″ S., on February 20th, 1822, and he expressly states that "the sun was beneath the horizon for more than six hours."


We have seen that such was the case, for Captain Ross saw, more than once, what only a few days afterwards was not seen by Lieutenant Wilkes, and which is not mentioned by other antarctic navigators as a constant phenomenon. Clearly, then, there was unusual refraction ("great refraction," as Captain Ross admits, which caused a difference in the horizontal and vertical diameters of the sun of more than five minutes of a degree), which lifted the sun many degrees above its true position, giving an apparent altitude which rendered it visible across the northern centre to the observers on the opposite side of the great southern belt or circumference. This is what must of necessity have been the case if the earth is a plane; and until this can be experimentally disproved, it is equally a matter of necessity to conclude that Captain Ross made use of the words "southern horizon" simply because in his astronomically educated judgment it could not be otherwise. Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right. This was really the case. Had the sun been really on the "southern horizon," Captain Ross would have had to turn his face in the opposite direction to that in which he saw the sun at mid-day, and hence the sun's motion would have been from right to left. This simple procedure would have decided the matter.

Did you notice something?

"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 05, 2014, 08:39:58 AM
@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

Your arguments aren't convincing. Your insisting that the Earth is flat and fixed in space doesn't make it true, even if you SHOUT about it. Does the personal insult really make your argument any stronger?


Actually, exactly the same is valid for your arguments. Regardless of how many times you repeat the Earth is round and pile your unsubstantiated arguments it doesn't mean you're right. What you're doing is merely based on your beliefs, not on facts or personal, first-hand evidence. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe the Earth is 100% a round sphere unless they are deeply indoctrinated in a complex system of RE beliefs. Anyone reasonable would at least show a bit of doubt since they haven't seen it with their own eyes, haven't been to space, haven't done anything to independently verify it is round. You simply prefer to side with the majority of people which doesn't make you right at all. There is absolutely no reason for all of you to shout it is round unless you're some sort of fanatics or shills.
The fact of sunrise and sunset times at every location prove the earth is round. Nobody is shouting.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. How many times should I repeat myself that the presence of visible lights anywhere on the celestial sphere and their motion has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth? Is it so difficult for all of you to understand such a simple concept?

Au contraire. The observed behavior of solar-system and more remote objects is easily explained using a spinning, spheroidal earth orbiting around a large distant sun. There may be other models that also explain this, but I sure haven't seen one that works yet. If you have a flat-earth model that accurately explains the motion of celestial objects, let's hear the details. If you don't, then what are you yammering about? You can start by explaining, in detail, how a sunset works. After that, a flat-earth explanation of the phases of the Moon and its rise and set times through the month would be interesting.

How often you repeat that incorrect statement is up to you, but saying it over and over doesn't make it any more right than shouting about it.

Quote
You cannot determine what you are by looking somewhere else!!!!! 

If you believe that, you obviously haven't done any orienteering or celestial navigation. 

Quote
What you see as a Sun/Moon or whatever doesn't give you any information about the Earth at all. It is just visible light!

The apparent behavior of the bodies emitting that light, when viewed from earth, provide a lot of information about the shape of the Earth. Saying otherwise doesn't change this.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 05, 2014, 08:42:08 AM
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season.
Demonstrably wrong.  Yet again.

The Aurora Australis are regularly visible from Tasmania as per:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DCEZQnM43W8/T0o9WB_oEdI/AAAAAAAACAE/4mPsj2SJQr4/w631-h435-no/aurora4.jpg)



(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Fo54-NV07ak/T0o9WA-CK3I/AAAAAAAACAI/hQS0x1cIT5Y/w735-h490-no/aurora2.jpg)



(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cV4lFiAmxhY/T0o9WJ1DwmI/AAAAAAAACAU/ipRAzKesC44/w1030-h721-no/aurora3.jpg)

(http://www.lukeobrien.com.au/images/aurora-australis-tasmania-17march2013-3872lr.jpg)


Quote
The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season.
Wrong again!  I can see Crux all year round.  You really need to check your facts.

Quote
"In latitude 74° S., longitude 171° E., on January 22nd, 1841, it was the most beautiful night we had seen in these latitudes. [...]
LOL... more 150-year-old flat earth "science".    ;D


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 05, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway. The Earth is not at rest. Even if you use a bold red font and ALL CAPS.

Quote
Now, somebody could ask "how about the Antarctica and South Celestial Pole"?

WILL I SEE THE SOUTHERN LIGHTS AND THE SOUTHERN CROSS IN ANTARCTICA?
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season. The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season.
Read more: http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions (http://iaato.org/hr/frequently-asked-questions)

Above sentence could be interpreted in two ways:

1. There isn't any darkness at all (as it should be if the Earth were round)
2. There is certain amount of darkness, but it is not dark enough

You seem to have missed the part about those answers applying to the tourist season (bolding and underscore added above for your convenience). The tourist season is the warmer part of summer, when daylight lasts all or almost all day as described below (bolding and underscore added below for your convenience).

The line about the Aurora being visible only in Antarctica is clearly incorrect in general, but might be approximately true in the context of Antarctic tourism. Geoff already posted about the Southern Lights from Tasmania (just off the southern coast of Australia). They can also be seen from southern New Zealand, and southern South America.

Quote
Let's see one another report about the same issue:

December starts the high Antarctica tourist season, with its warming temperatures and longer daylight that stretches to twenty hours a day, especially appreciated by photographers who can keep shooting until past midnight. Read more : http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm (http://www.southernexplorations.com/antarctica-tours-cruises/antarctica-Travel-Seasons.htm)

So, what happens after midnight passes?

The Sun gets higher in the sky.

Quote
We have to go back (again) to the age when there was much more honesty in this world, so to be able to find the right answer to the above question:

"In latitude 74° S., longitude 171° E., on January 22nd, 1841, it was the most beautiful night we had seen in these latitudes. The sky was perfectly clear and serene. At midnight (12 o'clock) when the sun was skimming along the southern horizon, at an altitude of about 2°, the sky over head was remarked to be of a most intense indigo blue, becoming paler in proportion to the distance from the zenith."

Captain James Weddle was in latitude 74° 15´ 0″ S., on February 20th, 1822, and he expressly states that "the sun was beneath the horizon for more than six hours."


Stellarium agrees pretty closely with these descriptions. What's your point?

Feb 20th is almost a full month later in the year than Jan 22; the Sun is no longer circumpolar from 74° S at the later date but is circumpolar at the earlier.

Quote
We have seen that such was the case, for Captain Ross saw, more than once, what only a few days afterwards was not seen by Lieutenant Wilkes, and which is not mentioned by other antarctic navigators as a constant phenomenon. Clearly, then, there was unusual refraction ("great refraction," as Captain Ross admits, which caused a difference in the horizontal and vertical diameters of the sun of more than five minutes of a degree), which lifted the sun many degrees above its true position, giving an apparent altitude which rendered it visible across the northern centre to the observers on the opposite side of the great southern belt or circumference. This is what must of necessity have been the case if the earth is a plane; and until this can be experimentally disproved, it is equally a matter of necessity to conclude that Captain Ross made use of the words "southern horizon" simply because in his astronomically educated judgment it could not be otherwise.

More likely, he said "southern horizon" because that's exactly where the Sun was. If the sun was actually "lifted" by several degrees, then that is greater than normal refraction. The sun looking "squashed" by 5' of arc may be typical - find some pictures of a setting sun and see if the vertical dimension appears reduced by about 1/6.

Quote

Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
Quote

This was really the case. Had the sun been really on the "southern horizon," Captain Ross would have had to turn his face in the opposite direction to that in which he saw the sun at mid-day, and hence the sun's motion would have been from right to left. This simple procedure would have decided the matter.


Did you notice something?

I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things.

Quote
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???

Maybe because no one has posted one? It might help your search if you spelled 'midnight' correctly, though. The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.

[Edit] typo.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 05, 2014, 11:13:51 AM
CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
[/i]
Quote
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

Quote
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???

Maybe because no one has posted one?

No one in the whole world? How about you? Had you forgotten your camera (like Yuri Gagarin)?

The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.

You haven't watched carefully!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 05, 2014, 12:20:12 PM
So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???

Maybe because no one has posted one?

No one in the whole world? How about you? Had you forgotten your camera (like Yuri Gagarin)?
(http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 05, 2014, 12:51:27 PM
The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.
You haven't watched carefully!
There's no reason the sun, while moving from left to right near the horizon when viewed from within the arctic circle for the duration of a full day during the northern summer, with the observer continually tracking it while turning (so that the horizon is seen to move right to left) to visually stop and move the other direction. 

It would travel left to right (horizon right to left as sun is tracked) the entire 24 hours.   

I already posted a video of it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 05, 2014, 01:49:03 PM
CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

So explain. Why does a stationary earth have to be flat? It's still moot, of course, but I'd like to see what your "reasoning" was.

Quote
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
[/i]
Quote
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?

Quote
Quote
"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???

Maybe because no one has posted one?

No one in the whole world? How about you? Had you forgotten your camera (like Yuri Gagarin)?

Believe it or not, young grasshopper, video camcorders haven't been around forever. Video cameras and VTRs were bulky, heavy, expensive, and not very robust. I did have two 35-mm still cameras with me.

Anyway, "29" found one for you.

Quote
The Antarctic summer sun circles the sky from right to left (as you face it) all day. I've seen it. No zig-zag needed, none observed.

You haven't watched carefully!

How carefully is necessary? If you're thinking sub-arcseconds of parallax, then, no. How would you propose measuring that?

I presume you're satisfied with the rest of the answers in that previous post.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 05, 2014, 04:24:48 PM
.....



"Of course I didn't "go there".   Duh.   Have you been to Jupiter for evidence that it's—according to you—possibly a flat disc?  I thought not.  Goose, meet gander."

Jupiter is not a disc, it is not a sphere either. It is actually nothing but some cyclical celestial phenomenon. Of course you can see it spinning like a sphere, so what?It doesn't mean it is a sphere and it is solid. What you see is not what it seems. You're making a huge leap of faith by believing your eyes.
About the wiki, I have no idea what flat earthers consider their bible. I don't need to be familiar with the FES principles and doctrine to understand that the Earth is not a sphere. You're the one following a cult, don't assume everyone has to strongly believe in something like you. I'm simply skeptical. If I find any convincing evidence that the planets and all the rest is real I might change my mind, but so far all the evidence is bullshit and it is just an interpretation of what we see through the prism of heliocentrism/spherical Earth. It is utterly absurd to look at stuff in the sky and pretend you know it is solid and make conclusions about the Earth. It doesn't matter if you can use the stars for orientation. If the sky is like a ceiling you would also be able to use its patterns for orientation. But the stars and the planets simply cannot be solid spheres in nothingness. You believe in a fantasy.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 05, 2014, 04:32:24 PM
Saroa, for someone who "simply skeptical" you sure seem pretty sure of yourself.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 06, 2014, 07:07:19 AM
The Aurora Australis, or Southern Lights, are only visible in Antarctica, primarily at the South Pole, from March to September; they are not often seen in areas visited by cruise ships since insufficient darkness occurs during the tourist season.
Demonstrably wrong.  Yet again.

The Aurora Australis are regularly visible from Tasmania.

[snip]

Quote
The Southern Cross is easily visible from the southern hemisphere at practically any time of the year but, as with the Southern Lights, there needs to be enough darkness to see the constellation which isn't the case during the height of the tourist season.
Wrong again!  I can see Crux all year round.  You really need to check your facts.


I note that cikljamas totally avoided addressing my Tasmanian Aurora Australis images, and admitting that he was wrong about only seeing it from Antarctica, plus the continual visibility of Crux.

Like a lot of flat earthers, when their erroneous notions are put to the test, and proven to be wrong, they just go quiet and hope their comments disappear quickly without any further comment.  Sad really.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 06, 2014, 07:19:50 AM
CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.

My "reasoning" (within a quotes) ? Well, let's see whose "reasoning" should be put within a quotes:

Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.

Now, answer me, if this curve of a meridional line that separates day and night isn't and cannot be placed more than 1 hour (AT BEST) from the meridional line which separates globe into two halves (180 degrees), how then we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 N (London)?

If the Earth were round, at the best case scenario, London could have 14 hours of daylight, although this is too generous proposition, but not 16,5 hours of daylight!!!

So if the Sun hung around one half of the globe 14 hours, how much time would left for the Sun to travell around other half (180 degree) of a globe?

Just 10 hours?

Well, that's just not enough time, don't you think so?

Watch this:

(http://i.imgur.com/uWpfJ8b.jpg)

Blue line separates globe into two halves

Green line follows the curve that separates day and night

In the first example (above) a source of light hasn't been directed correctly (directly) towards the tropic of capricorn, so that we had to corrected this in the second example (below)...

Quote
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
[/i]
Quote
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?


Well, doesn't an english your native tongue, how come that you ask of me to interpret Rowbotham's words to you? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax, and your explanation is wrong!

@ ausGeoff, should i laugh, or should i cry?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 06, 2014, 07:40:54 AM
@ ausGeoff, should I laugh, or should i cry?

Whatever... again you avoid admitting to your two undeniable errors of fact.

You're as weak as piss mate.

And to answer your question about laughing or crying?  Neither.  Just get yourself to a library and read up on some commonly understood astrophysical facts before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

    ::)    ::)    ::)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 07:46:14 AM
Didn't I already answer this to satisfaction when I explained that a sun 93000000 miles away and 865000 miles in diameter would have nearly parallel rays hitting the earth?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 07:55:36 AM
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 08:18:56 AM
Here it is again to jog your memory.

Quote
Observe the following image:

(http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/images/sunlight_parallel.jpg)

In this image a sun ray is depicted touching the tops and bottoms of each earth as each earth is represented to get further and further away from the sun. Notice what happens to those sun rays as earth gets further away. The angle (represented by an orange arc to the left of each earth) gets smaller and smaller.

So how small is this angle (in the above image we are talking about the difference in rays between 2 spots that are the entire earth diameter from each other) when the sun is 93 million miles from the earth?

Well let's take a look at this image to get some sense of the scale:

(http://sciencevspseudoscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/moon_sun_scale.png)

This image utilizes black space to give a sense of the scale but instead of using 100's of rows of black space, it just shows how much a moon unit is (distance from earth to moon) and then mentions that you 395 moon units to get to the sun.

With the information we have, let's determine what the difference in angle is between two sun rays (depicted by orange lines) that are an earths diameter apart:

(http://i62.tinypic.com/vn0c9c.png)

Let 2Θ be the angle difference between two rays an earths diameter apart. 2Θ will need to be divided by 2 because we need a right angle to do the trig so we have cut earth in half to get a right angle.

Earths radius = diameter of earth / 2 = 3959 miles
Earth to sun distance = 93,000,000 miles

Use this calculator: http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp (http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp)

Θ = angle showing difference in rays between top of earth and center of earth = 0.002439°
2Θ = angle showing difference in rays between of earth and bottom = 0.004878°

So between the top of earth and the bottom of earth there is a .004878° difference in the angle of sun rays. That's about 1/200 of a degree and that's utilizing the whole expanse of the earth!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 06, 2014, 08:33:24 AM
CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.

My "reasoning" (within a quotes) ? Well, let's see whose "reasoning" should be put within a quotes:

Yeah, that was an unnecessary "dig". Apologies. I see you did get the meaning, though.

Quote
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.

Now, answer me, if this curve of a meridional line that separates day and night isn't and cannot be placed more than 1 hour (AT BEST) from the meridional line which separates globe into two halves (180 degrees), how then we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 N (London)?

If the Earth were round, at the best case scenario, London could have 14 hours of daylight, although this is too generous proposition, but not 16,5 hours of daylight!!!

So if the Sun hung around one half of the globe 14 hours, how much time would left for the Sun to travell around other half (180 degree) of a globe?

Just 10 hours?

Well, that's just not enough time, don't you think so?

Watch this:

(http://i.imgur.com/uWpfJ8b.jpg)

Blue line separates globe into two halves

Green line follows the curve that separates day and night

In the first example (above) a source of light hasn't been directed correctly (directly) towards the tropic of capricorn, so that we had to corrected this in the second example (below)...

Thank you for the clear explanation and figures.

The error you make is that the light source is way too close to make this a valid model. It looks to be about 2 globe diameters from the center of the globe instead of the more realistic 11,000. Because of this, significantly less than half the globe is illuminated. rottingroom's illustration shows why.

Quote

Quote
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
Quote
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?

Well, doesn't an english your native tongue, how come that you ask of me to interpret Rowbotham's words to you? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Because Rowbotham obfuscates what he's saying to fool uneducated people - that is, he makes it as difficult to understand as he can get away with.The highlighted part of the quoted passage, especially the underlined part, is unclear. You're the one presenting the argument here, so what is it that you think he means?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 06, 2014, 10:20:33 AM
Do you want to claim that Sun's rays can illuminate more than a half of the Earth at once, whether the Earth is tilted or not?

Regarding parallel rays of the Sun, if i were you, i wouldn't call on that stupid argument : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639427#msg1639427 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639427#msg1639427)

"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???

Rowbotham actually describes ANTARCTIC ZIGZAG SCENARIO! Describing this scenario Rowbotham corroborates the trueness of my ZIGZAG argument, that is to say, on the round Earth we should witness to this scenario at the Arctic as well as at the Antarctic, only at the Antarctic the Sun's path would be directed in the opposite direction!

On the Flat Earth ZIGZAG scenario would be impossible at the Arctic, but it would be necessary scenario at the Antarctic!

A reminder (ZIGZAG scenario) : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)

Flat Earth and the suns perspective, an artist perspective : (http://)

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 10:29:57 AM
Parallel rays explain why half the earth is lit up. We are not claiming that more than half of it is lit up and if the earth wasn't tilted then a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth except for precisely the north and south pole but because it is tilted a location like London spends more time on the day time side than its night time side during the summer because the arc that it travels during this time of year is a longer length on that day time side than the night time side.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 06, 2014, 10:41:48 AM
 cikljamas said:
Quote
       CONCLUSION:

        IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

Alpha2Omega said :
Quote
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.

Parallel rays explain why half the earth is lit up. We are not claiming that more than half of it is lit up and if the earth wasn't tilted then a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth except for precisely the north and south pole but because it is tilted a location like London spends more time on the day time side than its night time side during the summer because the arc that it travels during this time of year is a longer length on that day time side than the night time side.

So, Alpha2Omega, do you see now, how it follows?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 06, 2014, 01:00:33 PM
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 01:34:32 PM
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?

Turtles all the way down.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 06, 2014, 02:22:38 PM
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.

Was it done by science though? Have they really used all parts of the model in real proportions to test it? I don't think so. What Cikljamas is saying is valid and meaningful and obviously you're helpless to deny it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 06, 2014, 02:30:49 PM
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?

Turtles all the way down.

I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this i would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed?

Now, let's see this wonderful example of human stupidity/ignorance:

Quote
No  scientific  evidence  can  show  that something is logically impossible, since logical impossibility is concerned only with self-contradictory  statements  (like  «he's  a married  bachelor») rather than with nature (like «DNA is usually a double helix»). For example, geocentrism isn't logically impossible—it's just wrong. No scientific theory has ever had to, or ever could, rule out rival explanations by showing them to be  logically  impossible, and neither must  intelligent design. Scientific theories succeed simply by explaining the data better than rival theories.

My answer to the above stupidity is as follows:

1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.

2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.

3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!

4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!

5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!

6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!

7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.

8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!

9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!

It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.

Was it done by science though? Have they really used all parts of the model in real proportions to test it? I don't think so. What Cikljamas is saying is valid and meaningful and obviously you're helpless to deny it.

There are tons of interactive models available that you can use to see for yourself. Cikljamas didn't make a good point at all. He had the sun coming from a tiny little light shining on an earth 100's of time larger than the light and then put the source of that light many 1000's of times closer to the earth than the model states.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 06, 2014, 02:57:58 PM
I don't know what to say to you cikljamas. You insist that no proof exists for rotation or revolution and all the experiments seem to show the exact opposite of your interpretation. It doesn't matter how much you cover your eyes and ears.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 06, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?

Turtles all the way down.

I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this i would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed?
I don't agree the Pole Star is fixed. It traces a small circle about 1.5° in diameter in the sky every 24 hours. It's close to our axis of rotation, but not exactly on it. Even if it happened to be exactly on it, that would be only a coincidence, and would slowly (on human terms) drift away due to precession. It's useful as a guide toward true north, but not good enough to align a telescope mount to for even moderately sensitive uses like amateur deep-space astrophotography.
Quote
Now, let's see this wonderful example of human stupidity/ignorance:

Quote
No  scientific  evidence  can  show  that something is logically impossible, since logical impossibility is concerned only with self-contradictory  statements  (like  «he's  a married  bachelor») rather than with nature (like «DNA is usually a double helix»). For example, geocentrism isn't logically impossible—it's just wrong. No scientific theory has ever had to, or ever could, rule out rival explanations by showing them to be  logically  impossible, and neither must  intelligent design. Scientific theories succeed simply by explaining the data better than rival theories.
Science can't prove a model to be correct; we've been over this before. Science can, however, demonstrate flaws with models which show them to be unsound by showing how they cannot represent known conditions. For instance: a relatively small sun orbiting in a circle around the center of a disc-shaped earth a few thousand miles above the disc. This is not a viable model for the solar system. Why? Because it doesn't even roughly represent what we actually see day in and day out. This model will not have sunrises or sunsets which we do see, and would cause a change of the apparent size and appearance of the Sun through the day that we don't see. It fails to explain simple, routine observations at even the grossest scale

A spherical earth spinning once per day in a slightly elliptical orbit around a large, distant sun once per year explains most of what we routinely observe to high accuracy. Most of the rest of the finer details are addressed by the presence of an atmosphere (we know it's there), slight variation from a true sphere (very small errors), etc.

If you've actually got a workable model, please show us.

Quote
My answer to the above stupidity is as follows:

1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.

2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.

3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!

Remember what we already discussed about proving things? So where's your model? I challenge you to prove it's true, or even have it explain what we already see. Surprise us.

Quote
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
Nope. There is enough evidence for revolution and rotation to accept it as given. This premise is reliable enough that it is simply accepted as fact; it it weren't reliable, it would be heavily questioned, but reliance on this premise never fails. Failure to 'prove' the Earth is rotating (this isn't possible, anyway) certainly does not mean that it isn't rotating.
Quote
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
"Very serious scientific experiments" are designed to test theories and gather data. If the experiments produce results contrary to the theory, they cast doubt on it; too much of this and the theory will be replaced with one that better explains the observations. If they produce results in accordance to the theory, the theory is still not "proved", only supported.
Quote
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
This is a tautology. If there's no rotation, there's no axis of rotation. If there's no axis of rotation, there can be no tilted axis of rotation. Duh!
Quote
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
This does not necessarily follow. Since we're heavily invested in 'ifs', what if there's a non-rotating planet that has a sun circling in a plane that doesn't pass through the center of the planet? It's spherical, but has different lengths of day at different places. This also begs the question: if the planet isn't rotating, what is the meaning of 'latitude', anyway? Latitude (on our rotating earth) is the complement of angular distance from the axis of rotation. No axis, latitude has no meaning.
Quote
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
Restating the false assertion above doesn't make it true.
Quote
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
Nope. You've outlined a bunch of hypothetical situations, many of which are demonstrably false. The ones that depend on the falsified ones are also false. How many times does the word 'if' appear in your statements above?
Quote
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
It's a scientific fact that points on a rotating body are being accelerated, which causes a force to be exerted on their masses. What are the accelerations associated with 1) the rotation of the Earth about its axis, 2) the revolution of the Earth about the Sun, and 3) the revolution of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy? If you can calculate these (they can be calculated, but I'm not at all sure you know how to), then express the forces due to these accelerations exerted on, say, a cube of the common mineral quartz (density = 2.71 gm/cm3) 1 cm on a side at the surface of the Earth on the equator. What is the net force between adjacent 1-cm cubes due to these accelerations (this is what will try to tear them apart)? If you don't know what these numbers are, or what they mean, then why the Hell are you asserting that the Earth should "rent to smithereens"? You're simply throwing impressive-sounding numbers out without a clue what they mean and how they apply.
Quote
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 06, 2014, 07:50:50 PM
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?

Quote
and your explanation is wrong!
No, your explanation is wrong, and your diagram is wrong too. 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 07, 2014, 05:07:08 AM
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?

1. For that latitude, the Sun is too high in the sky!

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

2. On the other hand, had this video been shot so far away from South Pole, then we would have to be(en) able to see at least so much degrees of oscillations (Up & Down) of the Sun's path in the sky as we can see it in Arctic midnight Sun videos...

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

3. As long as the Sun is in the frame there are no Up & Down oscillations, whatsoever!

4. Had this video been taken so far away from South Pole why they have named it "South Pole Time Lapse"?

5. Don't you know that there is no "South Pole" whatsoever?

6. If you missed this video before, you can click it now, FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION VIDEO, you can find it in this post of mine : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)


" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.

You must have missed this:

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".

Estimates of the number of people present range from between 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra, both of whom were present on that day.

The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917, 19 August, and 13 September. The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."

Marchi reports that, "[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but none to our knowledge has directly denied the visible prodigy of the sun."

Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi's several books on the matter.

    "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."Avelino de Almeida, writing for O Século
    O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.

    "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat."Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.

    "...The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds... The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands... people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.

    "The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible."Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.

    "As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.

    "I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment." — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.

    "On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda..." — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.

According to De Marchi, "Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses."

(http://i.imgur.com/4OZjYJW.jpg)

The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima October 13, 1917 : (http://)
Fatima. Excellent clip : (http://)
   Medjugorje - Milagre do Sol | Medjugorje Brasil : (http://)
         Medjugorje - Miracle of the Sun - May 2010 : (http://)
Dancing Sun Miracle - Divine Mercy Hills, Philippines : (http://) MUST SEE!!!
      The Sun is not a Nuclear furnace raging at millions of degrees. It is Electric and Cold! : (http://)


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 07, 2014, 05:38:14 AM
It's really not a difficult question. How does the sun rise (top first) or set (bottom first) and behind the horizon in a flat earth model? Why do you keep avoiding this very basic question?

Just imagine you live in a world where everyone thinks the earth is flat and you are walking on a beach with your 5 year old son and he asks, "dad, why does the sun go down?" What do you say to him? Would you talk to him about anecdotes from witness' who reported seeing a zigging and zagging sun at Fatima in 1917 or would you just explain simply, how this works?

For instance, I would say, "because the earth is turning (remember, talking to a 5 year old) the sun looks like it goes up and down, but from where we can see the sun we are simply turning toward the sun in the morning and turning away from it at night."
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 07, 2014, 12:54:41 PM
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.

You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 07, 2014, 12:57:49 PM
So, have we got to the bottom of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY yet?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 07, 2014, 07:48:57 PM
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?

1. For that latitude, the Sun is too high in the sky!

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

2. On the other hand, had this video been shot so far away from South Pole, then we would have to be(en) able to see at least so much degrees of oscillations (Up & Down) of the Sun's path in the sky as we can see it in Arctic midnight Sun videos...

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

3. As long as the Sun is in the frame there are no Up & Down oscillations, whatsoever!

4. Had this video been taken so far away from South Pole why they have named it "South Pole Time Lapse"?

5. Don't you know that there is no "South Pole" whatsoever?

6. If you missed this video before, you can click it now, FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION VIDEO, you can find it in this post of mine : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)

1.  It's the south pole.  Shot during summer at that location, the sun would be above the horizon the entire day, just like north pole videos shot in the summer there.

2.  It was shot at AASTO, a few hundred meters from the geographic south pole.  The video/timelapse only shows a small section of it's path.

3.  Lens flare makes it too hard to tell one way or the other.

4.  Where do you think it was taken from?

5.  Why?  Because you said so?  Even something as simple as long-exposure photography says otherwise.

6.  A video pointing to your own post on energeticforums and a couple sites using explanations the producer of the video says are just too confusing.  Well done.  A lack of understanding about something doesn't constitute proof for others.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: hoppy on December 07, 2014, 08:11:57 PM
So, have we got to the bottom of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY yet?
Yes we are getting to the bottom of it. You will never believe it unless you research it yourself. Conspiracy is truly massive You probably won't believe , even if you check into it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 08, 2014, 06:25:22 AM

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling". [...]
   

For an unequivocal debunking of the The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima myth, see THIS (http://bit.ly/1zi9SqU) site.

"There are many factors that prevent us drawing the simple conclusion that a divinely-inspired miracle took place.  Firstly, there were many representatives of the press present at the Cova, both journalists and photographers. There are many photographs of the crowd witnessing the vision; but in spite of the presence of cameras there is no photograph of the event that is even vaguely authentic.

What were the photographers doing?  How could anyone miss a scoop like that?  Secondly, it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle.  Thirdly, the accounts of the miracle, of the 'dance of the sun,' are simply not consistent... these contradictions must raise some doubts as to the objective nature of what was seen." (Pg. 78-79, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure, Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985)."



(http://www.miraclesceptic.com/peopleatfatima.png)

One photographer didn’t see much when he was so interested in photographing the people!
This photograph plainly shows some people were looking at the sun during the "miracle".
Others were completely disinterested because nothing was happening.



 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 08, 2014, 09:07:25 AM
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.

(http://i.imgur.com/K94A09K.jpg)

If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article  on  “Perspective, true and false", and  note especially  rule  5 (see below) there  given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining  the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena  something like what  is there depicted. A represents the position of the  observer, C the sun’s position at  X I I . noon, and the line  C  F  the  “elevation” of about  one-fourth of its daily  path. At  1-30  p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle  A  B  an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At  III.  p.m. the sun arrives at E,  making the angle e  A  B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At  VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its  rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at  the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner. 

The Rules of a True perspective:

(1).  All  parallel  lines,  like  those  of  a  railway,  seem  to approach,  and  finally  to meet  in  the  distance.

(2).  Straight  lines above  the eye of  the  spectator  appear  to descend  to  the  eye-line.

(3).  The  horizontal,  or  eye-line,  is  a  straight  line on  a  level with  the  eye,  at  whatever  elevation  the  spectator may  be.

(4).  Lines,  or  objects,  below  the  eye-line,  remaining  at  the same  level,  seem  to  rise  as  they  recede,  until  they vanish  in  the  eye-line.

(5).  Similarly,  lines  or  objects  above  the  height  of  the spectator,  and  maintaining  a  constant  altitude, appear  to descend until  they  are  lost  in  the  eye-line.

(6).  Objects,  or  lines,  do  not  all  vanish  at  the  same  point in  the  horizontal  line,  but  the  nearer  they  are  to that  line  the  sooner  they  vanish in  it,  because of  the smaller  angle  they  make  with  it.

(7).  The  distant  horizon  being  always  on  a  level  with  the eye,  whatever  be  the  altitude  of  the  observer,  it seems  to  rise,  or  to  fall,  with  the  observer  ;  but  he never  has  occasion  to  depress  his  vision  to  look downwards  towards  it,  nor  upwards!

(http://i.imgur.com/LPVEpY2.jpg)

In the previous chapter, it was  shewn how, by perspective alone,  the  sun  appears  to  descend  almost  to  the  horizon, although  remaining  that  day  at  its  average  altitude  of between  two  and  three  thousand miles.  In  above diagram  we made  no  allowance  for  refraction,  which  would  have  still further  reduced  each  of  the  angles,  and  especially  the  lower ones.  Diagram  23  supphes  the  omission,  and  illustrates how  the  sun  descends  to  and  disappears  on  the  distant horizon. Light  is  a  very  subtle  force,  and  one  of  the  most  easily refracted  from  the  rectilinear  ;  but  like  all  other  forces,  it takes  the  line  of  least  resistance,  whether  in  a  curve  or  in  a line  practically  straight. Its  undulations  falling  from  above  on  to  the  atmosphere are  refracted,  or reflected,  more  and  more  according  to  the angle  at  which  they  strike,  and  the  density  of  the  media through which  they  pass.  We  need  not  here  enter  into the unsettled  question  of  the  density  of  the  luminiferous  ether, especially  as  optical  density  is  not  always  the  same  as physical  density.

A  straight  rod,  when  dipped  into  water,  appears  suddenly bent  to  an  outsider  above  that  element  ;  but  in  judging  the refraction  of  the  sun’s  rays  we  need  to  remember  that  we are inside  the refracting element  and one which has a varying density. Hence  those  rays  of  the  sun  which  strike  the  atmosphere very  obliquely,  as  from  F  to  g,  instead  of  proceeding  in  a straight  line  to  the  earth’s  surface  below  h,  take  the  line  of least  resistance  and  proceed  towards  the  spectator  at  A. Now  an  observer  always  sees  an  object  in  the  direction  of the  rays  entering  the  eye  ;  therefore  the  observer  at  A  will see  the  sun’s  image  in  the  direction  of  the  line  A  h f,  setting The  sun’s  rays  can  be  entirely  cut  off  from  a  spectator  at the  sea-level,  as  at  A,  while  its  reflected  light  can  still  be seen  by  observers  in  higher  altitudes,  from  a  high  balloon or  from  the  top  of  a mountain.  There  is  an  angle  of  total reflection  where  the  light,  being  reflected  upwards  off  the denser  atmosphere,  does  not  penetrate  to  the  surface  of  the earth,  as along the lines F k n. 

A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the  smooth  surface  of  a  lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish  far below,  and leap upwards again and again before  sinking  by  its  own  weight.'  And as the sun’s  lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total  reflection  it is  naturally  first  cut  off.

@ ausGeoff, something for you : In short about the Miracles of the Sun : (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 10:58:03 AM
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.

(http://i.imgur.com/K94A09K.jpg)

If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article  on  “Perspective, true and false", and  note especially  rule  5 (see below) there  given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining  the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena  something like what  is there depicted. A represents the position of the  observer, C the sun’s position at  X I I . noon, and the line  C  F  the  “elevation” of about  one-fourth of its daily  path. At  1-30  p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle  A  B  an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At  III.  p.m. the sun arrives at E,  making the angle e  A  B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At  VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its  rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at  the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner. 

The Rules of a True perspective:

(1).  All  parallel  lines,  like  those  of  a  railway,  seem  to approach,  and  finally  to meet  in  the  distance.

(2).  Straight  lines above  the eye of  the  spectator  appear  to descend  to  the  eye-line.

(3).  The  horizontal,  or  eye-line,  is  a  straight  line on  a  level with  the  eye,  at  whatever  elevation  the  spectator may  be.

(4).  Lines,  or  objects,  below  the  eye-line,  remaining  at  the same  level,  seem  to  rise  as  they  recede,  until  they vanish  in  the  eye-line.

(5).  Similarly,  lines  or  objects  above  the  height  of  the spectator,  and  maintaining  a  constant  altitude, appear  to descend until  they  are  lost  in  the  eye-line.

(6).  Objects,  or  lines,  do  not  all  vanish  at  the  same  point in  the  horizontal  line,  but  the  nearer  they  are  to that  line  the  sooner  they  vanish in  it,  because of  the smaller  angle  they  make  with  it.

(7).  The  distant  horizon  being  always  on  a  level  with  the eye,  whatever  be  the  altitude  of  the  observer,  it seems  to  rise,  or  to  fall,  with  the  observer  ;  but  he never  has  occasion  to  depress  his  vision  to  look downwards  towards  it,  nor  upwards!

(http://i.imgur.com/LPVEpY2.jpg)

In the previous chapter, it was  shewn how, by perspective alone,  the  sun  appears  to  descend  almost  to  the  horizon, although  remaining  that  day  at  its  average  altitude  of between  two  and  three  thousand miles.  In  above diagram  we made  no  allowance  for  refraction,  which  would  have  still further  reduced  each  of  the  angles,  and  especially  the  lower ones.  Diagram  23  supphes  the  omission,  and  illustrates how  the  sun  descends  to  and  disappears  on  the  distant horizon. Light  is  a  very  subtle  force,  and  one  of  the  most  easily refracted  from  the  rectilinear  ;  but  like  all  other  forces,  it takes  the  line  of  least  resistance,  whether  in  a  curve  or  in  a line  practically  straight. Its  undulations  falling  from  above  on  to  the  atmosphere are  refracted,  or reflected,  more  and  more  according  to  the angle  at  which  they  strike,  and  the  density  of  the  media through which  they  pass.  We  need  not  here  enter  into the unsettled  question  of  the  density  of  the  luminiferous  ether, especially  as  optical  density  is  not  always  the  same  as physical  density.

A  straight  rod,  when  dipped  into  water,  appears  suddenly bent  to  an  outsider  above  that  element  ;  but  in  judging  the refraction  of  the  sun’s  rays  we  need  to  remember  that  we are inside  the refracting element  and one which has a varying density. Hence  those  rays  of  the  sun  which  strike  the  atmosphere very  obliquely,  as  from  F  to  g,  instead  of  proceeding  in  a straight  line  to  the  earth’s  surface  below  h,  take  the  line  of least  resistance  and  proceed  towards  the  spectator  at  A. Now  an  observer  always  sees  an  object  in  the  direction  of the  rays  entering  the  eye  ;  therefore  the  observer  at  A  will see  the  sun’s  image  in  the  direction  of  the  line  A  h f,  setting The  sun’s  rays  can  be  entirely  cut  off  from  a  spectator  at the  sea-level,  as  at  A,  while  its  reflected  light  can  still  be seen  by  observers  in  higher  altitudes,  from  a  high  balloon or  from  the  top  of  a mountain.  There  is  an  angle  of  total reflection  where  the  light,  being  reflected  upwards  off  the denser  atmosphere,  does  not  penetrate  to  the  surface  of  the earth,  as along the lines F k n. 

A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the  smooth  surface  of  a  lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish  far below,  and leap upwards again and again before  sinking  by  its  own  weight.'  And as the sun’s  lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total  reflection  it is  naturally  first  cut  off.

@ ausGeoff, something for you : In short about the Miracles of the Sun : (http://)

You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 08, 2014, 11:51:42 AM
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 12:07:46 PM
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.

The newtonian law of gravity was come up with by observing the motion of the planets and then doing a lot of math.  The law has been proven time and time again by predicting the motion of planets and moons with incredible accuracy.  I am a major space enthuseist and I like to get out my telescope to view planets every once in a while, and they are always exactly where my astronomy app predicts that they will be days before.

Do you not think that the ocean is convex?  Try going to a beach and trying to spot another continent.  The FET explenation for this is that the apparently large waves cover the apparently small terrain, but you are actually taller then the waves and even if there are waves that are tall enough to cover the next continent, you should totally be able to see it from the lifeguard tower.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Jet Fission on December 08, 2014, 12:52:20 PM
As requested:

I recently created an accurate Flat Earth model, using numbers you can check yourself.

http://imgur.com/a/39EgX (http://imgur.com/a/39EgX)

The sun never even gets close to the horizon, no matter how far away from it you are. The funny thing is, is that you can't change your model for the sun to be closer, or else its shape woul be greatly distorted (not that it already is in the current FE model).

One other thing you have to take out of this, is that even if the sun got near the horizon in the FE model; it would look like a very flat oval. And of course it doesn't.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 08, 2014, 01:24:07 PM
Here is an example using some trigonometry with a theoretical location B being 1,000,000 miles away from another location A. Location B would be experiencing a noon sun while Location A is experiencing a sunset. Simple trig showed that even in that extreme case the sun could not meet the horizon. It would still be .17° above the horizon. This is an extreme example to show you how preposterous it is for a sunset to happen on a FE. Even if the Earth is millions of miles in diameter, the sun still never quite reaches the horizon.

(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B1000000%7D%3D.17188)

Let's try it with a more realistic scenario and put location B on the Tropic of Cancer, which as we know, is the farthest north that a noon sun can be directly overhead and then make location A be the north pole making this scenario a maximum case using the flat earth monopole model. The sun in this case is about 44-45° above the horizon.

(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B4534%7D%3D44.6208)

Given the above, and knowing that from the north pole the sun is nowhere near 45° above the horizon, it's safe to say the FET is wrong. There is no combination of positive numbers that you could put into the formula above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon unless the sun's height above the earth's surface is zero.

Basically, yes, perspective does mean that the sun goes down in the sky as it gets further from you but there are several unavoidable caveats. The first of which is as I have mentioned, the sun keeps going down but the closer it gets to the horizon the less it goes down. There is no combination of positive numbers for opposite and adjacent sides in the tangent function above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon. Secondly, things do appear smaller as a function of distance. Your implication that it is special is nonsense especially when there is a model that doesn't require magical size properties. Finally, if you do happen to subscribe to the idea that the sun is a flat disk, which I don't think you do, then the sun would appear as a circle only when it is directly above. At all other times it would be an ellipse and this effect would become more dramatics the further away the sun is.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 01:30:58 PM
Here is an example using some trigonometry with a theoretical location B being 1,000,000 miles away from another location A. Location B would be experiencing a noon sun while Location A is experiencing a sunset. Simple trig showed that even in that extreme case the sun could not meet the horizon. It would still be .17° above the horizon. This is an extreme example to show you how preposterous it is for a sunset to happen on a FE. Even if the Earth is millions of mikes in diameter, the sun still never quite reaches the horizon.

(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B1000000%7D%3D.17188)

Let's try it with a more realistic scenario and put location B on the Tropic of Cancer, which as we know, is the farthest north that a noon sun can be directly overhead and then make location A be the north pole making this scenario a maximum case using the flat earth monopole model. The sun in this case is about 44-45° above the horizon.

(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?tan%5Cfrac%7B3000%7D%7B4534%7D%3D44.6208)

Given the above, and knowing that from the north pole the sun is nowhere near 45° above the horizon, it's safe to say the FET is wrong. There is no combination of positive numbers that you could put into the formula above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon unless the sun's height above the earth's surface is zero.

Basically, yes, perspective does mean that the sun goes down in the sky as it gets further from you but there are several unavoidable caveats. The first of which is as I have mentioned, the sun keeps going down but the closer it gets to the horizon the less it goes down. There is no combination of positive numbers for opposite and adjacent sides in the tangent function above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon. Secondly, things do appear smaller as a function of distance. Your implication that it is special is nonsense especially when there is a model that doesn't require magical size properties. Finally, if you do happen to subscribe to the idea that the sun is a flat disk, which I don't think you do, then the sun would appear as a circle only when it is directly above. At all other times it would be an ellipse and this effect would become more dramatics the further away the sun is.
It's funny how mathematical explenations like this only come from round earthers, which should say something about the flat earthers and their lack of overall reasoning skills.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 08, 2014, 01:34:31 PM

"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...

I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.

It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."


I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Jet Fission on December 08, 2014, 01:42:17 PM

"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...

I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.

It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."


I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...

Are you now telling us that you no longer believe that the sun is a 32 mile "spotlight" which circles the earth 3000 miles in altitude? Are these projections the new FE stance on the sun?

So you have been cornered with empirical evidence against your original position, and now you change it. Brilliant.

You didn't even respond to rottingroom or my post on sunsets from an hour ago.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 08, 2014, 02:06:48 PM
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...

So you just spent the last 14 pages and weeks trying your hardest to mathematically prove the earth is flat when you have no model of your own other than your own guesswork with a confirmation bias. Brilliant x2!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 08, 2014, 02:21:22 PM

"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...

I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.

It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."


I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
Please explain how the sun is a source of heat and light and its position as seen from all locations at all times of day works with your theory.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 08, 2014, 10:11:47 PM
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.

(http://i.imgur.com/K94A09K.jpg)

If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article  on  “Perspective, true and false", and  note especially  rule  5 (see below) there  given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining  the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena  something like what  is there depicted. A represents the position of the  observer, C the sun’s position at  X I I . noon, and the line  C  F  the  “elevation” of about  one-fourth of its daily  path. At  1-30  p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle  A  B  an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At  III.  p.m. the sun arrives at E,  making the angle e  A  B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At  VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its  rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at  the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner. 

The Rules of a True perspective:

(1).  All  parallel  lines,  like  those  of  a  railway,  seem  to approach,  and  finally  to meet  in  the  distance.

(2).  Straight  lines above  the eye of  the  spectator  appear  to descend  to  the  eye-line.

(3).  The  horizontal,  or  eye-line,  is  a  straight  line on  a  level with  the  eye,  at  whatever  elevation  the  spectator may  be.

(4).  Lines,  or  objects,  below  the  eye-line,  remaining  at  the same  level,  seem  to  rise  as  they  recede,  until  they vanish  in  the  eye-line.

(5).  Similarly,  lines  or  objects  above  the  height  of  the spectator,  and  maintaining  a  constant  altitude, appear  to descend until  they  are  lost  in  the  eye-line.

(6).  Objects,  or  lines,  do  not  all  vanish  at  the  same  point in  the  horizontal  line,  but  the  nearer  they  are  to that  line  the  sooner  they  vanish in  it,  because of  the smaller  angle  they  make  with  it.

(7).  The  distant  horizon  being  always  on  a  level  with  the eye,  whatever  be  the  altitude  of  the  observer,  it seems  to  rise,  or  to  fall,  with  the  observer  ;  but  he never  has  occasion  to  depress  his  vision  to  look downwards  towards  it,  nor  upwards!

(http://i.imgur.com/LPVEpY2.jpg)

In the previous chapter, it was  shewn how, by perspective alone,  the  sun  appears  to  descend  almost  to  the  horizon, although  remaining  that  day  at  its  average  altitude  of between  two  and  three  thousand miles.  In  above diagram  we made  no  allowance  for  refraction,  which  would  have  still further  reduced  each  of  the  angles,  and  especially  the  lower ones.  Diagram  23  supphes  the  omission,  and  illustrates how  the  sun  descends  to  and  disappears  on  the  distant horizon. Light  is  a  very  subtle  force,  and  one  of  the  most  easily refracted  from  the  rectilinear  ;  but  like  all  other  forces,  it takes  the  line  of  least  resistance,  whether  in  a  curve  or  in  a line  practically  straight. Its  undulations  falling  from  above  on  to  the  atmosphere are  refracted,  or reflected,  more  and  more  according  to  the angle  at  which  they  strike,  and  the  density  of  the  media through which  they  pass.  We  need  not  here  enter  into the unsettled  question  of  the  density  of  the  luminiferous  ether, especially  as  optical  density  is  not  always  the  same  as physical  density.

A  straight  rod,  when  dipped  into  water,  appears  suddenly bent  to  an  outsider  above  that  element  ;  but  in  judging  the refraction  of  the  sun’s  rays  we  need  to  remember  that  we are inside  the refracting element  and one which has a varying density. Hence  those  rays  of  the  sun  which  strike  the  atmosphere very  obliquely,  as  from  F  to  g,  instead  of  proceeding  in  a straight  line  to  the  earth’s  surface  below  h,  take  the  line  of least  resistance  and  proceed  towards  the  spectator  at  A. Now  an  observer  always  sees  an  object  in  the  direction  of the  rays  entering  the  eye  ;  therefore  the  observer  at  A  will see  the  sun’s  image  in  the  direction  of  the  line  A  h f,  setting The  sun’s  rays  can  be  entirely  cut  off  from  a  spectator  at the  sea-level,  as  at  A,  while  its  reflected  light  can  still  be seen  by  observers  in  higher  altitudes,  from  a  high  balloon or  from  the  top  of  a mountain.  There  is  an  angle  of  total reflection  where  the  light,  being  reflected  upwards  off  the denser  atmosphere,  does  not  penetrate  to  the  surface  of  the earth,  as along the lines F k n. 

A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the  smooth  surface  of  a  lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish  far below,  and leap upwards again and again before  sinking  by  its  own  weight.'  And as the sun’s  lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total  reflection  it is  naturally  first  cut  off.

@ ausGeoff <something for ausGoeff to watch, but, fortunately, not me>

Ohboyohboy!!! I was hoping someone would post something like this!

If we accept the above description of what the observer at A sees, let's examine what an observer at B, observing the same sun at the same time from a different place would see.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/cikljamasSunset2_zps25467dce.jpg)

The illustration has been modified to show the perspective view of the Sun for an observer at point B. From B, the Sun is directly overhead at observer's VI p.m.

At local noon (XII) for observer A, the sun is at position C, directly overhead (90°, according to the drawing). For observer B, it's at c', about 40° up (he's six hours behind, remember - shouldn't that be closer to sunrise, at zero degrees). At observer A's VI p.m. the Sun is directly over the observer at B. This is how we know B is six hours behind A. Recognizing that drawings like this are schematic and can have inaccuracies without really invalidating their basic point, they still have to reflect certain basics to demonstrate their points. The point here is that, from point A, the Sun appears to move  more or less uniformly from C to d to e (C to d is slightly greater than d to e in the same amount of time, but, whatever), meanwhile, from point B, the Sun's apparent motion from c' to d' is clearly less than from d' to e'. e' to f' is far greater than the apparent movement from e to f even though the Sun has moved the same distance from E to F for both. Is this a realistic representation for what we see in real life? No, it isn't.

Further, this still doesn't explain sunsets. The proposition that refraction will lower the apparent sun from f to g is incorrect. Atmospheric refraction makes objects appear higher than they actually are, not lower. Even geometrically, the Sun will never reach the horizon for either viewer unless it could travel infinitely far to the right, but if it could do that, it would be exactly on the horizon for both A and B. But noon for these guys is six hours apart, so shouldn't sunset also be six hours apart? It just doesn't work. Sorry.

cikljamas still won't to cite where this pap comes from, but the writing sounds like Mr. Rowbotham. This diagram disagrees with his "Fig. 64", but I guess consistency is considered a bad thing if you're a "free thinker".
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 09, 2014, 01:08:40 AM

I recently created an accurate Flat Earth model, using numbers you can check yourself.

http://imgur.com/a/39EgX (http://imgur.com/a/39EgX)


Thanks for your diagram.  It also proves that it could never be night-time (or completely dark) anywhere on the planet.  Let's see the flat earthers explain away dusk and then total darkness.  If they can that is LOL.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 09, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

1. Gravitation:

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
 
The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times) because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to  gravity which  holds  them  down. They had believed that the  sacrifice is  a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity. That is, the gravitational constant looses as maximum as  0.35% at the Equator where the rigid Earth experiences the highest rotational speed (1670  km/hr). And at the poles, the gravitational constant retains its maximum value where the rotational speed is zero. In their sacrifice, the difference between the maximum gravitational constant g0 and the altered gravitational constant g due to Earth’s rotation, g0 - g is given by:

(http://i.imgur.com/JRFiAZ6.jpg)

Here, R is the radius of the latitudinal circle which varies from the maximal value at the equator 6378 km to zero at the poles, and T is the period of rotation equals to 24 hours. At the Equator, g0 - g is equal to 0.034  m/s^2. The maximum loss of the gravitational constant is 0.35  % (0.034/9.8), at the equator. We shall not recall the  objection  of the good fellows, because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.  The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would
become for the real-change of air pressure  in the  atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the  air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth.  Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge  dynamic pressure.

In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.  The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space.   In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer  layer  than at the surface of  the Earth.   Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers.  These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life. 

(http://i.imgur.com/uS907A1.jpg)

The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness. READ MORE : http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html)

2. Revolution of The Earth around the Sun:

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.

In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to the following words :

" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."

To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.

CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE ABOUT THE EQUATION OF TIME ISSUE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435)

Long exposure photos of the stars : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641992#msg1641992 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641992#msg1641992)

3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis:

A) If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?

Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.

If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.

How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???

B) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?

C) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html)

D) Observing the sun directly from the north pole the apparent motion of the sun would be straight line for days, and a camera should have to be slightly adjusted every few hours to cancel out scarcelly perceptible effect due to Earth's alleged rotation which speed is practically zero at North Pole.

E) "RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND! If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)

F) If the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)

Download it (http://) , turn repeat on, watch and think...

You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)

4. Earth's tilt issue:

If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t)

5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis:

If one takes a small tube and points it at Polaris in the northern hemisphere, fixing it to that point, the star remains visible throughout the entire year. This visibility within a small CPVC tube shows that the earth does not travel in a wide circuit around the sun. If this was the case, the star would not always be visible to the naked eye through the tube. If all those stars in time lapse video change position with the supposed rotation of earth, then there should be an even larger deviation in position over the course of one solar orbit. This fact; however, never receives recognition.

Do not say that the polestar stands in a far away position which is why one can see it always. Even though the stars stand all far away, the supposed rotation of the earth still creates moving stars in the sky. If one should see all the stars move during 24 hours, the entire year with a larger orbital circle should do the same thing with the polestar. It does not occur, so the earth possesses geocentricity and planar characteristics...

The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!

Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.

6. Geocentricity without FET:

If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528)

CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!


1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.

2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.

3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!

4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!

5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!

6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!

7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.

8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!

9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!

It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

7. Experiments and examples : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045)

So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62246.msg1637548#msg1637548 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62246.msg1637548#msg1637548)

"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...

I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.

It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."

I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 09, 2014, 10:13:29 AM
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 09, 2014, 12:34:16 PM
Hello cikljamas, I have read your post about the pillars of FET, and if those are the pillars, I can be sure that it's wrong.  Now watch as I crush those pillars using basic elementary school physics,

1. Gravitation

Physics doesn't have to be what you expected it to be to be true, magnetism can't be explained either.  Also, you claim that gravity is caused by higher air pressure at higher altitudes, but have you been at high altitudes lately?  The air up there is really low pressure.  Is low pressure at high altitudes a conspiracy too?  The layers of the atmosphere that you mentioned make sense on a rotating Earth and Earth's path around the sun is needed to explain seasons and the Earth not crashing into the sun.

2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun

How do you expect that an experiment on Earth would prove that Earth moves?  Even stellar parallax (which has been observed by the way) could also be explained by the Stars moving back and fourth.  All motion is relative, not absolute, so in order to measure velocity you need a frame of reference.  If you use a moving car as your frame of reference, the Earth is moving and the car is stationary.  The experiment that you spoke of actually didn't work because of general relativity, which has already been proven mathematically.

3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis

Different rotational speeds at different longitudes are different when measured in miles per hour, but they are all the same when measured in revolutions per minute.  Earth only rotates half the speed of the hour hand on a clock, which isn't that fast.  Earth's atmosphere also does get effected by the rotation like the Coriallis effect that drives hurricanes and the winds surrounding the poles.

4. Earth's tilt

All effects of our distance to the sun changing like Earth's eliptical orbit and the hemispheres tilting towards and away from the sun are neglegable because of the sun's incredible distance and the normal cause for seasons is so drastic that you don't even notice the other effects.  How the seasons are caused is not because of the changing distance from the sun but the changing angle of the sun relative to the ground.  When the sun hits at a shalower angle, less of it's energy hits the same amount of land as in the summer, so everything is cooler in the winter then in the summer.  This also explains why it is hot at the equator and cold at the poles.

5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis

Have you ever played with a gyroscope?  They are a (quite fun) way to prove that rotating objects are stable and their axis always tends to point in the same direction.  By the way, the fact that some constellations are only visable at certain times of the year from a certain hemisphere is proof of the Earth's orbit around the sun.  The Earth travels in a 93,000,000 mile radius circle around the sun, and that's only 8 light minutes, and in comparison, the closest stars are many light years away.  Stellar parallax has been measured, but it's so tiny that it's imperceptible.

I don't need to go on because this information makes your whole point not valid.

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.
Yes scepti, it did make me think.  That thinking has led me to the conclusion that flat earthers don't know what they are talking about and are therefore not qualified to call that stuff wrong and propose a whole new model for the universe.  For goodness sake, do some research.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 09, 2014, 02:38:27 PM
Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 09, 2014, 04:04:55 PM
...

I've truncated your post so that we could highlight anything new that you might have brought up since all you did was rehash the same arguments that were already sufficiently dealt with. I had hoped that you would defend your poor explanation for a sunset but you neither dealt with Jet Fissions diagram, my trigonometry, or Alpha2Omega's dissection of your model. So....

Extend all arguments.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 09, 2014, 04:19:15 PM
Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.
As soon as he is losing the argument he just spams the thread with copy pasta.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 09, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.
As soon as he is losing the argument he just spams the thread with copy pasta.

Don't insult us. It didn't take 14 pages for us to get to "as soon as he is losing the argument".
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 09, 2014, 04:34:41 PM
We've already beaten this subject to death. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Even if you think and wish with all your might.

I can't believe how fast you forget things. You even refer back to the discussions.

By the way, have you figured out how sunsets work in your world yet? An even remotely plausible explanation would be a start.

Can' believe how fast you forget things, let me refresh your memory:

<same crap he's been shown to be wrong for months>


[This ended up in the wrong thread for some reason. Probably user error. Reposting here and will remove the old one.]
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 09, 2014, 09:51:38 PM
In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.  The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space.   In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer  layer  than at the surface of  the Earth.   Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers.  These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life. 

(http://i.imgur.com/uS907A1.jpg)
Nice pointless copypasta.  Regarding that dome picture, you do realize it shows the opposite of your statement right?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: robintex on December 09, 2014, 09:59:48 PM
Speaking of copypasta. Does anyone recall sandokhan ?  ::) LOL
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 09, 2014, 10:27:04 PM
Ha!  How can one forget those posts?  His posts put cikljamas to shame.  Seemed to take minute just to scroll through some of them, let alone actually read.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 10, 2014, 02:47:36 AM
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...

Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:

...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...

Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:

For example:

First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.

But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.

This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"

Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:
Quote
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!

READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

Enjoy it!

P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...

To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?

edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:

Quote
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 03:10:16 AM
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Why is it that sceptimatic invariably sides with the most ill-informed, scientifically-ignorant members of the flat earth brigade?  Maybe he's looking for someone to father his love child, and further decrease the depth at the shallow end of the gene pool?

I do—grudgingly—have to agree with sceptimatic on one point; the above pages of copypasta from cikljamas certainly will "get people to think".  Firstly, thinking that cikljamas has truly lost the plot or forgotten his medication, and second, thinking that poor old sceptimatic is a sucker for any old second-hand flim-flam.

    ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 10, 2014, 03:57:57 AM
Cikljamas, it is now clear what your problem is. It isn't that you are ignoring the rebuttals but in fact that you jus don't understand them. Your zig zag argument didn't fail because of the Suns size and nobody said that either. The Sun could be any size and it is the massive distance causing an (as I put it several times) "utterly slight" parallax that would have to be detected while contending with the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation. Your copypasta is special because it often isn't plagarism, more often than not, you copypasta your very own arguments from this very thread even though they were already successfully refuted. Then after those decisive refutations you took to our challenge to explain just one simple part of your own model and it could not even explain a sunset.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 04:32:08 AM
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...

Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:

...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...

Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:

For example:

First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.

But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.

This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"

Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:
Quote
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!

READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

Enjoy it!

P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...

To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?

edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:

Quote
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.

There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 06:51:57 AM

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     ::)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 10, 2014, 08:38:03 AM
Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.

There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.
Yet more content free blather...

Quote
and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
And that just nails you.  You can't understand science, and are too proud to admit it or make a proper go at understanding it.  The whole thing fills you with dread and reminds you of failed exams.  So you construct a fantasy land of giant ice domes, sauron towers, super glowing carbon crystals, hydrogen clouds and Den Pressure.

You can never be wrong in this constructed fantasy, as you make the rules (usually as you go along).  It's a happy place, where you can live under a giant dome, were the sun (literally) never sets and children greet you respectfully as "Professor Sceptimatic".

Shame it's all a load of bollocks.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 10, 2014, 08:43:12 AM
cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...

Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:

...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...

Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:

For example:

First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.

But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.

This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"

Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:
Quote
Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!

READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

Enjoy it!

P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...

To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?

edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:

Quote
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.

There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.
Because everybody knows that the way to keep people indoctrinated is to tell them to question everything and to always be prepared to be wrong.  What makes s good model of the universe is the ability of that model to predict.  If your model is correct, you should be able to make a prediction with your model that's more accurite then the standard model predictions.  Seriously, if you do that then I will become a flat earther.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 08:58:53 AM
What makes a good model of the universe is the ability of that model to predict.  If your model is correct, you should be able to make a prediction with your model that's more accurate than the standard model predictions.  Seriously, if you do that then I will become a flat earther.

The flat earth model of the universe is unable to predict any future astrophysical events or phenomena.

As a round earther, I can predict a lunar eclipse at 09:44:01hrs on 30 November 2020, and to be visible from Australia.

I challenge any flat earther to prove this erroneous by providing an alternative flat earth prediction, along with facts and figures.

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.

—Let's see.    :D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 10, 2014, 10:06:11 AM
@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     ::)

Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?

@Rottingroom,

We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...

How can you be so funny???

Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...

Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?

Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!

However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!

I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...

Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."

"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 10, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     ::)

Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?

@Rottingroom,

We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...

How can you be so funny???

Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...

Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?

Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!

However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!

I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...

Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."

"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

Please explain how the sun would zig zag in the sky in the round Earth model because that majes no sense.  Also, on the poles during the summer the sun appears to just circle around the sky throughout the day.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 10, 2014, 10:50:21 AM
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2014, 12:54:44 PM
This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

We can hope!

Seriously, though, if you're still confused after this, feel free to ask more.

Quote
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Let's make sure we are looking at the same scenario. If we're talking at cross purposes, we will never reach agreement because we're not describing the same experiment.

Here's what I think you're saying; correct me if I'm wrong.

You are standing at a point, say, 500 km from the north pole at the height of northern summer, so the Sun is up 24 hours. You're standing at some longitude, call it L, and facing due south.  It is your local solar noon (LSN) and the Sun is due south of you.

Is this the situation you intended? If not, please describe with enough precision to determine what you mean.

As the afternoon progresses you stand stock still facing south, the sun moves from directly in front of you toward your right. Six hours after your LSN, your friend at the equator, also at longitude L, sees the Sun setting. If you spread your arms straight out, your right arm is pointing directly in the direction of the Sun while you are still facing south. Is this the "turning point" you refer to? What happens next if you remain facing due south is that the Sun continues to move in the same direction, but is now behind you. As long as you continue to face south, the sun will indeed move behind you from your right to your left until it reaches the point, 12 hours later, when it passes from being behind you to being in front of you, and resumes a left to right motion from your point of view.

Is that an accurate description of what you are trying to say? Is this the "zig-zag" motion you're referring to (instead of parallax)?

If that's the case, note that the Sun has not changed it's motion in any way. If you had a friend standing next to you, but facing 90° to the right, he would see the sun start to his left at LSN and move from his left to his right for the next 12 hours even though it's moving from your right to your left behind you for the last six of those 12 hours since you're still facing south. In other words, your "turning points" are six hours apart even though you're standing right next to each other.

If you had a third compatriot with you who was facing directly toward the Sun the whole time, he would see it move continuously from his left toward his right as he slowly turns to follow it all 24 hours.

The Sun didn't change directions at any time; it looks like you're just insisting on using a descriptive system that is confusing.

Is that what's going on?

Quote
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

Before I respond to this, I want to hear what you think the answer is, and why. A description of the direction you're looking will be necessary as part of your answer because it matters.

Quote
<eclipses and stuff>

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 10, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Are we continually turning the entire 24 hours so that we are looking directly toward the sun the entire time?  If so, then no, the sun will not reverse direction in relation to the horizon.  Your diagram is misleading/wrong if this is what you are saying.  As you continue turning to keep the sun in front of you, the horizon would move the same direction the entire day, which means the movement of the sun in relation to the horizon would be the same the entire day.  Get a desktop globe and try it.

Quote
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
Other than the sun appearing above and below the horizon, moving up and down, what are we supposed to base it's movement in relation to? 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 10, 2014, 01:09:29 PM
@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     ::)

Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?

@Rottingroom,

We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...

How can you be so funny???

Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...

Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?

Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!

However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!

I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762)

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...

Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."

"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

In both models, the sun would appear to move back and fourth if you were a bobblehead.  Could you please be more vague?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 10, 2014, 04:45:45 PM
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.

How much??? How much is between SUNRISE and SUNSET? Fucking morons...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 10, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.

How much??? How much is between SUNRISE and SUNSET? Fucking morons...
Shut up.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: StrAbo on December 10, 2014, 08:21:35 PM
Refute all points below or you concede that a flat Earth is outright ludicrous.

1. One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. Why does the Earth project a round shadow on the moon?

2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

3. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. For example, when a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.

4. A plane can literally circle the Earth... As can a boat.

5. You can see the curvature of the earth if you just stand on a beach and look out over the water...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 10, 2014, 11:57:35 PM
Refute all points below or you concede that a flat Earth is outright ludicrous.

1. One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. Why does the Earth project a round shadow on the moon?

2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

3. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. For example, when a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.

4. A plane can literally circle the Earth... As can a boat.

5. You can see the curvature of the earth if you just stand on a beach and look out over the water...

Lunar eclipses don't prove the Earth is round. If I cover the lights with my hand does it mean my hand is a sphere? As for the Moon, you can't even prove it is a solid body which is orbitting the Earth. You're just looking at some light in the sky.

The Earth is not rotating.

A plane can circle the Earth yes. And apparently you don't know the difference between a circle and a sphere. Nothing prevents you from circling a disc by plane or a boat. No need for any sphere at all or rotation or other nonsense.

You can't see the curvature from the beach. You just proved you live in a cave.

But anyway, I feel pity for the brainwashed people. Hope you will eventually realize how confused you're.

It is so funny to see people defending round Earth as if you're paid to do so.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 11, 2014, 12:46:20 AM
Refute all points below or you concede that a flat Earth is outright ludicrous.

1. One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. Why does the Earth project a round shadow on the moon?

2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

3. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this. For example, when a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.

4. A plane can literally circle the Earth... As can a boat.

5. You can see the curvature of the earth if you just stand on a beach and look out over the water...

Lunar eclipses don't prove the Earth is round. If I cover the lights with my hand does it mean my hand is a sphere? As for the Moon, you can't even prove it is a solid body which is orbitting the Earth. You're just looking at some light in the sky.

The Earth is not rotating.

A plane can circle the Earth yes. And apparently you don't know the difference between a circle and a sphere. Nothing prevents you from circling a disc by plane or a boat. No need for any sphere at all or rotation or other nonsense.

You can't see the curvature from the beach. You just proved you live in a cave.

But anyway, I feel pity for the brainwashed people. Hope you will eventually realize how confused you're.

It is so funny to see people defending round Earth as if you're paid to do so.
The earth rotates relative to the sun.

Circling the earth means taking a straight course, as you know.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 01:33:20 AM
cikljamas and saros, keep up the good work. Don't let the shills derail your thoughts. You both know how they work and if you look at the amount that signed up to go against you, that should tell you enough about who is on the right lines.

This is what always happens when the free thinkers start to gain momentum. More shills are needed and this is what they do.
The mere fact that they're arguing like hell and getting all worked up should give you a boost, because the cages are rattled.

This will be followed up by the usual rants and rages about my intellect, education and my knowledge of science being zilch, plus all the rest of the crap, as per usual.

Anyway, seriously...keep up the great work you are doing and that goes for everyone else who can think for themselves. It's become more enjoyable since you two entered, along with the other enjoyable characters who post free thinking input.
It's great to see people waking up to the FACT that Earth is not what we've been led to believe all our lives and it should be as plain as the nose on anyone's face by now, except for the shills who stand out like sore thumbs.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 11, 2014, 02:50:05 AM
Morons unite!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 03:11:57 AM
Morons unite!
You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you. ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 04:22:44 AM
Morons unite!
You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you. ;D

Have you even read the thread?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:49:32 AM
Morons unite!
You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you. ;D

Have you even read the thread?
Yep. I see a few people using their minds and many that are parroting shit to desperately try and debunk but not realising they are using the science that was shoehorrned to fit a model that is clearly a lie. One that people like you stick rigidly to and use all kinds of methods to try and hit home that lie to people that you think are uneducated, when the uneducated ones are you people.
Why?
Because to educate yourselves you need to look at the bigger picture. You need to use thought. You must use basic logic to kick you into gear. You must use patience. And most of all, you need to burn the shit books that have fed you a lifetime's worth of crap.

Start taking notice of alternatives and stop using silly equations to make people believe you know what you're talking about with things that cannot be physically proven.
If they can't be physically proven, then your maths are wrong. Common sense.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 04:58:08 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:05:32 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.

Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:09:53 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.

Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.

There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?

Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:33:56 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.

Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.

There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?

Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.

All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to  shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you.  ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:36:43 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.

Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.

There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?

Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.

All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to  shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you.  ;D

Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:49:20 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.

Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.

There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?

Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.

All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to  shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you.  ;D

Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
It frustrates you. It's doing exactly that with Geoffrey. Every second post from Geoffrey is about me. I laugh like hell. It rattles him. He gets more frustrated than you people.

I dish out a small portion of what I receive and that's all that's needed. I am the scepti. I cannot be bargained with. I cannot be reasoned with and I absolutely will not stop until people like you are crying into your milk with your global Earth rammed right up your rear end.  :P
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 11, 2014, 06:00:26 AM
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.

You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.

Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.

There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?

Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.

All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to  shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you.  ;D

Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
It frustrates you. It's doing exactly that with Geoffrey. Every second post from Geoffrey is about me. I laugh like hell. It rattles him. He gets more frustrated than you people.

I dish out a small portion of what I receive and that's all that's needed. I am the scepti. I cannot be bargained with. I cannot be reasoned with and I absolutely will not stop until people like you are crying into your milk with your global Earth rammed right up your rear end.  :P
Why do you have an obsession with personal insults?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 06:02:58 AM

Why do you have an obsession with personal insults?
I don't see any personal insults. Why do you people have an obesession with them?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 11, 2014, 06:20:09 AM

**Usual emotional, childish rant**

Common sense.

"Common sense" is another one of your stock phrases when you can't argue your corner.  I don't think you actually know what it means:

Quote
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people
Considering absolutely nobody has bought into the ice-dome or Den Pressure, there is no basis to refer to them as "common sense".

The common sense explanation for sunsets and sunrises is that the earth rotates.  It is intuitive, elegant, easy to understand and clearly explains the phenomena without any hand waving.

Your ice-dome "model" can't even attempt to explain why we have sunsets and sunrises, let alone the fact these phenomena occur at the same time on different parts of the planet.  Yet you somehow insist on endlessly calling it "logic", again without any real idea of what the word means.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 11, 2014, 07:46:35 AM
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!

This is the same as saying, if Earth is my frame of reference then there is no tilt. So tilt is relative to which frame of reference you are using.


7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.

This is simply wrong. A geocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 11, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
cikljamas and saros, keep up the good work. Don't let the shills derail your thoughts. You both know how they work and if you look at the amount that signed up to go against you, that should tell you enough about who is on the right lines.

Anyway, seriously...keep up the great work you are doing and that goes for everyone else who can think for themselves. It's become more enjoyable since you two entered, along with the other enjoyable characters who post free thinking input.

I think sceptimatic is looking for a ménage à trois LOL.

It seems cikljamas and Saros are gonna try to have a love-child together, so I'm not sure just how welcome poor old sceptimatic will be?

However this whole sordid romance turns out, it's definitely gonna be puke-inducing.    ;D

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 11, 2014, 10:26:28 AM
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!

This is the same as saying, if Earth is my frame of reference then there is no tilt. So tilt is relative to which frame of reference you are using.


7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.

This is simply wrong. A heliocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.

Why don't you read before you comment? Did you use to leave comments without reading what you comment?

It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!

Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.

Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420)

In addition:

HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.


Regarding the alleged tilt of the Earth:

I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics , but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ?????????????????????? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html)

In order to render this question even clearer we could reformulate it like this:

What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?

(http://i.imgur.com/rncSW91.jpg)


On top of that:

1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.

4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.

Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate  the 4 above facts with the next fact (no. 5):

5. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!

5.a It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 11, 2014, 01:07:06 PM
It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!

My mistake. Apologies. I meant to type geocentric round earth. I fixed my post so now it becomes:

This is simply wrong. A geocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 11, 2014, 01:13:30 PM
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

Wrong again. A geocentric UNTILTED round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 11, 2014, 01:28:28 PM
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!

This is the same as saying, if Earth is my frame of reference then there is no tilt. So tilt is relative to which frame of reference you are using.


7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.

This is simply wrong. A heliocentric round earth can have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you. So no the Earth is not flat.

Why don't you read before you comment? Did you use to leave comments without reading what you comment?

It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!

Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.
Why the need to split the globe along a meridian?

And when you say to direct the light toward the tropic, I think I see where you're confusing yourself. Sunlight isn't directed in any single direction; it floods out in all directions. Directing a light source doesn't achieve what you're trying to show. What you want to do is align your light source with the tropic of your choice and the center of the earth so light source, tropic, center, and other tropic (on the far side) are all in a straight line. If the light source is sufficiently far away (diagonally across a moderately large or large room from a 1' [30 cm] globe should suffice), you will see the effect you are trying to disprove.

Quote
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!
If the Earth were spherical but untilted, the length of days would be unchanging. It is not untilted, however, and the length of daylight does change depending on latitude and season. All this is exactly explained by a spherical, rotating earth.

Quote
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420)

In addition:

HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

Again, is it really necessary to use pejorative terms like 'maniac' when discussing ideas you disagree with? This sort of style is often used when an argument is weak.

To the point, the apsides (perihelion and aphelion) happen to be close to the solstices now[nb]about two weeks currently[/nb], but are actually unrelated to them. This will slowly change as precession moves the direction earth's axis tilts.

Quote
This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.
Since there's no actual FE Theory in the formal sense, only conjecture and vague notions, and this is in no way in contradiction with the HC model, this statement is untrue.

As already noted, the line of apsides has to be somewhere, and, by chance, is close to (but not exactly on) the places where solstices occur, for the time being. Wait 5,500 years or so and the apsides will coincide exactly with the equinoxes.

Quote
Regarding the alleged tilt of the Earth:

I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics ,

The simple answer is that the Earth is spin stabilized. A spinning object will maintain its orientation wrt the inertial frame (universe as a whole) unless perturbed by outside forces; if perturbed, the axis of rotation will precess. The largest outside force in the case of the Earth is due to the Moon, which causes a 26,000-year precession.

The spin tends to remain constant because angular momentum is conserved. The Earth is slowly transferring some of its angular momentum to the Moon, causing the rotation of the Earth to slow down very slightly with the passage of time, and the Moon to ever so slightly speed up in its orbit, causing its orbit to increase in size. The fact that earth is spinning in a vacuum helps it maintain its rotational speed. If earth were in a physical medium, friction with this would tend to transfer angular momentum to the medium and slow it down.

The interior dynamics mentioned in the linked Guardian article will cause tiny (accumulating to the order of mm, I think), slow, and unpredictable movement in the location of the poles on the surface, and very slight and unpredictable irregularities in the rate of rotation, that aren't really significant in the short term except for very precise work. The best answer of the first few (all I read) is the second one given.

Quote
but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ?????????????????????? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html)

What? Do you want someone to create a planet in a room-sized zero-gravity vacuum chamber to study? Gee... I can't think of any reason we can't create a zero-gravity chamber on earth. Why don't you "float" [pun intended] the proposal to your country's Academy of Sciences or whoever funds basic research and see if you can get funding to do this. Since you will first have to create an anti-gravity machine to do it, and such a device would be incredibly useful, I'm sure they'll be all over it! This would be a sure Nobel Prize for you.

Quote
In order to render this question even clearer we could reformulate it like this:

What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?

(http://i.imgur.com/rncSW91.jpg)

In relation to what are we tilting? The plane of the ecliptic, which is the plane of the Earth's orbit.

Didn't we already discuss this? Maybe that was Sculeos and not you.

Quote
On top of that:

1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

The stars making up the constellations are very distant. Even if some of the stars have great proper motion with respect to us, the apparent motion in the sky is still small. It takes a long time for even the nearest stars to move appreciably.

Quote

2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

Actually, they do, just not by much from one year to the next. Sagittarius is currently a summer constellation in the northern hemisphere. In 13,000 years it will be a winter constellation due to precession.

Quote
3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.

"Uniformity of their irregularities"? Either it's uniform or it's irregular.

Finding the underlying patterns in what appears chaotic and creating theories and mathematical models that describe these is what it's all about. If you have a good theory and valid mathematical model, you can use it to make accurate predictions.

Quote
4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.

OK. So? Do you think that Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindu, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers, after careful study,  ascribed eclipses to the relationship between earth, sun and moon even though you don't?

Quote
Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate  the 4 above facts with the next fact (no. 5):

5. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!

What observations and experimental evidence does the HC model  go against? Observations and evidence are why the HC model is universally accepted among scientists. It's intuitive and fits "common sense" very nicely because it's simple and elegant. Simple and elegant alone aren't compelling evidence, but do satisfy Occam's Razor as a tiebreaker (as if that were needed here).

You throw out these numbers in red as though their apparently large values meant something significant. They look big at a human scale, but the Earth, solar system and galaxy are really, really big compared to humans. In context, even at that 1,000 mi/hr rotational speed, it still takes the Earth 24 hours to rotate once. That's half the rate of the hour hand on a clock, which is turns really slowly to humans (especially when waiting for quitting time).

Quote
5.a It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Don't you read the replies to your posts? This was previously answered here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644503#msg1644503), near the bottom.

Any more progress on how a sunset works on a flat earth? Your last effort, parroting Mr. Rowbotham, was clearly wrong. Until you can get a plausible alternative to the simplest of the simple for a spinning spherical earth, your notion is going to get nowhere.

Repeating it again still doesn't make it true. Sheesh!  ::)

Quote
Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

And don't forget the replies to that rehash, too.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 11, 2014, 03:12:57 PM

Why don't you read before you comment? Did you use to leave comments without reading what you comment?

It's about geocentric round earth scenario, it's not about HC scenario. Geocentric round earth scenario presumes UNTILTED Earth!

Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.

Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED, a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1644420#msg1644420)

In addition:

HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.


Regarding the alleged tilt of the Earth:

I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics , but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ?????????????????????? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html)

In order to render this question even clearer we could reformulate it like this:

What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?

(http://i.imgur.com/rncSW91.jpg)


On top of that:

1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.

4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.

Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate  the 4 above facts with the next fact (no. 5):

5. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!

5.a It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

Thank you for proving my theory that flat earthers know nothing about science.  Allow me to educate you.

Quote
HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

Earth's orbit is quite (not perfectly) circular, and the speed that it orbits (which hardly changes) has no effect on the seasons.  Seasons are caused by the Earth's axis being tilted.

Quote
I have so many answers above for the question How the earth is rotating and How it rotates exactly on its axis and How it maintains its axis and its speed and How this could happen constantly when it is surrounded by vacuum. The answers given are Angular momentum , Moment of inertia and Interior dynamics , but I would ask this Question to everyone . If u have right answers for all these QQ . Why still no body can simulate the similar kind of sample small budget planet or universe in a zero gravity or a vacuum Box . Lets even have a transparent Vacuum Box in the size of a bus or a car or a room . can some one create a planet of a mass surrounded with gas and show a demo that this is how earth and other planet works ??????????????????????

You say that as if it's easy, and even if somebody were to do that, things work differently at different sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law).  Things the size of the Earth can't really be anything but a sphere because of gravity and the square-cube law, but yet it's possible to have smaller objects that can easily overcome their own gravitational pull.  A small scale model of something as big and complex as planets can't be replicated at a small scale and have the same things happen.  I know this sounds like it's propaganda that makes this stuff believable, but the square-cube law has mathematical proofs for it, which is something that FET lacks.  Unless math was made up by the government as a part of the conspiracy  :o

Quote
What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?

The answer to this is simple: Earth's axis is not a physical object, so don't treat it like one, it's an imaginary line that represents how the Earth rotates.  If the axis rotated, it wouldn't be an axis.  The reason that the axis has a (more or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Changes_in_rotation)) stationary axis is for the same reason that gyroscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope) and other spinning objects are so rotationally stable.  If you were to take a basketball or a similar object and throw it into the air with some rotation that it will spin on an axis just like Earth does.  (Note: the basketball experiment doesn't work on pencils and other long thin objects because such objects rotate in more complex ways.)

Quote
The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

Yes they do (http://www.astronexus.com/node/81), it's just too small of a change for someone to notice in his or her lifetime.

Quote
The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

I don't know if you are talking about what I explained above or if you are talking about stellar parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax), but both of those happen, it;s just too small to be perceptible.

Quote
The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.

All of the observations seem to be in favor of the round Earth model.

Quote
Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.

There have also been many civilizations in history that independently proved that the Earth is round.

Quote
If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour

More proof that you don't know what you are talking about.  If you are in a car going on the freeway and you throw a penny up into the air, it comes back into your hand even though you are going really fast, and that is what momentum is.  You can't feel how fast you are going.  As for the rotation related things: most of that can be explained by gravity.  As the Earth orbits the sun, the sun attracts the Earth and it also attracts us with it, and same goes for the earth and sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, we don't feel it because we are orbiting the sun with the Earth, we just happen to be on the Earth.  When you measure the rotation speed of something, it is really misleading to use miles per hour, especially in this case.  In different terms, the Earth rotates at 0.000694 revolutions per minute, which is half the speed of the hour hand on a clock.  The reason that this rotation does not fling the Earth apart is because of gravity, but this rotation can actually create a measurable difference in the strength of gravity between the poles and the equator.

Quote
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

3,959 miles is the radius of the Earth and even though Earth's rotation speed seems like a lot when measured in miles per hour, it adds up to only 0.000694 RPM.  As I mentioned previously, this is a minor effect that is easily overcome by gravity.  I can prove this with math if you want me to.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 12, 2014, 04:05:36 AM
Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".   The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.   Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism  in every aspect of man’s "knowledge" about the Universe, the  Earth, and Himself.

Many people consider the Encyclopedia Britannica the FINAL AUTHORITY on all scientific matters. No publication is as anxious to see the earth moving as the Rockefeller owned Britannica. So we won't be amiss if we consult this final authority on heliocentricity and see their PROOFS for the moving earth. Here is a quote from the New Encyclopedia Britannica:

Quote
    Basic planetary data. The mean distance of Earth from the Sun is about 149,600,000 km (92,960,000 miles). The planet orbits the Sun at a speed of 29.8 km (18.5 miles) per second, making one complete revolution in 365.256 days. As it revolves around the Sun, Earth spins on its axis and rotates completely once every 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. (New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 4, p. 320).

You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours. It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.

By 1851, despite Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler no proof existed of the rotation/revolution of the earth.

Heliocentric "astronomers" greatly exaggerate the size of the solar system and the universe. They make the universe so big that it cannot possibly orbit the earth in 24 hours.

Take the sun for example, the ancient Greeks said that the sun was only about 3,000,000 miles (4,828.032 km) from the earth. This was the number given by Ptolemy and the great Arab astronomer al-Battani. Even Copernicus in his book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. gives the number at about 3,000,000 miles. The rotating earth people stuck a 9 in front of the 3 and with this mathematical sleight of hand we have a sun whose distance from the earth is exaggerated 30 times!!

ONCE MORE ON GEOCENTRISM WITHOUT THE FET:

1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

2. HC maniacs admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above the equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.

3. Now, if we assumed that the ancient Greeks and Copernicus were much closer to the truth (regarding the Earth-Sun distance) than the contemporary astronomers, what would be the alleged speed of the Sun around the Earth? The answer is 780 000 miles per hour = 1 250 000 km per hour....

4. Now, if we assumed that the contemporary astronomers are much closer to the same truth than the ancient astronomers and Copernicus were, what would be the alleged speed of the Sun around the Earth? The answer is 24 000 000 miles per hour = 38 000 000 km per hour!

Would we notice such a tremendous speed of the Sun in the sky? You bet we would!

What is the consequence of all this? THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!

1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

3. The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.

4. Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers.

5. By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, the entirety of astrology, a science of consciousness coveted and used obsessively by the elite, is made null and void. If the Earth is the center of the Universe and all the planets (ancient gods) revolve around us, then birth charts, alignments, and astrology are measurable, calculable, repeatable, and thus scientifically verifiable. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then astrology disappears into the realms of pseudo-science believed by our ignorant ancestors.

Now, how any sane person can logically conciliate  the 5 above facts with the next fact (no. 6):

6. If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour

6a. It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!


If you have forgotten how it looks like when the wind blows JUST 260 miles per hour: (http://)

Every heliocentrists should spend one whole day spinning like this: (http://)

Next exercise for heliocentrists: (http://)

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Don't forget : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18

    Then spake Joshua to JEHOVAH in the day when JEHOVAH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
    And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
    And there was no day like that before it or after it, that JEHOVAH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for JEHOVAH fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14).
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 12, 2014, 04:13:56 AM
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.

You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 12, 2014, 04:32:03 AM
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.

You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.

Well, we are all eager to see how is it possible...
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 12, 2014, 05:44:20 AM
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.

You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.

It is strange that even Wikipedia claims something else:

"In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 12, 2014, 06:11:49 AM
1. Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

Keep saying this and I'll keep saying the below too.

You're completely wrong! A geocentric UNTILTED round earth could have different lengths of daylight on different latitudes too. If you are unable to figure it out yourself how this could work, then let me know so I can draw it for you.

Well, we are all eager to see how is it possible...
This is your hypothetical geocentric untilted round earth. You can see how midnight sun can be seen at poles depending on the time of the year. So even if the Earth was untilted in a geocentric universe, it would still be round. Your argument shows clearly how your lack of imagination leads you to such ignorance.

(http://s12.postimg.org/3pzbwa12l/geo1.png)

(http://s2.postimg.org/jwh029tnt/geo2.png)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 12, 2014, 06:18:40 AM
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...

@ Saros, if i were Obama or Putin or Mao Zedong or Kim Jong Un, i would give an order according to which all heliocentrists should spend one whole day enjoying like this: (http://)

Saros, what do you think, what would happen with the ratio between: A) Number of HC women before one whole day Myrtle Beach exercising & B) Number of HC women after enjoying a whole day Myrtle Beach exercise?

A huge number of conversions (to Flat Earthism) would occure, i suppose, don't you think so?  ;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 12, 2014, 06:41:46 AM
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...

I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Saros on December 12, 2014, 07:14:48 AM
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...

I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.

Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)and you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."

Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 12, 2014, 07:23:19 AM
@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...

I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.

Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)and you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."

Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.

Saros, that is in reference to the ecliptic plane which applies to heliocentrism. The Wikipedia article isn't implying what is or isn't possible if the earth is geocentric. If the earth is fixed then one can't say it is tilted and if that is the case, then the sun just makes its own motion causing variation.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: rottingroom on December 12, 2014, 07:41:08 AM
Speaking of which, cikljamas has referenced me a couple of times because I said that if the earth was not tilted then there would ve no variation in daylight. I hope my comment above cleared this up as I was referring to the heliocentric model. If the earth were not tilted and the earth was orbiting the sun then there would be no variation. If the solar system is geocentric though, then I don't see the problem. Of course the earth is tilted though. If it isn't, then I want to know what governs the suns movement on a round, fixed, geocentric earth.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 12, 2014, 07:56:47 AM
Of course the earth is tilted though. If it isn't, then I want to know what governs the suns movement on a round, fixed, geocentric earth.

A geocentric earth is just hypothetical, you can't apply RE laws to understand the geocentric sun orbit.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 12, 2014, 08:22:02 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)

Note that the only thing that can make the difference regarding different angles under which Sun's rays hit different parts of the Earth, is the alleged tilt of the Earth. If the Earth were UNTILTED and If the Sun went up or down (no matter if the Sun were 3 000 000 miles or 92 000 000 miles away from the Earth) for certain number of degrees, it wouldn't make any difference, Sun's rays would still hit the whole surface of the Earth evenly!

That is why the alleged tilt of the Earth is a holy grail of HC theory, and that is why i am saying very often that the Geocentrism (WITHOUT taking into account flatness of the Earth) is even much more outrageous theory than the HC theory itself!

The tilted earth probably came from Galileo as he looked through the telescope and saw that some of the planets were tilted in their orbits around the sun. A tilted EARTH could be an explanation for the seasons, he reasoned, as people were still apt to ask difficult questions about the reason for the seasons!!

Don't forget this : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."


AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 12, 2014, 08:31:58 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/2qUqliG.jpg)
Yes for Heliocentrism. But in order to have seasons in a geocentric Earth the sun's orbit would need to move between above and below the Equator, like this:

(http://s12.postimg.org/3pzbwa12l/geo1.png)

(http://s2.postimg.org/jwh029tnt/geo2.png)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 12, 2014, 09:02:18 AM
Heliocentric "astronomers" greatly exaggerate the size of the solar system and the universe. They make the universe so big that it cannot possibly orbit the earth in 24 hours.
The universe doesn't need to orbit Earth in 24 hours.  Earth only needs to rotate once every 24hrs.

Quote
1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.
2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.
They would change a lot overnight on a flat Earth since we would be viewing them at different angles as the night progresses.

Quote
6a. It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour
Here's an experiment.  Stand in one place, now spend the next 24 hours turning in a complete circle.  Not a lot of rpm was there.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on December 12, 2014, 09:05:49 AM
When ever I want some astronomy teaching, 16th century Protestant preachers are my go-to guys.  :P
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 12, 2014, 10:23:02 AM
Do you remember this post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)

Let's take up where we left off:

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)

Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole.[5][6] The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet's north pole and enter the magnet's south pole.

Well, how the above claim fits with the next assertion:

The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)

Why is there only ONE location where this occurs if the North and South Magnetic poles are counterpart magnetic poles?




Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 10:29:56 AM
You lost me. Are you having issues with the fact that the magnetic north pole is in a different place than the geographic one?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 12, 2014, 10:46:34 AM
Do you remember this post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239)

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : (http://)

Let's take up where we left off:

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)

Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole.[5][6] The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet's north pole and enter the magnet's south pole.

Well, how the above claim fits with the next assertion:

The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)

Why is there only ONE location where this occurs if the North and South Magnetic poles are counterpart magnetic poles?





The reason that there is only one point where compares point down is because there is only one north pole, that doesn't happen at the South Pole because it has a north magnetic field while the North Pole has a south magnetic field.  In the North Pole compares point down and in the South Pole compasses point up, not down.  The South Pole is opposite of the North Pole.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 12, 2014, 12:09:29 PM
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.

As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.


Does that answer your question?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 12:12:35 PM

Does that answer your question?

I dont think it was really a question as much as a mad rant.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 12, 2014, 12:50:17 PM
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.

Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?

Quote
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)


As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
Quote
My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!

03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:

I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Here is the picture of his compasses:

(http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)

It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round? Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 12:55:11 PM
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.

Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?



Are you seriously using wikipedia as the only source of your information? Because yes, wikipedia can be a lie, anyone can edit it. you know that right?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: markjo on December 12, 2014, 01:03:03 PM
Many people consider the Encyclopedia Britannica the FINAL AUTHORITY on all scientific matters.
It's a good thing that none of those people are scientists.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 12, 2014, 01:07:31 PM
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.

Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?

Quote
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)


As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
Quote
My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!

03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:

I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Here is the picture of his compasses:

(http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)

It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round? Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 12, 2014, 01:28:51 PM
Here is the picture of his compasses:

http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)

It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round? Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
It's not pointing directly through Earth at magnetic n. pole's geographic position on the surface, it's pointing north along the surface aligned with the magnetic field.

Do a google image search for 'Earth magnetic field', and maybe you figure it out, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 12, 2014, 01:34:29 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom? 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 01:37:49 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 12, 2014, 01:41:56 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.

That is odd.  I have a magnet and some button compasses.  Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 01:46:04 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.

That is odd.  I have a magnet and some button compasses.  Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)

Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 12, 2014, 01:49:09 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.

That is odd.  I have a magnet and some button compasses.  Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)

Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.

The flat magnet and flat desk represent the flat Earth and its poles.  When I flip the magnet over and repeat the experiment, all of the south pointers on the compasses point towards the middle.  I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding. 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 01:53:26 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.

That is odd.  I have a magnet and some button compasses.  Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)

Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.

The flat magnet and flat desk represent the flat Earth and its poles.  When I flip the magnet over and repeat the experiment, all of the south pointers on the compasses point towards the middle.  I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding.

The flat earth model as I understand it does not state anyone lives on the other side of the planet, we are all on the same side of this coin correct? So if you had two magnets, one with north one with south in the same place, as a flat earth with the poles in the same place would be, those magnets wouldnt know which pole to orientate towards, or they would orientate towards the nearest magnet always, which would be North, because if the south pole was on the bottom of the flat earth there would be literally no way for you to ever be closer to it than the north pole.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 01:58:46 PM
Actually, forgive me, I see the point you are making. I forgot my basic compass composition. For whatever reason I was deciding that the compass would want to orientate to south if it were closer to it. Carry on.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 12, 2014, 02:52:59 PM
The red end of a compass needle, the one traditionally indicating the direction toward the magnetic north pole, is the "north seeking pole" of the compass needle. The geomagnetic north pole is the only point where that end of the compass needle would point straight down, if the suspension allowed. At the geomagnetic south pole the other end of the needle would point straight down and the north-seeking end would point straight up.

Are you trying to claim that what we read in wikipedia is a lie?

Quote
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)

Not in this case; what you quoted sounds pretty much like what I was saying. How do you think it's different? As already noted, Wikipedia is crowd sourced - anyone can make entries - so it's not infallible.

Quote
As usual, the point those illustrations are intended to convey is completely wrong. There's no requirement for the magnetic field lines to be completely level (zero inclination) for a compass to work. Good compasses can cope with a moderate inclination using low-friction bearings that work well even with a fair amount of inclination. If the inclination is very high, you're getting close to the magnetic pole, and the general usefulness of a magnetic compass drops considerably since it can easily be as much as 180° off for finding true north. Cheaper ones will counterbalance the needle to offset the inclination; these will work reasonably well in a certain range of magnetic latitudes, but probably will "stick" if used in the opposite hemisphere.
Quote
My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!

03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:

I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Here is the picture of his compasses:

(http://i.imgur.com/goA8UIl.jpg)

Those Bruntons and Suuntos are nice compasses. Apparently they work well at about -45° magnetic inclination. I'm not surprised, but it's good to see. For reference, the USA is at about +60° magnetic inclination, so, if anything, this was easier for those compasses.

Quote
It's latitude 54°48′south, so would you be so kind to demonstrate to us how in this latitude compass needle can point towards North if the Earth is round?

Sure. The compass needle lines up with the magnetic field lines, which (by convention) "emerge" from the surface in the southern (magnetic) hemisphere, follow a curved path toward the north magnetic pole, and dive back into the surface in the north (magnetic) hemisphere. Here's a picture from a Google search on magnetic field lines earth and scrolling through the myriad of images offered[nb]Note that the "bar magnet" inside the Earth representing the source of the Earth's magnetic field in the illustration has its S end in the northern hemisphere. Because of this the N pole of your compass needle points to the north, toward this end of the "bar magnet".[/nb].

(http://newton.cnice.mec.es/materiales_didacticos/magnetic_field/images/Mundo.gif)

The mechanical compass needles shown are free to rotate in azimuth, but constrained from tilting too much vertically, so they align with the horizontal component of the direction of the field lines in the area, which are generally N-S in southern South America. The phone contains a magnetometer that can determine the orientation of the field lines in, possibly in 3D (and probably their intensity), and an app running on the phone displays this information as a conventional compass display.

Quote
Where is North (geometrically) if we are trying to determine it (North) at this latitude (54°48′south)?
Same as it is everywhere except the poles themselves. North (geometrically) is 180° from south. In the picture, magnetic north is to the upper right (south to the lower left), in the direction the red ends of the needles are pointing. Geographic north is probably about 15° east of where the needles are pointing.
 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 12, 2014, 03:02:48 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.

That is odd.  I have a magnet and some button compasses.  Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 12, 2014, 05:05:28 PM
Have you ever taken the time to play with magnets?  If they are placed side by side then they will try to line up so they are facing opposite of each other.  The round Earth model makes perfect sense of Earth's magnetic field being similar to a bar magnet but the flat Earth model has magnetic north in the middle and magnetic south is a big ring around everything, and that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying that, on a flat Earth, one pole can not be on top, while the other pole is at the bottom?

It absolutely cant. Because on a flat earth, if the poles were one on top and the other on the bottom, then compasses wouldn't work. South doesn't point to the center of the earth, it points south. If the south pole was under the flat earth then it would point to the center of the planet and not south.

That is odd.  I have a magnet and some button compasses.  Perhaps my magnet defies the laws of physics or something?

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/compasses_zps5c24c3cb.jpg)

Hows that prove anything? In your hypothetical where the North pole is on the top of the flat earth, and the south on the bottom of it, then both the north and south pole would be in the same location as far as magnets were concerned. It works on earth if its a sphere, however if its a disc then everywhere you stood on the planet your magnets would spin.

The flat magnet and flat desk represent the flat Earth and its poles.  When I flip the magnet over and repeat the experiment, all of the south pointers on the compasses point towards the middle.  I am not sure what you are having trouble understanding.
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 12, 2014, 11:21:08 PM
I'm truly astounded that after wading through the FE dross in this thread that they all seem to think that 21st century navigation still requires a device invented 2,000 years ago—the magnetic compass—to navigate around the earth or in the sky or wherever.

I can assure the FEs that the SatNav device in my car has no magnetic compass within its workings, nor do I even possess a magnetic compass.  However, I can accurately find my way, in daylight or at night, from Melbourne to Darwin or Sydney to Perth without any form of map.

Now, most of the FEs will not believe this, and/or possibly not be aware of what a SatNav device is, or how it works.  So that research can be their homework for tonight.  And don't forget the apple.

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 13, 2014, 06:28:25 AM
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.

Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole.[5][6] The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet's north pole and enter the magnet's south pole.

Well, how the above claim fits with the next assertion:

The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in other words, if a magnetic compass needle is allowed to rotate about a horizontal axis, it will point straight down). There is only one location where this occurs, near (but distinct from) the Geographic North Pole and the Geomagnetic North Pole.

At a magnetic pole, a compass held in the horizontal plane points randomly, while otherwise it points nearly to the North Magnetic Pole or away from the South Magnetic Pole!!!

The strength of the field at the Earth's surface ranges from less than 30 microteslas (0.3 gauss) in an area including most of South America and South Africa to over 60 microteslas (0.6 gauss) around the magnetic poles in northern Canada and south of Australia, and in part of Siberia. Read more : http://web.ua.es/docivis/magnet/earths_magnetic_field2.html (http://web.ua.es/docivis/magnet/earths_magnetic_field2.html)

(http://i.imgur.com/lQzJR5x.jpg)
 
IS THERE ANYONE WHO CAN EXPLAIN HOW IN THE WORLD (IF THE EARTH IS ROUND) IN THE SAME CIRCLE THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD CAN BE SO DIFFERENT AT DIFFERENT LONGITUDES?

SOUTH AMERICA 0,3 GAUSS

SOUTH AFRICA 0,3 GAUSS

AND NOW:

SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0,6 GAUSS

NOTE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA IS EVEN MUCH MORE NORTH THAN SOUTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AFRICA!!!

THIS IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH RET!

ON THE OTHER HAND THIS IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH FET:

NORTHERN CANADA 0,6 GAUSS

SIBERIA 0,6 GAUSS

(http://i.imgur.com/u6yeYV2.jpg)

WHY IS THIS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH FET? BECAUSE NORTHERN CANADA AND SIBERIA ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME (ARCTIC) CIRCLE, AND THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE VALUES OF THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD BETWEEN NORTHERN CANADA AND SIBERIA!!!

BUT HOW WE CAN EXPLAIN SUCH HUGE DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA, SOUTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA???

If the needle is in a horizontal position (since "dipping needle" instrument is kind of a vertical compass) it means that the needle is in a perpendicular or vertical position on it's axis (on it's vertical line).

Since the needle is in a horizontal position in "dipping needle" instrument while we are on the equator it seems that the needle points to sky (see figure 87. in the first post), and not towards north magnetic pole.

In my diagram:

(http://www.zaslike.com/files/8y3asv5c3z2by04mv3k.jpg)

you can see where (at what latitude) we should expect needle to be in a horizontal position (perpendicular to the vertical line of a "dipping needle" instrument). Somewhere in north Canada or north Sweden or north Russia, but not on the equator (as it is in reality).

In addition, on a globe acting of a "dipping needle" instrument would be in chaotic manner (increasing-decreasing-increasing etc...), but on the flat Earth we would expect linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle (of the needle) as we go away farther from north magnetic pole to south, and vice versa. And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth? Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/255947-post23.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255947-post23.html)

Dipping needle instrument:

(http://www.zaslike.com/files/2p78dhgyv8fcxurtt12f.jpg)(http://www.zaslike.com/files/3unrvcsa9eutwbk0ox8d.jpg)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: inquisitive on December 13, 2014, 10:16:24 AM
Please provide a flat earth map with field strengths.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 13, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?
On a globe, because that dipping needle would not 'act in a chaotic manner' when moved from the equator to the magnetic pole.  Your diagram shows it trying to point at the spot on the surface where the magnetic pole would be, hence that 'increasing, decreasing, increasing' you theorize.  That's not how it works.  It aligns with the lines of the field, and therefore a "linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle".  This has been explained a couple times now.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 13, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?
On a globe, because that dipping needle would not 'act in a chaotic manner' when moved from the equator to the magnetic pole.  Your diagram shows it trying to point at the spot on the surface where the magnetic pole would be, hence that 'increasing, decreasing, increasing' you theorize.  That's not how it works.  It aligns with the lines of the field, and therefore a "linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle".  This has been explained a couple times now.

Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 13, 2014, 03:25:39 PM
What part of RET requires a constant magnetic field?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 13, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?
On a globe, because that dipping needle would not 'act in a chaotic manner' when moved from the equator to the magnetic pole.  Your diagram shows it trying to point at the spot on the surface where the magnetic pole would be, hence that 'increasing, decreasing, increasing' you theorize.  That's not how it works.  It aligns with the lines of the field, and therefore a "linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle".  This has been explained a couple times now.

Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!
No it does not.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/earth-magnetic-south-1800-miles-from-true-south-pole.jpg (http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/earth-magnetic-south-1800-miles-from-true-south-pole.jpg)
The magnetic south pole is pretty far offset from the true south pole.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 13, 2014, 11:26:26 PM
Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!

I have noticed that your assumptions on how a round earth should behave are always baseless.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 14, 2014, 04:46:22 AM
Uneven values of the strength of the magnetic field along the Antarctic circle refutes veracity of your claims and RET!

I have noticed that your assumptions on how a round earth should behave are always baseless.

You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!

That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:

1. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645652#msg1645652 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645652#msg1645652)

2. Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_lengthand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_lengthand) you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."

Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.

3. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645611#msg1645611 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645611#msg1645611)

4. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127)

5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003)

The most important ancient document describing Hebrew cosmology is 1 Enoch (sometimes called the Ethiopic Book of Enoch), one of those long, disjointed, scissors and paste jobs beloved by ancient scribes. For a dozen or so centuries, European scholars knew 1 Enoch only from numerous passages preserved in the patristic literature. In 1773, the Scottish adventurer James Bruce found complete copies in Ethiopia.

Numerous manuscripts of 1 Enoch have since been found in Ethiopian monasteries. Turn of the century scholars concluded that parts of the book are pre-Maccabean, and most (perhaps all) of it was composed by 100 B.C. [Charles, 1913]. These conclusions were largely vindicated when numerous fragments of 1 Enoch were found among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. There have been two major English translations of 1 Enoch, the 1913 translation of R. H. Charles and the 1983 translation by E. Isaac. All of the quotations that follow come from the newer translation.

The importance of 1 Enoch is poorly appreciated outside the scholarly community. Comparison of its text with New Testament books reveals that many Enochian doctrines were taken over by early Christians. E. Isaac writes:

    There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder, therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the apostolic and Church Fathers [1986, 10]. 


First Enoch influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and several other New Testament books. The punishment of the fallen angels described in 2 Peter seems to come directly from 1 Enoch, as does much of the imagery (or even wording) in Revelation. The Epistle of Jude contains the most dramatic evidence of its influence when it castigates “enemies of religion” as follows:

    It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: “I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgment and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him (Jude 14- 15).”

The inner quote, 1 Enoch 1:9, is found in the original Hebrew on a recently-published Qumran fragment [Shanks, 1987, 18]. By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.

First Enoch is important for another reason. Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.

The Ends of the Earth

The angel Uriel guided Enoch in most of his travels. They made several trips to the ends of the earth, where the dome of heaven came down to the surface. For instance, Enoch says:

    I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1 Enoch 33:1-2).

(The sharp-eyed reader will note what I suspect is an editing error in the Isaac translation. The earth resting on the heaven makes no sense. R. H. Charles has “whereon the heaven rests.”)

Again, Enoch says, “I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2).” This accords well with Jeremiah 51:16 which says, “he brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses.” In subsequent chapters, Enoch journeys “to the extreme ends of the earth” in the west, south, and east. In each place he saw three more “open gates of heaven.”

There were other things to be seen at the ends of the earth. Earlier, we deferred discussion of the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” On several occasions when Enoch and the angel are out beyond the dome of heaven, Enoch comments that there is nothing above or below. For instance, “And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place (1 Enoch 21:1-2).” Could this be the kind of nothingness referred to in Job?

An angel also showed Enoch the storerooms of the winds (18:1) and the cornerstone of the earth (18:2).

The Sun and Moon

And what of the sun and moon? Psalm 19:4-6 (quoted earlier) suggest that the sun holes up at the ends of the earth until it is time to rise. Enoch expands upon this idea. In 1 Enoch 41:5, he “saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they go out and to which place they return...” Further, “they keep faith one with another: in accordance with an oath they set and they rise.”

Enoch discusses the solar and lunar motions at length, explaining why the apparent azimuths of their rising and setting varies with the season. The explanation, found in the section called “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” begins thus:

    This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).

From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.

                                       *****************************************************************

IN USA today, as in Russia in '20s and NAZI Germany in '40s full scale campaign to create USA ALSO A BEAST NATION... no God... no right no wrong no up no down 2 added to 2 is whatever scientists say it is... Adults today either jailed or shot down... at own homes for even teaching their own children... GOD EXISTS and Right and Wrong exists!!!

 The International Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous Society existing on the world today. It began with the Creation of the Creation. First the water...the face of the deep...without form or limits...just Water. Then the Land sitting in and on the Water, the Water then as now being flat and level, as is the very Nature of Water. There are, of course, mountains and valleys on the Land but since most of the World is Water, we say, "The World is Flat." Historical accounts and spoken history tell us the Land part may have been square, all in one mass at one time, then as now, the magnetic north being the Center. Vast cataclysmic events and shaking no doubt broke the land apart, divided the Land to be our present continents or islands as they exist today. One thing we know for sure about this world...the known inhabited world is Flat, Level, a Plain World.

We maintain that what is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of jibberish theory-theology...unrelated to the real world of facts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars, airplanes and other Real and Good things in life; technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science. The Wright brothers said: "Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we invented the airplane." By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth.

Our Society of Zetetics have existed for at least 6,000 years, the extent of recorded history. Extensive writing from 1492 b.c. We have been and are the Few, the Elite, the Elect, who use Logic Reason are Rational. Summed up, we are Sane and/ or have Common Sense as contrasted to the "herd" who is unthinking and uncaring. We have absorbed the Universal Zetetic Society of America and Great Britian, ZION U.S.A., the work of Alexander Dowie 1888, Wilber Glen Voliva 1942, Samuel Shenton, Lillian J. Shenton of England 1971. Zetetic: from Zeto, to seek and search out; Prove, as contrasted to theoretic which means to guess, to hope, to suppose, but NOT to 'prove'. Science 'proves' earth a 'ball' by 'scripture' words. We PROVE earth Flat by experiment, demonstrated and demonstrable. Earth Flat is a Fact, not a 'theory'!

Our aim is not to 'disturb the herd' or wreck the Government, but rather to be an aid to the Elite Human Being in coming to KNOW earth flat...to then FREE his or her mind from such blind unreasoning 'theory-superstition' and so go on "to carefully observe...think freely...rediscover forgotten facts and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions." As Sir Fields, owner of newspapers in England, has said about us, "They are the Last pocket of individual Thinkers in English speaking world."

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 14, 2014, 05:07:51 AM
Earth Flat is a Fact, not a 'theory'!

At least we agree on this point LOL.  A "theory" is supported by peer-reviewed, empirical scientific evidence.

Any notion of a flat earth barely even qualifies as a working hypothesis.  And a notion is nothing more than a vague or imperfect idea, or an abstract conception.

And until—if ever—the flat earthers can provide any empirical evidence supporting their notions, the idea of a flat earth will remain forever a quaint curiosity from the Dark Ages of scientific history.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 14, 2014, 05:11:34 AM
You are not able to [...]

The first part of your post has been answered in that thread. There is no point bringing your lost cause into here as well. The second part of your post is simply too biblical, I don't buy it at all. Sorry.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on December 14, 2014, 08:39:37 AM
Cikljamas off topic biblical spew puts the lie to the "This forum is strictly moderated!" guff on the header.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 14, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!

That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
Wow... you posted a copypasta with multiple links to previous copypastas, linking to even more copypastas, with other links to copypastas on other sites... all of which are your own.

You might just be on par, or a step above, Sandokhan after all.  :o
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 14, 2014, 01:47:09 PM
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!

That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
Wow... you posted a copypasta with multiple links to previous copypastas, linking to even more copypastas, with other links to copypastas on other sites... all of which are your own.

You might just be on par, or a step above, Sandokhan after all.  :o

I personally find cikljamas better than sandokhan. At least cikljamas makes an effort to draw diagrams, scan and upload them to help us in visualising his idea better.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 14, 2014, 01:59:45 PM
You are not able to notice your own nose in front of a mirror! That is a typical RE's characteristic!

That is why you didn't notice these important facts, also:
Wow... you posted a copypasta with multiple links to previous copypastas, linking to even more copypastas, with other links to copypastas on other sites... all of which are your own.

You might just be on par, or a step above, Sandokhan after all.  :o

I personally find cikljamas better than sandokhan. At least cikljamas makes an effort to draw diagrams, scan and upload them to help us in visualising his idea better.
LOL, that reminds me of this comic (http://xkcd.com/978/).
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 14, 2014, 02:50:14 PM
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.

What makes you so sure of this? 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 06:20:28 AM
If the Earth were flat and the magnetic field worked like your demonstration then the magnetic field would become weaker as you go south, but this does not happen.

What makes you so sure of this?

Are you claiming that the (flat earth's) magnetic field doesn't weaken as one approaches more southerly latitudes?

The magnitude of the earth's magnetic field—measured at its surface—ranges from 0.25gauss to 0.65gauss across the planet.  How can you explain this difference, and can you tell me roughly what the field strength is in (say) Australia and in Alaska?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 06:24:52 AM
I have not personally measure the flux density at every location across the world.  I am fairly sure that you have not either.  I simply posted a picture of a cheap experiment that I conducted that shows that it is possible for compasses to work on the flat Earth. 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 08:30:36 AM
I have not personally measure the flux density at every location across the world.  I am fairly sure that you have not either.  I simply posted a picture of a cheap experiment that I conducted that shows that it is possible for compasses to work on the flat Earth.

Okay jroa... I'll attempt to address yet another of your disingenuous posts.

Of course I don't expect that you have measured the flux density across the entire planet—and I never even suggested that you should've.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  And also logically, neither have I.  That's just as silly.

This doesn't preclude either of us sourcing and citing scientists who have however (as I did).  So all I'm asking you is to cite references for the flux in those two pretty large countries.  Or are you unable to even do that?

It's also impossible to realistically "show" how a magnetic compass would work on a flat earth for the simple reason you have no flat earth model to work with.  This means, at best, you're only guessing.

And at the same time  you've neatly avoided addressing the varying planetary flux strengths alluded to by me, mikeman7918 and sokarul.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 08:37:21 AM
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.  I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up.  Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it? 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 09:35:27 AM
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.

No you didn't.  And you cannot, however hard you try.  You obviously missed this part of my comment:  "It's also impossible to realistically "show" how a magnetic compass would work on a flat earth for the simple reason you have no flat earth model to work with.  This means, at best, you're only guessing".

You also need to know that toroidal and/or disc magnets are manufactured with specific polarities (N-S) which can differ from two apparently physically similar magnets.  All circular magnets have a distinct, fixed north and south poles.


Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 09:39:15 AM
What?  All magnets have two poles.  Another poster was confused about how magnets and compasses work, so I performed a simple experiment to show him.  What exactly is your problem? 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 15, 2014, 09:45:14 AM
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.  I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up.  Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 09:48:04 AM
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.  I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up.  Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?

Are you asking for a 1:1 scale?  Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again? 
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 15, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 15, 2014, 01:13:00 PM
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.

Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 15, 2014, 01:29:02 PM
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.

Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment.  If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.

You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 15, 2014, 01:53:40 PM
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.

Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment.  If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.

You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.

All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...

There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:

There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax  0.31" on that vernier we should find it to  be one 15,484th part of an inch.  When  angles  are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that  “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and  personal errors.”

The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth, no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from  different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric  Parallax.”  .  . If  that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has  no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles. Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point; and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet  this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the  stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See  diagram  13.) It would be as reasonable to say that  all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.


In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: sokarul on December 15, 2014, 06:03:15 PM
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.  I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up.  Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?

Are you asking for a 1:1 scale?  Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
Why would I want 1:1 scale? We already had this conversation. I wanted the experiment done with scale distances related to the size of the magnet. You could also put compasses to represent the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn along with the equator.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 15, 2014, 08:32:18 PM
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.

Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment.  If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.

You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.

All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...

There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:

There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax  0.31" on that vernier we should find it to  be one 15,484th part of an inch.  When  angles  are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that  “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and  personal errors.”

The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth, no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from  different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric  Parallax.”  .  . If  that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has  no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles. Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point; and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet  this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the  stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See  diagram  13.) It would be as reasonable to say that  all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.


In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : (http://)
By the way, I totally know what I am doing with this experiment.  What I plan on doing with the data is I will make some digital 3D models, one of a flat Earth and one of a round Earth, and it's mathematical impossible for the results to agree with both models assuming that light moves in a strait line and not like a drunk mouse.

As for the video that you linked me to, the effect that is mentioned that would happen if the Earth orbited the sun, AKA stellar parallax, is observed.  It is usually just a few ark seconds (1 ark second = 1/2600 of a degree), and that's just tiny.  It has been measured, but it's a tiny effect.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 15, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62449.0#.VI5vdkZHbCQ) that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.

Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf)
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment.  If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.

You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.

All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...

There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:

There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax  0.31" on that vernier we should find it to  be one 15,484th part of an inch.  When  angles  are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that  “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and  personal errors.”

Are you suggesting that mikeman's experiment is invalid unless it compensates for solar parallax on the order of  seconds of arc? The participants will be doing well to get measurements on the order of 1 degree, maybe better if everything is very carefully measured, level, and plumb. If the participants are widely spaced, covering many degrees distance, degree-accuracy should be sufficient to deduce the overall shape and size of the earth.

The instruments available in Tycho Brahe's time were too crude to measure stellar parallax - it's too small because of the very large distances to even the nearest stars. If Tyco really said that [citation needed], it may have been true then, but it's obsolete now that instrumentation has vastly improved. You keep bringing this up. It's still irrelevant. Please stop.

You (yes, you!) can check some things instead of just parroting them here if you know anything about what they're trying to talk about. When your source gives the degree spacing as "about three-quarters of an inch" and then goes on to describe the length on the vernier circle to represent 0.31 seconds of arc, to five digits of precision, that's a clue that he's not particularly competent in the subject.

If the vernier circle is, in fact, six feet diameter, then its circumference would be pi * 6 ft * 12 in/ft, or about 226.2 inches. 226.2 inches/360° = 0.628 inches per degree, or just barely over 5/8 inch degree spacing, an error of about 1 part in 6 compared to "three-quarters of an inch". To actually have 3/4" degree spacing, the vernier circle would have to be more than seven feet in diameter.

OK, 0.628 in/deg rounded to the nearest quarter degree is three-quarters inch per degree, but just barely, and there's no real problem with that. The problem your source then takes this 0.75 inch/degree as exact, divides by 3600 seconds/degree and then divides by exactly 0.31 seconds to come up with 0.0000645833 inches which, inverted, is the exact-sounding 1/15484 of an inch. It may be exact sounding, but it's about 16% off.

Your quote looks like drivel that is supposed to sound "scientific".

Quote
The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth,
Citation needed.

Quote
no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from  different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric  Parallax.”  .  .
Citation needed.

Quote
If  that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has  no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles.
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?

[Spoiler] It's just arm waving and technical-sounding words. It doesn't mean a damn thing.

Quote
Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point;
No shit. Has anyone who knows what he's talking about ever said it would?

Quote
and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet  this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the  stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See  diagram  13.) It would be as reasonable to say that  all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.[/i]
No one who knows what he's talking about suggests the stars are perpendicular to the center of the Earth - because that has no meaning. Nor have they said the stars are necessarily perpendicular to, or tangent to, or any fixed angle to the surface of the earth.

Have you ever looked at the hub of a bicycle wheel? The spokes are almost tangent to the hub - they don't radiate straight out from it.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/BicycleWheelHub_zps665705b5.jpg)

This whole argument is a complete strawman and totally ludicrous.

Quote

In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : <url to some youtube video>
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 16, 2014, 09:08:11 AM
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?

I would say that an author wanted to say something like this:

From the pen of one another author:

...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)

From the pen of one another author:

I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:

-He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."

Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis. The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.

I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.

You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.

I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":

(http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg)

And i can corroborate that above words of our second author are really true!

Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1″ in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2″). This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, α Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned α Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0″.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.

Sir John Herschel says:--

"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."

Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words

"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1″; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."

The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.

(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 16, 2014, 09:57:28 AM
I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.
Probably too busy laughing and shaking his head.

Quote
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.

I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":

http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg)
If you're viewing a polar star, you're turning with Earth's rotation.  I'm not sure what remaining stationary while rotating the pipe away from you is supposed to prove.

Quote
http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge of photography.  You also apparently never tried the experiment I suggested a while back to do with your camera.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 16, 2014, 10:15:51 AM
The Earth is 8 light minutes from the sun, but the closest star is about 5 light years.  The closest star is over 300,000 times further from the Sun then the Earth is, and that is just the closest star, many of the stars that we see are 50 or more light years away.  Even the closest star at about 5 light years away and according to some simple trigonometry the anual parallax is about 0.0001 degrees.  Stellar parallax is tiny, the only way it can be measured is with the precision instruments that are in the hands of those that you claim are in on the conspiracy.  Just because I can't observe it with my hobbyist telescope doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 16, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)

Challenge accepted.

(http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg)

(http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif)

What do you have to say now?
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 16, 2014, 10:54:42 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)

Challenge accepted.

http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg (http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg)

http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif (http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif)

What do you have to say now?
Yeah, this is too easy.  Shot this a while back driving through town.  I'll get a better one next time, with a cleaner windshield and my newer camera that does longer exposures. 
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/intownatnight_zps767914b7.jpg)
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 16, 2014, 08:31:08 PM
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?

I would say that an author wanted to say something like this:

From the pen of one another author:

...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?

Quote
From the pen of one another author:

I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:

-He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."

Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis. The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.

I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.

It sounds like the writer didn't understand the purpose of the cart-wheel experiment. If the astronomer was well known, I'm sure he got a lot of letters from cranks.

Quote
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.

I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":

(http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg)

And i can corroborate that above words of our second author are really true!

"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!

But, hey! At least you're trying experiments. Good on you for that.

Quote
Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1″ in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2″)
Lyra is a constellation, not a star - the author is no doubt referring to the bright star Vega in the constellation Lyra. Errors like this cast doubt on the competence of the author in the subject at hand. A real astronomer simply would not make an error like this; a gadfly trying to sound presumptuous would almost be expected to.

How many times have you brought this up? Stellar parallax was simply too small to measure with the instruments available in Tyco's time. Stars are too far away!

Quote
This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, α Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned α Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0″.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.

The unit of length one Parsec (parallax-second, abbreviated pc) represents the distance where a baseline equal to one AU (average radius of earth's orbit) will produce one second of parallax. 1 pc is about 3.26 light years. Alpha Centauri is now estimated to be at a distance of about 1.34 pc based on a measured parallax of 0.747 seconds of arc. The measurement above puts it at just barely over 1 pc. Distance in pc = 1 / parallax in seconds.

Quote
Sir John Herschel says:--

"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."
A much more precise way to determine parallax is to measure the apparent motion of a star against much more distant stars in a photographic plate. Such techniques, not available in Herschel's time, eliminate most of the corrections and confounding factors listed above.

Quote
Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words

"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1″; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."

The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.

See above. Most of these problems simply go away using different techniques.

Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)

Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: 29silhouette on December 17, 2014, 11:40:53 AM
Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
Or maybe that the ground itself would be blurry because it's 'moving' while the picture is being taken?  He'll probably never address this, nor the pictures posted, only re-post the same thing again in a month or so.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: cikljamas on December 17, 2014, 02:00:37 PM
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?

"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."

"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!

Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.

Please don't be ridiculous!

A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.

Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???

Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!

This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...

I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!

Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?

How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?

On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?   

Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Cartesian on December 17, 2014, 02:45:43 PM
Please don't be ridiculous!

A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.

Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???

Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!

This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...

I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!

Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?

How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?

On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?

About the effect of rotation vs translation, imagine that you drive a car on a motorway and look at a distant mountain. Even if you drive very fast in a straight line, the mountain seems to hardly move at all relative to you. But as soon as you turn your car even a by a little bit, you can see that the mountain moves.
Title: Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 17, 2014, 02:58:48 PM