# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Aliveandkicking on May 17, 2015, 01:10:47 PM

Title: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 17, 2015, 01:10:47 PM
Copied here so that the Antarctic midnight sun thread is not derailed.  Please do not answer this stuff in the Antarctic midnight sun thread.

If you carried out careful analysis of this argument...
Quote
If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

...you couldn't miss to bring one and only possible conclusion : The Earth is at rest!

Only, there is one condition: You have to be honest a.k.a. brave, so to be able to allow yourself to follow evidence wherever they may lead you.

Let's see how and when you are going to fulfill this condition...
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 17, 2015, 01:13:29 PM
Apparently this zigzag movement is undetectable to the human eye.

I am at 60N and it is still twilight here at 23:12.   I can follow the sun around the sky more or less 360 degrees at solstice as it is only fully dark for about one hour at 1am

If i drive 30Km north there is a reasonable twilight at the darkest point of the night and i am pretty sure you can still see the sky has red in it at the horizon at solstice.

dawn 90 minutes later.  Our house is blocking view of brightest light.

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on May 17, 2015, 01:26:24 PM
Yep, proven wrong before, and it will be proven wrong again.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/hrzn_zpsgcohetj4.jpg)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 17, 2015, 01:33:30 PM
But you cannot see it with the naked eye
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on May 17, 2015, 02:35:20 PM
No, cik thought that he was proving that if the Earth was round and you were far enough North to observe 24 hours of sun, it would go across the sky one way then at around the normal sunset time it would reverse directions.  He argued fervently, yet it was an utter failure of a thought experiment.  He assumed the sun was very close, that the horizon doesn't spin with the Earth, and that a human was much larger than we actually are when compared to the size of the Earth.  He tried using a merry go round and a distant light as an analogy.  Ignoring the sides of the merry go round as the analogous horizon.
He is rather silly, and will continue to believe he destroyed spherical Earth because of this failure of spacial reasoning.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Illidreth on May 17, 2015, 04:05:41 PM
it would go across the sky one way then at around the normal sunset time it would reverse directions.

What?
W-
But-
How would that even-
Screw it, I give up.
I'm not nearly drunk enough to deal with that level of dumb.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 17, 2015, 10:27:23 PM
So this is something you can see with the naked eye?

So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

What actually is he saying about those photos and observations?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 18, 2015, 01:19:17 AM
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 18, 2015, 03:41:15 AM
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 18, 2015, 04:13:37 AM
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait.  You are trying to divert attention from your inability to comprehend simple spatial relationships as exemplified by your zigzag theory.  ( And the sun is 93 million miles away )

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 18, 2015, 04:26:16 AM
Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait.  You are trying to divert attention from your inability to comprehend simple spatial relationships as exemplified by your zigzag theory.  ( And the sun is 93 million miles away )

DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :

0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is  the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could  have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned  to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the  sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods,  with always the same result, or there­abouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another.  .  .  . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical;  but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then,  when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.”

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in  1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.”

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.

Original post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651347#msg1651347 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651347#msg1651347)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2015, 06:05:44 AM
Why doesn't the sun appear smaller as it gets further away?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on May 18, 2015, 08:58:09 AM
And thanks to Cikl's convenient link to one of the other threads, we see the following;

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,

... in which Cikl himself says his zig-zag hypotheses is rubbish when applied to RET.  Makes me wonder why he even argues it in the first place.  So yes, every time Cikl claims "Zig Zag" disproves RET, he is knowingly lying.

I guess we can close the books on this one.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 18, 2015, 09:09:56 AM
29silhouette,

Taking words out of the context is your speciality, ha?

Let's see this sentence in it's entirety:

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth, but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, also!!!

The full context is here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on May 18, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
No Cikl, I was directly quoting what you said about 'zig-zag'.  I couldn't even remember what you were trying to say about your 180 degree displacement, so I left it out.

Now then, trying to make sense of that post; n the Arctic or Antarctic circle, the sun moves one direction all the way around you.  Is that what you meant by 180 displacement?  Because that's what happens in reality.

Down towards the bottom of that post, you mention displacement again, and keeping a telescope aimed at the sun would require turning it it one direction and then the opposite direction, and that in reality that is not the case.

Guess what.  Since we have established there would be no zig-zag with RET, a telescope would be adjusted continuously in one direction, and that is in fact what happens in reality.

If there would be no zig-zag, and the 180 displacement you're talking about is a part of or direct result of zig-zag, then it's disproven also.

Speaking of dishonest, you still haven't answered for the manipulated map, and your foul-mouthed name calling is quite sad and pathetic, especially for a person of religion (if you are).

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 02:34:46 AM
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : (http://)
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : (http://)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 19, 2015, 04:00:09 AM
Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : (http://)
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : (http://)

You have to stop watching those BS youtube videos.   Try to watch real educational videos on each topic, that way you'll be less likely to be fooled

(http://)

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: modestman on May 19, 2015, 04:06:59 AM
Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : (http://)
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : (http://)

You have to stop watching those BS youtube videos.   Try to watch real educational videos on each topic, that way you'll be less likely to be fooled

(http://)
i didn't understand nothing so it's probably wrong = too complicated life is simple explanation of life are simple math=complicated=wrong.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 04:30:47 AM
Modestman, of course it's wrong, see this :

(http://i.imgur.com/RwWFnbf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QrSzn48.jpg)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: modestman on May 19, 2015, 04:35:15 AM
Please cikl see the PM I sent you it's really disrupt me.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2015, 07:58:52 AM
Modestman, of course it's wrong, see this :

http://i.imgur.com/RwWFnbf.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/RwWFnbf.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/QrSzn48.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/QrSzn48.jpg)
Nice sleight of hand. The author [Rowbotham, presumably] charges that corrections to the elevation angle measured for a celestial body are needed, and applied, but the phenomenon being measured in the partly-described experiment is mostly change in azimuth. He then simply declares, after an (IMO) intentionally confusing explanation of one of the corrections, that the experiment is invalid.

Unless you carefully work through what he's saying in his confusing explanation of the conversion from geocentric to surface position, you get totally lost and just accept what he says next. This is the old magician's trick of distracting the audience doing by something irrelevant so they don't notice the trick.

It's not possible to tell from the material presented here if he adequately describes the experiment or its outcome since such details, if they even exist in the original document, are omitted from the extract here. Based on the meager description we have, it sounds like the author, to use the technical term, is full of it.

Can you please cite the source of the material you present? A link to the text and/or page scans, with attribution, would be best, if they are available.

One interesting thing to come out of this is the fact that the change in apparent position of a nearby celestial body, as you move from the center of the Earth to the surface, will always make it appear lower in the sky (unless it's exactly on the zenith - then it doesn't change). I'd never thought of it that way, but this does make sense. This has little practical significance but is still interesting to know; learning stuff like this is why I put up with all the BS here; there is an occasional worthwhile nugget.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 09:02:11 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 19, 2015, 09:32:06 AM
Then why did you once say no zigzag would happen on a round earth?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 19, 2015, 10:08:40 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 03:50:15 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

(http://)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 03:59:52 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

(http://)
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 04:07:23 AM
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 04:07:35 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

(http://)
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

I don't encourage him, but the truth is that from time to time we all make mistakes, it doesn't mean that we are not right regarding our basic hypothesis!!!

The only difference between FEs and REs is that we (FEs) admit our mistakes, and they don't!

That says a lot, also!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 04:10:36 AM
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 04:14:23 AM
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
And your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 04:22:27 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

(http://)

How about these nice words that i have received recently in my PM inbox:
Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

With hope that my english was not too confusing,
best regards and greetings from Serbia

Goran
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 04:26:24 AM
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
And your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.
i hope people will understand that you are nothing here but a salesman and you are tendentious
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 04:31:42 AM
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
And your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.
i hope people will understand that you are nothing here but a salesman and you are tendentious
Big word for a little brain,  must have short circuited a braincell with that effort.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on May 20, 2015, 08:22:44 AM
ZIG ZAG is a complete failure and you know it cik.
We have hashed through this before many times, your spacial reasoning is flawed with this thought experiment.  Even you said that is the Sun was far away you would not notice it.  You then try to go back and say the sun is close but the experiment you linked was done by a known charlatan, and when the same experiment is redone with actual experimental controls to reduce error, it is shown to be wrong.  Using Rowbothams procedure, the sun changes distance from the surface of the Earth dramatically throughout the day.  If I did the same procedure here, and a friend of mine did it about 400 miles north of me, it would show, depending on the time of year, that the su is at different distances above the Earth for each location.
Rowbotham's distance to the sun also disagree's with the distance that the Eratosthenes measurements that FE bastardized into supposed proof for a flat Earth.
Rowbotham is not reliable in the slightest.  I have looked over his book, rechecked much of his "data" and read about his exploits.  He was a con man.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 08:52:00 AM
1. ERATOSTHENES - FLAT EARTH WIKI EXPLANATION : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Distance+of+the+Sun (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Distance+of+the+Sun)

2. PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS WRITTEN WITH RED LETTERS :

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth, but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, ALSO!!!

: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1689240#msg1689240 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1689240#msg1689240)

3.

(http://i.imgur.com/owPZrX4.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/EuTZn2L.jpg)

The Earth is FLAT ~ Lake Pontchartrain Causeway : (http://)

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

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 20, 2015, 09:54:22 AM
2. PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS WRITTEN WITH RED LETTERS :

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,
You're exactly right. We wouldn't expect this and we don't see it.

Quote
but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, ALSO!!!

You have never explained why this should be so. Remember to pay attention to the words written in red letters! Your repeated attempts at explaining this always try to ignore the rotation of the Earth. They fail because of this.

Would you please keep to a single topic in a post? More words in red. Pay attention! Next you move to some nonsense about bridges and stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier content in this post, and, thus "My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!" (topic.)

Focus! Focus!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 10:03:02 AM

Would you please keep to a single topic in a post? More words in red. Pay attention! Next you move to some nonsense about bridges and stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier content in this post, and, thus "My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!" (topic.)

Focus! Focus!

He's go the attention span of a hyper active 5 year old with ADHD after drinking a gallon of red cordial.

The bridge thing is a from a video by rollingthunder,  who did those really idiotic videos of southern hemisphere plane flights, where he claimed QF27 didn't exist,   he  might be worthy of a seperate debunking.

On the distance to the sun,   cyclellamas,   you should watch this series of lectures,  it's ok if you don't believe them,  but at least you will be up to date on the methods.

(http://

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 10:39:14 AM
2. PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS WRITTEN WITH RED LETTERS :

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,
You're exactly right. We wouldn't expect this and we don't see it.

Quote
but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, ALSO!!!

You have never explained why this should be so. Remember to pay attention to the words written in red letters! Your repeated attempts at explaining this always try to ignore the rotation of the Earth. They fail because of this.

Would you please keep to a single topic in a post? More words in red. Pay attention! Next you move to some nonsense about bridges and stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier content in this post, and, thus "My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!" (topic.)

Focus! Focus!

Rotation boils down to the lateral displacement, you can't deny that, because it's obvious. Moreover, that (lateral displacement) is the same reason why you claim we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG even if the Earth rotated, since the Sun is so fucking far away. Then i say this : if it were so, then you wouldn't be able to see what we see : a huge (180 degree) daily motion of the Sun across the sky. Then you go again saying that we would be able to see it (even if the Sun were so far away) because lateral displacement is not the same as rotation. Then i could argue like this : o.k., if lateral displacement is not the same as rotation then we have to see ZIGZAG in the sky no matter if the Sun is 92 million miles far away from us or if it is any other number (of miles) in question . But i won't say that, because i don't need to play with you the same kind of stupid games that you try to play with me all along.

To every sane man, it is perfectly clear that my ZIGZAG argument is 100 % reliable proof against the rotation of the Earth!

If you can stand that, deliver a quick hard blow to your own reflection in the mirror, and keep up doing so (a good job) as long as it takes for your stuborn brain to admit the undeniable truth : ZIGZAG argument has put this question (the rotation of the earth, yes or no?) beyond any possible doubt, once and for all times!

Punch yourself in the face, you deserve it!

Focus, focus!!!  ;D

P.S. As for the bridges, they are perfectly in accordance with Eratosthenes measurements, only you are not so lucid to recognize obvious implications and connotations!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 20, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
Rotation boils down to the lateral displacement, you can't deny that

Want to bet?

Quote
because it's obvious.

What is obvious? That rotation is the same as lateral displacement? If that seems obvious to you, it may explain why you also believe the Earth is flat.

Quote
Moreover, that (lateral displacement) is the same reason why you claim we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG even if the Earth rotated, since the Sun is so <redacted> far away.

What?

Oh, yes... jroa has requested cleaning up the language in this part of the forums. It's a reasonable request. Show him some respect on this matter, please.

Quote
Then i say this : if it were so, then you wouldn't be able to see what we see : a huge (180 degree) daily motion of the Sun across the sky.

That's because of rotation. Displacement is there (except exactly at the pole), but so small it has no discernible effect.

Quote
Then you go again saying that we would be able to see it (even if the Sun were so far away) because lateral displacement is not the same as rotation.

That's exactly right. If you're rotating and staying on one spot, objects near and far change within your field of view by the same angle. If you move side to side (lateral displacement), the angle within your field of view changes more for nearby objects than distant objects.

Quote
Then i could argue like this : o.k., if lateral displacement is not the same as rotation then we have to see ZIGZAG in the sky no matter if the Sun is 92 million miles far away from us or if it is any other number (of miles) in question . But i won't say that, because i don't need to play with you the same kind of stupid games that you try to play with me all along.

But you just did say it. And it's still wrong. You say it, then say you won't say it; this sounds very confused.

Quote
To every sane man, it is perfectly clear that my ZIGZAG argument is 100 % reliable proof against the rotation of the Earth!

Are you claiming that you and maybe half a dozen other people are the only sane ones on Earth. Ohkaaayyy....

Quote
If you can stand that, deliver a quick hard blow to your own reflection in the mirror, and keep up doing so (a good job) as long as it takes for your stuborn brain to admit the undeniable truth : ZIGZAG argument has put this question (the rotation of the earth, yes or no?) beyond any possible doubt, once and for all times!

Punch yourself in the face, you deserve it!

Focus, focus!!!  ;D

This is getting bizarre. You might want to take your meds or do some Yoga or something. You need to calm down, or at least stop posting when you get like this. Please don't do anything violent to yourself or anyone else.

Quote
P.S. As for the bridges, they are perfectly in accordance with Eratosthenes measurements, only you are not so lucid to recognize obvious implications and connotations!

Again with the bridges. They have nothing to do with "My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!" (topic.)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on May 20, 2015, 02:45:49 PM
Again, ZIG ZAG is a failure of spacial reasoning.  You are very small compared to the Earth, the distance to the sun, and the moon.  The distance moved during the rotation of the Earth is very small when compared to the distance to the sun and the moon.  Your field of view (what you see between you and the horizon, is very small compared to the size of the Earth and the distances to the sun and the moon.
Alpha said it best though, cik go take your meds please.  BTW haven't you threatened to go back to Mr. Dubay's site and leave here forever?  I guess you were not as much of a coward as I thought, you are still dumb though.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 21, 2015, 04:55:28 AM
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.

But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.

No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!

Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:

When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!

Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle)  for 24 hours continuously, in the moment  of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.

This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)

So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!

Enjoy the truth!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 21, 2015, 05:12:05 AM
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.

But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.

No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!

Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:

When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!

Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle)  for 24 hours continuously, in the moment  of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.

This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)

So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!

Enjoy the truth!

Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Weatherwax on May 21, 2015, 05:23:39 AM
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.

But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.

No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!

Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:

When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!

Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle)  for 24 hours continuously, in the moment  of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.

This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)

So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!

Enjoy the truth!

Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?

Dont bother. Cikljamas has learning difficulties, his zigzag notion has been repeatedly falsified, but he just ignores this and keeps banging on about it.

The Earth rotates on its axis, therefore the sun moves around the horizon during (ant)arctic summer. He just can't get his head around it.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 21, 2015, 06:17:51 AM
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.

But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.

No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!

Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:

When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!

Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle)  for 24 hours continuously, in the moment  of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.

This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)

So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!

Enjoy the truth!

Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?

Post No #21 (previous page) :

Quote
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 09:06:17 AM by cikljamas »

Post No # 24 (previous page) :

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Rayzor on May 19, 2015, 10:08:40 AM
Quote
Quote from: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 09:02:11 AM

My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

(http://)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 03:53:09 AM by cikljamas »

ZIGZAG ARGUMENT - 100 % proof against "the rotation of the Earth" hypothesis (my own video) : (http://)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 21, 2015, 06:46:54 AM
Here's a sun motion simulator that might help.  http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/coordsmotion/sunmotions.html (http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/coordsmotion/sunmotions.html)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 21, 2015, 06:58:05 AM
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.

But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.

No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!

Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:

When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!

Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle)  for 24 hours continuously, in the moment  of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.

This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)

So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!

Enjoy the truth!

Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?

Post No #21 (previous page) :

Quote
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 09:06:17 AM by cikljamas »

Post No # 24 (previous page) :

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Rayzor on May 19, 2015, 10:08:40 AM
Quote
Quote from: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 09:02:11 AM

My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

(http://)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 03:53:09 AM by cikljamas »

ZIGZAG ARGUMENT - 100 % proof against "the rotation of the Earth" hypothesis (my own video) : (http://)

The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 21, 2015, 08:08:56 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:

ZIGZAG demonstration  : (http://)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 21, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:

ZIGZAG demonstration  : (http://)

You have to visualize it, so this video is worthwhile watching.

Where exactly is the eye of the video camera? Do you have a picture of it or a video of the tilted ball rotating?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 21, 2015, 09:16:52 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:

ZIGZAG demonstration  : (http://)
You need to make the experiment to scale. A not to scale experiment is worthless in this case as distances matter.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 21, 2015, 09:31:33 AM
I did the calculation quickly.

For a 6 inch diameter light for the sun:

The camera should be 16 meters away and move back and forth 0.7 mm.(the equator's radius was used.)

Hope this helps.

Let us know when you post the video.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Weatherwax on May 21, 2015, 09:33:05 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 21, 2015, 10:44:37 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?

It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!

The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!

So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!

Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 21, 2015, 10:50:59 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?

It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!

The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!

So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!

Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!
Are you going to redo the experiment to scale?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 21, 2015, 10:59:51 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?

It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!

The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!

So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!

Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!

Kuddos for you not to listen to all those gravity freaks who believe that they know how the world works.

Could you please show me a picture of the eye in the ball. I'm thinking of doing the same experiment.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 21, 2015, 11:08:46 PM
Are you going to redo the experiment to scale?

Once again, sokarul is asking someone to do something "to scale" without clarifying what that scale is.  It is like telling someone to drive for a distance and then turn left, without specifying the distance.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on May 21, 2015, 11:21:27 PM
That's not what he is asking at all.  I hate that I have to explain basic stuff to people who won't listen, but if you are going to perform an experiment that involves distances and sizes of things and you need to reduce those sizes ans distances to a manageable size you have to scale everything equally.  The ratio of the scale doesn't matter so much as making sure you reduce everything equally.  Otherwise your results will not mean anything.  Using a flashlight and a globe ten feet away or a merry go round and a street light 200 feet away isn't adequate.  cik is really overestimating the size of a human, and the field of view of that human to the size of the Earth and the size and distance of the Sun and saying it would be something it clearly would not.  Now you jump in with the silly straw man tactics of misstating what is being asked for to discredit the question.
This stupid zig zag argument has been thoroughly destroyed before, cik just will not admit it.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 22, 2015, 06:17:29 AM
I did the calculation quickly.

For a 6 inch diameter light for the sun:

The camera should be 16 meters away and move back and forth 0.7 mm.(the equator's radius was used.)

Hope this helps.

Let us know when you post the video.
Are you going to redo the experiment to scale?

Once again, sokarul is asking someone to do something "to scale" without clarifying what that scale is.  It is like telling someone to drive for a distance and then turn left, without specifying the distance.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 22, 2015, 08:20:59 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?

It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!

The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!

So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!

Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!

Kuddos for you not to listen to all those gravity freaks who believe that they know how the world works.

Could you please show me a picture of the eye in the ball. I'm thinking of doing the same experiment.

Had you carefully read and comprehended what i wrote in post #40 (the first post at this very page) then you wouldn't have needed any additional experiment in order to convince yourself that my ZIGZAG argument is absolutely plausible and reliable proof against the rotation of the earth!!!

(http://i.imgur.com/8OqLdu0.jpg)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on May 22, 2015, 08:24:17 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:

ZIGZAG demonstration  : (http://)

You have to visualize it, so this video is worthwhile watching.

Where exactly is the eye of the video camera? Do you have a picture of it or a video of the tilted ball rotating?
Cikl's shaky hand moving a camera around in a circle pointed at a light bulb in the same room shows nothing.

Find a horizontal disk (let's go with 3 to 5 feet) that can spin, put the camera about 3 inches out from the center and also able to spin, and find a light source about a mile away.  Keep the camera pointed at the light source while spinning the disk.  Also make sure the edge of the disk is framed in the camera's view, as this would be the horizon that is seen moving a constant direction in the actual situation.

This setup would be closer (Someone else can work out the exact numbers for a 6" camera diameter if they wish) to what is seen in the polar regions, where Cikl says the sun would (or would not.... he can't seem to make up his mind) zig-zag.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 22, 2015, 08:34:13 AM
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?

I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?

It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!

And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?

It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!

The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!

So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!

Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!

Kuddos for you not to listen to all those gravity freaks who believe that they know how the world works.

Could you please show me a picture of the eye in the ball. I'm thinking of doing the same experiment.

Had you carefully read and comprehended what i wrote in post #40 (the first post at this very page) then you wouldn't have need any additional experiment in order to convince yourself that my ZIGZAG argument is absolutely plausible and reliable proof against the rotation of the earth!!!

Last night I tried to look on top of a big turning ball at a bulb light. It looked like the zigzag really happened (first to the right and then to the left). Strange, could it be an illusion?. Would a scale model show the same result?

I will study your material and do some more research/experiments. Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on May 22, 2015, 08:52:22 AM
Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 22, 2015, 08:56:16 AM
Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 22, 2015, 12:55:49 PM
Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 22, 2015, 01:06:26 PM
Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

You're a bad joke. Not an assumption, a fact!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on May 22, 2015, 01:14:55 PM
An actual scale model would not show the zig zag.
So you do not want to know anything then since you get mad if anyone else answers your questions, then call them a joke?
Troll.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Realdeal on May 22, 2015, 06:37:16 PM
I do not see how this ZIG ZAG thing would work with the lies we are being fed about the distance and size of the Sun though.  I still think those are lies, yet this doesn't seem to work for me.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 23, 2015, 04:51:30 AM
I know what scares you!

The whole scientific community agrees that the Earth rotates, revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is tilted 23,5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the spatial orientation of Earth's "axis" is fixed with respect to something in a proximity of Polaris, one (366th) annual (sidereal) rotation of the Earth almost perfectly matches a period of 365 days (no matter for how many millions of miles they artificially enlarge (or shrink) Earth's orbit (they just increase (or decrease) Earth's orbital speed)), etc.,etc.,etc...

And now comes Cikljamas and says : that's all bullshit!

Not only that, Cikljamas offers you a very simple and undeniable, irrefutable argument which is able to scatter all heliocentric wet dreams once and for all.

Well, that's outrages and unacceptable.

Shall we survey their (HC) objections to my ZIGZAG argument once more?

Their only objection is that we couldn't notice ZIGZAG (which REs claim that it (ZIGZAG) exists, (because they know it would be inevitable geometrical consequence of HC stupid theory, if it were true), only (according to them) we can't notice it because the Sun is so far away and his parallax for the observer on the Earth is so small).

Their objection is absolutely meaningless!!!

I've already pointed out this many times, so it is ridiculous that i have to repeat it so often, but it seems that we have to parrot it (again and again) untill last idiot become able to grasp this utterly simple concept.

If the Sun's parallax (ZIGZAG) were so small, we wouldn't be able to observe such a large arc of Sun's daily path in the sky, also.

That is why we don't need any additional experiment which would demonstrate the trueness of this argument, and which would convince us that validity of my ZIGZAG  argument is absolutely undisputable.

So, before any sane and honest person tried to bring forth/pull out a "small parallax" objection (against my ZIGZAG argument), such person firstly should have to discard our/his/her daily experiences of Sun's motion in the sky in a large arc (from East to West), which lasts for many hours (sometimes for more than 16,5 hours (for instance at latitude, 51 degrees N - summer time (London)), and to accept that such daily experiences of ours are pure imagination, and nothing else but imagination.

When you see the Sun going from East to West, what is heliocentrist's answer concerning the possible cause of this phenomena?

They say it happens due to Earth's rotation FROM WEST to EAST!!!

THAT SETTLES THE MATTER!!!

Why? How?

Don't you see it, at the first glance?

If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).

That is why we don't need any additional demonstration.

Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.

That would be "to scale", having in mind the real/true ratio regarding the true dimension of the Sun vs the true dimension of the Earth, and regarding the real distance between the Sun and the Earth!!!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2015, 07:18:53 AM
So, are you going to perform the experiment to a proper scale?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on May 23, 2015, 08:06:26 AM

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).
You said yourself zigzag would not be seen on a round Earth with a sun 93million miles away.
Here's a diagram again showing why there is no zigzag.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/hrzn_zpsgcohetj4.jpg)

Quote
Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.
If you want to demonstrate this zigzag nonsense for a flat Earth, yes, move the light closer (not sure why you would want to do that though, since you claim Earth is flat and zigzag is not observed in reality)

If you're trying to do a scale demonstration for RET, the light must be much further away (at least a mile or two *edit- about 22km) if using a carousel).  It's been explained how to properly do it if you want any integrity associated with this experiment.  Just put the camera about 6 inches out from the center of the carousel, the edge of the carousel will be the 'horizon' so make sure it's framed in the shot, have someone turn the carousel and keep the camera pointed at the distant light source.

Are you going to do it or are you scared?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 23, 2015, 10:52:23 AM
I know what scares you!

The whole scientific community agrees that the Earth rotates, revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is tilted 23,5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the spatial orientation of Earth's "axis" is fixed with respect to something in a proximity of Polaris, one (366th) annual (sidereal) rotation of the Earth almost perfectly matches a period of 365 days (no matter for how many millions of miles they artificially enlarge (or shrink) Earth's orbit (they just increase (or decrease) Earth's orbital speed)), etc.,etc.,etc...

The the number of sidereal days and solar days in a year will always differ by exactly one. This is regardless of the size of the orbit and rate of rotation. The Sun completes exactly one circuit of the ecliptic in one year - that's what defines the year - and is where the exactly one-day difference comes from.

Quote
And now comes Cikljamas and says : that's all bullshit!

We're well aware of that. Unfortunately, cikljamas is unable to grasp (or refuses to grasp), despite page after page of careful explanation, where his idea is wrong. This appears to still be the case.

Alpha2Omega does like the third-person presentation of the argument; at least that little bit is new. As a courtesy, and to avoid confusion, he will capitalize cikljamas' name as it is officially registered with the forum as his username.

Quote
Not only that, Cikljamas offers you a very simple and undeniable, irrefutable argument which is able to scatter all heliocentric wet dreams once and for all.

The problem is, cikljamas offers an argument that, while simple, is neither undeniable nor irrefutable. It's simply wrong.

Quote
Well, that's outrage[ou]s and unacceptable.

Shall we survey their (HC) objections to my ZIGZAG argument once more?

Their only objection is that we couldn't notice ZIGZAG (which REs claim that it (ZIGZAG) exists, (because they know it would be inevitable geometrical consequence of HC stupid theory, if it were true), only (according to them) we can't notice it because the Sun is so far away and his parallax for the observer on the Earth is so small).

That is partially correct. Another objection is that cikljamas himself is conflating two different phenomena and can't seem to sort out what his own "zig-zag" argument is.

Quote

Their objection is absolutely meaningless!!!

cikljamas decreeing this again and again doesn't make it any more true, that is, not at all, than it was the first time. Sorry.

Quote
I've already pointed out this many times, so it is ridiculous that i have to repeat it so often,

Alpha2Omega does not disagree with this statement. He further asserts that, most likely, all other readers agree with it, too!

Quote
but it seems that we have to parrot it (again and again) untill last idiot become able to grasp this utterly simple concept.

That is part of the problem. cikljamas does parrot this again and again, but what he fails to realize is that 'parroting' means repeating words without knowing their meaning. Is that what he is doing? It certainly seems like it. Apparently he also fails to realize that the "last idiot" he refers to is himself.

Quote
If the Sun's parallax (ZIGZAG) were so small, we wouldn't be able to observe such a large arc of Sun's daily path in the sky, also.
Since the effects of parallax and rotation are independent, this is an erroneous claim, as has been patiently explained again and again. cikljamas apparently ignores this explanation, but refuses to explain why he ignores it.

Quote
That is why we don't need any additional experiment which would demonstrate the trueness of this argument, and which would convince us that validity of my ZIGZAG  argument is absolutely undisputable.

cikljamas has slipped back into first-person voice. Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted. Third-person does get a bit tedious, though.

Quote
So, before any sane and honest person tried to bring forth/pull out a "small parallax" objection (against my ZIGZAG argument), such person firstly should have to discard our/his/her daily experiences of Sun's motion in the sky in a large arc (from East to West), which lasts for many hours (sometimes for more than 16,5 hours (for instance at latitude, 51 degrees N - summer time (London)), and to accept that such daily experiences of ours are pure imagination, and nothing else but imagination.

This is again parroting the same old tired argument. Rotation and parallax are independent of each other. Stand in one spot and stare at some object at any distance away. Turn halfway around without moving from the original spot. Did the object appear to move 180° in your field of view? Yes. Was there any parallax? No.

End of your "small parallax means no apparent movement" argument.

Quote
When you see the Sun going from East to West, what is heliocentrist's answer concerning the possible cause of this phenomena?

They say it happens due to Earth's rotation FROM WEST to EAST!!!

THAT SETTLES THE MATTER!!!

Why? How?

Don't you see it, at the first glance?

If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).

See, here's part of the problem: sometimes you attribute your "zig-zag" to parallax, and sometimes to another, entirely different effect, so it's hard to tell what you mean.

What you just describe here is the motion of a circumpolar star. If one is close enough to a pole, the Sun becomes circumpolar at certain times of year and remains 'up' for the full 24-hour day. Other than being vastly brighter than the other stars and moving slightly eastward with respect to them over the period of a day, it is no different. It follows a path across the sky that is a tilted circle centered on the North Celestial Pole (unless you're at the pole, then it's not tilted, but centered directly overhead).

So what does this mean? Let's say we're just north of the Arctic Circle around the June solstice. At local solar noon, the Sun is highest in the sky directly south of you and moving toward the west (left to right as you face it). As time progresses and the Sun follows its circular path centered on the North Celestial Pole, its motion becomes more and more northerly and less westerly (still left to right as you face it). A little less than six hours after local solar noon, it's due west of you and is moving northward, still following the same circle in the same direction - left to right as you face it. Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west). As time progresses and the Sun follows it's tilted circle (still left to right as you face it), it passes its lowest point, due north, at local solar midnight. At this point, if you're still facing toward the Sun, you've made a half-turn from the direction you were looking at noon, as the Earth made a half rotation under you. About six hours after that, it's due east, traveling southward (still left to right as you continue to face it), moving toward the south (and westward) until it returns to the highest point of the circle, due south, at noon.

This has been explained before, but maybe not in the same way. The Sun is moving in a circle centered on the Celestial Pole. It always moves the same direction around the circle. It does not "zig-zag" any more than the ends of the hands of a clock "zig zag"; they, too, move in circles.

Do you get it now?

Quote
That is why we don't need any additional demonstration.

Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.

That would be "to scale", having in mind the real/true ratio regarding the true dimension of the Sun vs the true dimension of the Earth, and regarding the real distance between the Sun and the Earth!!!

And now you're back to arguing that "zig-zag" is parallax. Do you see why it's so difficult to discuss this with you?

If you want to use this carousel to demonstrate this effect in the heliocentric model, then you have to scale the relative distances in your demonstration to match the relative distances of the heliocentric model, not some distances you just made up. The heliocentric model has the Sun more than 11,000 times as far from the Earth as the Earth's diameter. If you're using a carousel with a diameter of 20 meters to represent the Earth, the Sun in your model needs to be 22 km away; if that circle represents the Arctic Circle (about 40% the diameter of the Earth), your sun needs to be 1.5 times further away.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 23, 2015, 12:28:35 PM
Alpha-liar,

Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?

I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)

If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?

The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.

Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.

Quote
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2015, 01:13:14 PM

Quote from: you
Five orders of magnitude, wow, i am trembling...hahaha...

So, it is not 0,002, it's 0,010, ha?
That's not five orders of magnitude. Five orders of magnitude would be 200,000 as how you write it or 200.000 or Americans.

Probably shouldn't link to posts with such giant errors.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 23, 2015, 02:34:36 PM
Thanks Sokarul, for giving me a reason - an opportunity to link here one other post of mine : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449)

Sokarul, I can't help myself, also, but next picture is the best illustration of your personality:

(http://i.imgur.com/skam5kK.jpg)
You should change your name into "slimy scavenger", such name would suit you best!

What is really giant is your moral ugliness!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 23, 2015, 03:09:28 PM
Alpha-liar,

Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?
Wow! Just how important do you think you are? Seriously.

As I said before, if Hell exists, I expect to see you there. If it's as bad as described, i'll be doomed to an eternity in a room with no one but you. Think about what that means for you!

Quote
I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)
Who? A being that doesn't exist?

Quote

If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?

The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.
See, there's what you're missing. If you stand fixed and facing outward on the carousel, facing away from the light source 20 km away. After about 1/4 turn of the carousel while you're still facing directly outward, the distant light source starts to come into your field of view (it was behind you at the start, remember?). For the next 1/4 turn, the light source moves across your field of vision until it's in the middle of it as you continue to stand facing outward. You didn't change your position relative to the carousel - you're still facing directly outward - but the rotation of the carousel is rotating you, too. For the next 1/4 turn, the light continues to move across your field of vision until it disappears out the opposite side it entered from.

There was no parallax because the light is so far away. The light doesn't move wrt the carousel, the carousel rotates but doesn't otherwise move, you remained fixed on the carousel staring outward, yet the light crossed your field of vision from one side to the other! Amazing!

Quote
Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.
If we use the Sun to define our frame of reference, it is stationary by definition. The rotating Earth causes the apparent daily motion of the stationary (by definition) Sun across our sky. Whether the entire frame is stationary or not is irrelevant, as long as it isn't accelerating.

Quote
Quote
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!
No, I don't know that's wrong. How is that wrong? Please explain after you've calmed down.

You're getting incoherent. Try deep breaths. Yoga. Meds. Get away from the computer for a while at the very least. It seems to be bad for you.

"You will respond for your deliberate lies"? What does this mean?

"Your punishment will be severe!" Are you threatening me? It's not working.

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350)
Yeah, I'm not quite sure the point of that link, either. It might be nice if, when you respond to something, you give a link back to whatever it is you're responding to.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691206#msg1691206 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691206#msg1691206)

Well that was a "cheep" shot. Har! I'm almost as funny as Papa thinks he is!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2015, 03:56:45 PM
Thanks Sokarul, for giving me a reason - an opportunity to link here one other post of mine : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449)

Sokarul, I can't help myself, also, but next picture is the best illustration of your personality:

(http://i.imgur.com/skam5kK.jpg)
You should change your name into "slimy scavenger", such name would suit you best!

What is really giant is your moral ugliness!
I'll change my name when you change your name to "pick and choosey". You ignored my last ousts but then respond to this one. Are you afraid to perform a proper experiment?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JerkFace on May 23, 2015, 08:12:17 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/skam5kK.jpg)

After being shown to be wrong due to terminal stupidity,  yet again.

If you made a mistake, about 5 orders of magnitude, no need to come back with a barrage of insults,  just accept the correction and move on.
When you come back with insults then you have to expect to cop what gets returned.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Tom on May 24, 2015, 12:43:24 AM
Alpha-liar,

Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?

I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)

If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?

The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.

Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.

Quote
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350)

An experiment on scale like in a planetorium would be sufficent. With a slow rotating earth.

The zigzag argument makes sense. How would you explain that below the artic circle the sun is rising in the east and setting in the west? How is the fixed sun going back the other side of the earth during the night? It has to move back to the east somehow?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on May 24, 2015, 07:23:29 AM
Of course it makes sense, not only that, it is 100 % true, irrefutable, and undeniable argument against the rotation of the Earth, which scatters HC theory into thin air!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 24, 2015, 09:33:48 AM
An experiment on scale like in a planetorium would be sufficent. With a slow rotating earth.

The zigzag argument makes sense. How would you explain that below the artic circle the sun is rising in the east and setting in the west? How is the fixed sun going back the other side of the earth during the night? It has to move back to the east somehow?
It completes the circle. Easy. Same as these, just not as close to the pole:

(http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/02041510.jpg)

Those aren't zig-zags. They're arcs of circles.

Here's a zig-zag, but it's the apparent motion of Mars over a period of months, not hours:

(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/picsol/retro2005.jpg)

All the outer planets behave similarly. Why we see this (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/retromars.html).

Can we move on past the "zig-zag" sun argument now? There is no "zig-zag" due to parallax - it's too small. cikljamas has already admitted this. There is no "zig-zag" for the Sun to return to the starting place for tomorrow's sunrise - it's a circle.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 19, 2017, 07:29:00 AM
A little dead thread resurrection, since stickypajamas is slinging his zigzag nonsense again.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: MicroBeta on June 20, 2017, 02:17:23 AM
Of course it makes sense, not only that, it is 100 % true, irrefutable, and undeniable argument against the rotation of the Earth, which scatters HC theory into thin air!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377)
All you need to do is get a ball and flashlight to show, or not show, the zig-zag.  Set the ball/globe up correctly put the flashlight off in the distance and trace the path of the midnight sun.  If you're right it will zig-zag...or if you're wrong it will trace a path exactly like the midnight sun videos.

Either it zig-zags or it doesn't.  A simple model will prove that much.

Mike
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: rabinoz on June 20, 2017, 03:54:28 AM
A little dead thread resurrection, since stickypajamas is slinging his zigzag nonsense again.
If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
;D ;D My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! « Reply #66 on: May 23, 2015, 09:51:30 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691058#msg1691058)  ;D ;D
But don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head!  I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! « Reply #70 on: May 24, 2015, 05:28:35 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691186#msg1691186).

Still it's no worse than all the videos made by one of his other personas, odiupicku, he has no compunction about the most dreadful accusations against others.

I feel almost guilty coming down so heavily, but in my opinion cikljamas/odiupicku, Jeranism and Eric Dubay are among the three worst of the Flat Earth YouTube video producers.

PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's curses
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on June 21, 2017, 05:35:11 PM
If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
;D ;D My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! « Reply #66 on: May 23, 2015, 09:51:30 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691058#msg1691058)  ;D ;D
But don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head!  I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
...
PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's curses
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!

I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: rabinoz on June 21, 2017, 09:16:11 PM
I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...
:D Maybe we should be more respectful to ChickenMess in future  :P
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Lonegranger on June 23, 2017, 09:17:52 AM
This thread is a clear example of how out of control ignorance can lead to outrageous claims that have no basis in reality. If you had problems with your beloved pet cat you would most likely consult a qualified Vet. IF you had toothache again you would go and see a qualified dentist. The clue here is being able to tap into  certified knowledge and experience.

The Zig Zag argument is one totally derived from pure ignorance.

If you would like to know the truth about the sun consult an expert or go and do a course, like this one....

The distance to the sun is accurately known. The sun is studied on a second to second to second basis using both ground based and satellite based instruments.....like these ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_(spacecraft)

or these
https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on June 23, 2017, 10:49:54 AM
If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
;D ;D My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! « Reply #66 on: May 23, 2015, 09:51:30 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691058#msg1691058)  ;D ;D
But don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head!  I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
...
PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's curses
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!

I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...

What i meant to convey to my countless fans (especially to Rabinos and Alpha2Omega) in my old post #66 was this :

If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :

We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE) along the equator (at equinox) for several minutes. So, the speed of an aircraft is 800 km/h, the speed of the earth at the equator is 1660 km/h. It means that an absolute speed of an aircraft is 2440 km/h.

Since the sun is allegedly at rest and we fly 2440 km/h we won't be able to notice ANY AMOUNT OF APPARENT DISPLACEMENT OF THE SUN during our measurment because the sun is 150 000 000 km away from the earth, which means that of our parallax is

6400/150000000 = 0,00004266
ctg 0,00004266 = 0,002444237
0,004888475 * 2 = 0,004888475

So, if we move 406 km per 10 minutes above the equator in a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE - IN ABSOLUTE TERMS - (BY FLYING IN A PERFECTY STRAIGHT LINE WE ARE CANCELING OUT ANY IMPACT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE) the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???

Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?

Of course we wouldn't!

ON TOP OF THAT :

(http://i.imgur.com/8OqLdu0.jpg)

JUST FOR LAUGH :

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: MouseWalker on June 23, 2017, 12:22:23 PM

If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).

When I see this, I go what the hey; if this is what you think happens I can understand your confusion.
When you're observing the sun, above the Arctic Circle, when there is a 24 hour day, you have to continue turning right to keep the sun in Center view. To know what time it is you have to have a local reference, otherwise you would not be able tell what time it is. The view of the sun does not go backwards as you stated that 6pm. It is simply wrong.

?"what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle"?
THIS IS WRONG.
The Earth does not change rotation, nor does it have to.
You the Observer, has to continue turning right, to keep the sun Center View.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on June 23, 2017, 02:50:56 PM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.

We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)
And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?

For example, starting at the equator and travelling in a straight line at the tangential velocity of Earth (the point on the equator, including the orbit) at first you appear stationary, but you start curving upwards, gaining altitude and falling behind Earth.
For a sun centred reference frame, it is a straight line, but from Earth, it certainly looks like a curve.

the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???
Assuming the measuring instrument has insufficient resolution to detect the parallax, yes.
And we aren't the clowns here.

Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?
Yes. We would.
Go and try it.

Of course we wouldn't!
Prove it.

Remember, you need a straight line, so you need to compensate for not only the effects of Earth's curvature but also the effects of Earth's rotation.
This means you can't even get a perfectly flat track to do it on, as the rotation of Earth will make that a curved path.

ON TOP OF THAT :
Yes, more ignorant crap.
Very ignorant crap, like asserting your senses can magically perceive absolute motion when they can't.

For example, when I am on a plane looking at Earth, I don't feel like I am moving. I just see Earth move past below me.
That is just like standing on Earth watching the stars.
Our senses cannot tell us which is moving. All we observe is the relative motion.
It could be Earth moving and the plane being stationary, or it could be Earth being stationary and the plane moving, or both could be moving.
Just like it could be Earth moving and the stars stationary, it could be the stars moving and Earth stationary or both could be moving.

Do you have anything rational to provide?
Perhaps go back to your zig-zag of the moon and admit you fucked up big time?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 23, 2017, 03:44:29 PM
no copy pasta

just a video destroying the entire ZIGZAG stupidity
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: neutrino on June 23, 2017, 03:52:42 PM
Let's call it ZigZag model. Jane loves it!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on June 23, 2017, 04:03:31 PM
Let's call it ZigZag model. Jane loves it!
No. It isn't a model, it is an alleged consequence of a model.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: neutrino on June 23, 2017, 04:07:10 PM
JackBlack, a bit of sarcasm on this forum won't hurt  ;)

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on June 23, 2017, 07:29:59 PM
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on June 24, 2017, 02:04:03 AM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.

We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)
And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?

For example, starting at the equator and travelling in a straight line at the tangential velocity of Earth (the point on the equator, including the orbit) at first you appear stationary, but you start curving upwards, gaining altitude and falling behind Earth.
For a sun centred reference frame, it is a straight line, but from Earth, it certainly looks like a curve.
We are interested to ensure a sun centred reference frame, one way or another!

the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???
Assuming the measuring instrument has insufficient resolution to detect the parallax, yes.
And we aren't the clowns here.
Assuming the measuring instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, we could detect any amount of it, wouldn't we?
Yes, you are the clowns here. :)

Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?
Yes. We would.
Go and try it.
No. We wouldn't.
Go and try it.

Of course we wouldn't!
Prove it.
I don't have to, i know what is the truth, that is to say : i know what would be the outcome of any experiment of that kind or of similar kind :)

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.

It is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts (in a short paper) of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved.

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."

No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology. Scientists have measured the speed of microscopic constituents of the Earth, atoms and molecules, but they have failed to measure the speed of rotating Earth! The "Earth’s rotation" is a technical notation refers to a fake mechanism that only found in the fairytale of heliocentrism.

Remember, you need a straight line, so you need to compensate for not only the effects of Earth's curvature but also the effects of Earth's rotation.
This means you can't even get a perfectly flat track to do it on, as the rotation of Earth will make that a curved path.
Increase the speed of an aircraft (up to mach 7), and decrease the duration of an experiment, and voila...

Do you have anything rational to provide?
Perhaps go back to your zig-zag of the moon and admit you fucked up big time?
So that i could respond to a pile of stupidity which you have spouted out there?

Shall we recall to mind one wonderful example of your ingeniously stupid logic presented in that thread :

Quote
This shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: rabinoz on June 24, 2017, 02:59:23 AM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

Sure, "once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth", but the sun cannot be close to the earth because its apparent size does not change during the day. Matrix Decode prives that quiteconvincingly,have a look at

Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun, Matrix Decode

So, there is no Zig-Zag motion of the rotating Globe. What happens on your Pizza Planet is for you to work out.

But, it is no evidence against the Heliocentric Globe and it's about time you deleted your deceptive videos.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on June 24, 2017, 03:20:29 AM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 05:58:33 AM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what?  When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere.  This is would not happen.  Did you even watch the video I posted?  I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that.  I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 06:11:00 AM
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth, but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, also!!! ** MikeyT crossed out the untruthful parts, cik almost made a fully truthful statement here

Here ya go.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on June 24, 2017, 06:35:45 AM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what?  When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere.  This is would not happen.  Did you even watch the video I posted?  I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that.  I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.

I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth! I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another. For instance :

1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turn around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question :

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!

I love how the ball earth fags are now changing their numbers on altitude to see a curve....First it was 35.000 feet,then 80.000 feet,then 100.000 feet and now it's 250 miles up haha...U dumbfucks are pathetic..

All of you dumfucks now admit that we can't see the curvature of the earth even from a very high altitudes (more than 125 000 feet), and we can't see it because the earth is so, so huge, isn't that so? The earth is so huge that when you observe the earth from Mt Everest you would be able to see 333 km in all directions according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator. So, 333 km = 3 degrees (3 * 60 nautical miles = 111 km). Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flat, of course it's flat since it's flat when we observe it from even much, much higher altitudes, you can't deny that, can you? Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see MUCH more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorable (http://i.imgur.com/aNMU8HX.jpg), but we are going to use these 333 km. Now, imagine yourself standing somewhere at the Arctic circle and observing the motion of the sun ) which travels at 666 km/h at the Arctic circle latitude which is 66,6 degree N. It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun. Let's say that you observe the motion of the sun from 15 minutes before MIDNIGHT till 15 minutes after MIDNIGHT. Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what?  When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere.  This is would not happen.  Did you even watch the video I posted?  I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that.  I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.

I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :

***** REMOVED pompass blathering that had nothing to do with my question ****

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question :

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!

**** REMOVED unnecessary insulting behavior to make himself feel better, also had nothing to do with my question *****
I left a bit, well the bits that had a shred of content that was close to what I asked, yet you did not answer it...  AGAIN.

I will try to restate it, maybe you will understand.
If the Sun appears to move across the sky, What seems to remain still when seeing this apparent motion?
I would say the sky and the horizon.
Now for your straw man argument,  If we were on a ball and we were stood close enough to the North or South pole to get a 24 hour day during the right time of the year.
Your argument is that we would see the Sun travelling, say East to west for half the day, then West to East for the rest.  Is this correct?
What would that movement be in relation to, as in, If I am looking at a mountain and the Sun moves right to left during the morning and around lunch am I going to see the Sun move left to right over that same mountain?

So please explain, ZIG ZAG in RELATION to WHAT?

Do try to limit the insulting and copy pasta.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 07:11:30 AM
I will also link you video again.  Not my work, and it is a bit more insulting than I like but it attempts to understand this notion of zigzag and  does a good job of destroying it.

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on June 24, 2017, 07:53:49 AM
So please explain, ZIG ZAG in RELATION to WHAT?

In relation to the vertical line in the middle of our camera lens (in order to avoid possible "misleading" effects (assuming that the sun is 150 000 000 km away) we have to obscure everything we see on the horizon, that is to say : any kind of "orientation points" that are placed on the earth) :

So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 08:22:49 AM
God, lets try to dumb this down a bit more.

What would the Sun move against.  I gave you an example, you could just say yes that example is correct or no it is not.

Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly.  I am just trying to get your argument broken down to where we could honestly discuss it.  Right now it isn't.  I and everyone else is making assumptions about what you are talking about with the ZigZag stuff.

Imagine we are at your Arctic circle location you use in your earlier explanations.
So keeping a mountain on the horizon in my view for the entire day.  Do you think I will I see the Sun apparently go left to right and then right to left (a zig zag movement) if I am on a globe with the Sun 93 million miles away.

Easy to answer, you will have a chance to explain your answer, just give me a short and sweet answer.  Yes the above is correct or no it is not.
If not, then follow up with something as simple as that to describe what you think will be seen.  Like I said, we sill get into explanations later.  Just getting the foundation setup for the discussion.  And I do want a discussion, we spend enough time insulting each other in other threads.  We can do that there.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: MouseWalker on June 24, 2017, 09:30:53 AM
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!

Quote
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

If this is how you see it, I understand your confusion, it is wrong.
Standing above the Arctic Circle during the summer, a person tracking the sun, has to turn right to stay with it, he never has to turn left to track to sun.
If you were at the South Pole, you would be tracking the sun by turning to the left, during their summer.
It has to work at both polls.
Or Is there no South Pole in your model? (No South Pole is wrong.)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on June 24, 2017, 09:52:06 AM
My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument!
No it isn't, and yes there is.

IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!
Wait...
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,
Are you saying it would 'zigzag' noticeably or not?  Yes or no, please make up your mind.

All of you dumfucks
Don't be a sore loser.  Also, you misspelled 'dumb'.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on June 24, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly.
You need to ask a person who is honest.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on June 24, 2017, 10:21:01 AM
God, lets try to dumb this down a bit more.

What would the Sun move against.  I gave you an example, you could just say yes that example is correct or no it is not.

Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly.  I am just trying to get your argument broken down to where we could honestly discuss it.  Right now it isn't.  I and everyone else is making assumptions about what you are talking about with the ZigZag stuff.

Imagine we are at your Arctic circle location you use in your earlier explanations.
So keeping a mountain on the horizon in my view for the entire day.  Do you think I will I see the Sun apparently go left to right and then right to left (a zig zag movement) if I am on a globe with the Sun 93 million miles away.

Easy to answer, you will have a chance to explain your answer, just give me a short and sweet answer.  Yes the above is correct or no it is not.
If not, then follow up with something as simple as that to describe what you think will be seen.  Like I said, we sill get into explanations later.  Just getting the foundation setup for the discussion.  And I do want a discussion, we spend enough time insulting each other in other threads.  We can do that there.

I've just quoted your post #102, and in my post #101 i had answered to your question that you have posted in your post #102, that is to say : you are asking me the question in the post #102 to which very question i had answered in the post #101???

Do i have to repeat here what was written in my post #101???

Let's repeat it :

Quote
In relation to the vertical line in the middle of our camera lens (in order to avoid possible "misleading" effects (assuming that the sun is 150 000 000 km away) we have to obscure everything we see on the horizon, that is to say : any kind of "orientation points" that are placed on the earth) :

So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?

So, if the sun were so far away then we couldn't notice ZIGZAG motion of the earth with the naked eyes. Is this the sweet answer that you were looking for? But as you could see in 29silhouette's quote of my words which i had written 2 years ago, i admitted that long time ago. So, obviousness of ZIGZAG motion of the sun depends of the actual distance between the sun and the earth.

Very close sun = very obvious ZIGZAG motion of the sun.
Very distant sun = ZIGZAG motion would be hardly detected by naked eyes (it would be impossible to detect it with naked eyes - to be quite sincere), but even then, it would be possible to detect it with special instruments.

REGARDING THE DISTANCE TO THE CELESTIAL LIGHTS :

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?). 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, a 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 a 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)

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

Or do i have to repeat something that it seems that you still don't understand, after all these years (i would rather say that you just pretend that you don't understand it), which is this :

Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on June 24, 2017, 10:47:12 AM

Very close sun = very obvious ZIGZAG motion of the sun.
Very distant sun = ZIGZAG motion would be hardly detected by naked eyes (it would be impossible to detect it with naked eyes - to be quite sincere), but even then, it would be possible to detect it with special instruments.
With that cleared up, are you going to add that information to any of your youtube videos on the subject?  Don't want any misleading videos do you?

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

"I challenge you to take a long exposure photograph while moving, and get a sharp image like this."
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/intownatnight_zps767914b7.jpg)

*Well shoot, photobucket finally caught up to me.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 11:10:23 AM
**** Lots of meaningless copy pasta and nonanswers.****

Or do i have to repeat something that it seems that you still don't understand, after all these years (i would rather say that you just pretend that you don't understand it), which is this :

Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!

So you clearly contradict yourself many times in that post alone, but I got rid of some of it.
Notice the bold and bold enlarged wordings.

Your straw man argument asserts that if you are on a globe and it rotates then you would see a certain thing, you called it your ZIGZAG whatever.

This is not what would happen.  You continue to conflate things here.  Your video is sorta dealing with linear, side to side motion vs rotational motion from the point of the observer.

I asked what the Sun is moving in difference to in your zig zag example.  I have yet to see an answer to this.  I even laid it out for you to say yes to a proposed example, which in reality was inspired by a video you made on the subject.
I was not looking for a sweet or gotcha comment from you, just the truth.   I am still not closed to the idea of exploring this supposed zig zag phenomenon as you have made many posts and videos based on it without actually explaining it in relation to the questions asked.
I will bold the next part to highlight my intentions:

To be honest, my goal is to embarrass you, yes.  Just as that is your goal.  I am trying to get you to explain your idea, break it down.  My primary goal is to destroy the seed of the wrongful thought.  My secondary goal, if the primary is not attainable due to you not answering questions, is to show that you yourself know it is absolute bullshit and therefore will neverendingly evade answering questions that would allow others to properly analyze it.
I see four outcomes,
1: you actually answer the very easy questions and you finally see how wrong the idea is.
2: you actually answer the very easy questions and you double down on an idea you know is wrong.
3: you continually deflect and dance around, not answering and even more people get to see you for the fraud you are.
4:you answer the questions, we analyze it and you show me a different way of seeing it (this is pretty much has the chances of a fart in a tornado survivng 100% in tact for a year without a container).

So this zig zag Sun.  Does it zig zag  for the accepted model in your thought experiment or not.  If not, then your argument is completely invalid. If so, then answer the question about what it zig zags in relation to.

Can you please answer the question without mountains of copy pasta and deflection videos?

Yes or no, then explain in follow on posts.
Does it zig zag in your thought experiment with the currently accepted model (spheroid, Sun far away, etc)?  YES or NO

If yes then, What does the Sun move in relation to.  Horizon, Sky (blue color), both, neither and insert item in as few words as possible)

No gotcha intended here.  No sweet back you into a corner moment intended yet.  (you are already there)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2017, 03:19:42 PM
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!!
That is what you are trying to make the escence of your zig-zag argument. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't.
You obtain the same result regardless of if Earth is at rest while the object circles us, Earth is rotating while the object orbits us, or Earth is rotating (and potentially orbiting) with the object stationary.

I showed that mathematically.
Well, I showed it for 2 out of the three. Do you need me to go back and show it for the case of a stationary object and rotating Earth?

As long as the relative motion remains the same, you cannot tell which scenario is happening.
Your zig-zag argument CANNOT determine if Earth is at rest.

All the zig-zag argument is actually capable of doing is disproving the FE idea of a very close sun which would produce a significant zig-zag motion.

Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth
But you can't. The zig-zag argument proves it is very distant.

zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
Which would just disprove the sun being close. It can't show Earth isn't rotating.

We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)
And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?

For example, starting at the equator and travelling in a straight line at the tangential velocity of Earth (the point on the equator, including the orbit) at first you appear stationary, but you start curving upwards, gaining altitude and falling behind Earth.
For a sun centred reference frame, it is a straight line, but from Earth, it certainly looks like a curve.
We are interested to ensure a sun centred reference frame, one way or another!
And if you do, you get the same results regardless of if Earth is moving or not.
In a sun-centred reference frame, the sun remains in the same position and thus it's apparent position is dependent upon yours. Travelling in a straight line some 150 000 000 km from the sun would produce no significant apparent motion of the sun.

Assuming the measuring instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, we could detect any amount of it, wouldn't we?
Yes, if your instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, you could detect it, but only the amount the instrument is capable of detecting.

Yes, you are the clowns here. :)
Then how come we are able to put forward rational arguments to completely refute your nonsense and you are just capable of spouting the same refuted crap while ignoring our arguments?

No. We wouldn't.
Go and try it.
No. You are the one claiming it would happen, you go and try it and provide evidence of it, making sure you tell us how you managed to set up your straight path.

I have tried similar experiments, such as monitoring the path of the sun over time and noticing that it remains at a fairly constant speed with no noticeable parallax.

I don't have to, i know what is the truth, that is to say : i know what would be the outcome of any experiment of that kind or of similar kind :)
No. You do. You are making a baseless claim as part of your argument.
You don't know what the outcome would be.
You are just asserting an outcome to pretend your argument is true.
I know what the outcome will be based upon other experiments and it doesn't match your claims.

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.
No. They haven't.
Examining the red-shift of distant stars (or galaxies) has detected significant motion of Earth. Of course, this is only relative motion as nothing is capable of detecting absolute motion.
No experiment has ever determined that Earth is at rest as no experiment is capable of doing so.
I assume you are including the likes of Michelson Morley. The assumption that Earth is at rest relies upon the aether existing and Earth being stationary relative to it.
If that is not the case, then it cannot conclude anything about the motion of Earth.
So this experiment has a few options:
1- Earth is stationary relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist (which would allow numerous other theories, like relativity or ballistic light, as a quick recap:
aether - light travels at a speed c in the aether, with the aether acting as a universal absolute reference frame. This would mean in various moving reference frames, the speed of light would differ.
ballistic light - light acts like any other particle with Newtonian relativity, where if you launch it at speed u (in your reference frame) while moving at speed v (in an external observers reference frame), then it will travel at speed u+v in the observers frame. This would mean in any moving reference frame, as long as the observer and the light source are moving together, the speed of light will be constant.
relativity (the only one capable of explaining all observations) - the speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame.

I assume you are also thinking of Airy's failure?
The issue is he failed to take into account the effect of a moving medium. However an important part of this is the earlier detection of stellar aberration.
This is important because of what that experiment shows, again, you have a few options:
1 - The Earth is moving relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist.

And then there is another you would likely like to avoid, the Sagnac effect (also done by Michelson). This was a ring interferometer which detected a phase shift.
Again, the results of this experiment leave us with a few option:
1 - Earth is moving relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist.

Regardless of which, it proved light does not act ballistically.

Notice what the conclusions are (when combining all the experiments):
1 - Earth is both moving and stationary relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist.

1 is a contradiction. Either Earth is moving relative to the aether or it isn't. You can't have both.
This means that 1 is false.
This only leaves option number 2 - the aether does not exist.

This means none of these experiments can determine Earth's motion relative to the aether and you have lost your absolute reference frame.

This means nonse of these experiments could determine if Earth is motionless.

However, we have carried out experiments which have detected absolute rotational motion.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of ... Michelson-Morley interferometry, ... and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
Except Airy's failure required motion of Earth relative to the aether to begin with, which Michelson Morley would have detected, regardless of if it was Earth moving or the aether.
So these experiments just provide a contradiction, showing the aether isn't real, showing these experiments to try to measure Earth's motion is pointless as it is based upon flawed premises.

No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology.
Sure we have.
We have measured our speed relative to numerous objects.

The "Earth’s rotation" is a technical notation refers to a fake mechanism that only found in the fairytale of heliocentrism.
No. Earth's rotation was measured long ago. All the way back in the 1900s. No modern technology required.

So no, Earth's rotation is a real, physical thing.

Remember, you need a straight line, so you need to compensate for not only the effects of Earth's curvature but also the effects of Earth's rotation.
This means you can't even get a perfectly flat track to do it on, as the rotation of Earth will make that a curved path.
Increase the speed of an aircraft (up to mach 7), and decrease the duration of an experiment, and voila...
Mach 7 relative to what? What course is it following? One which follows the surface of Earth, or one which appears to curve away from it?

So that i could respond to a pile of stupidity which you have spouted out there?
No, so that you can respond to the rational arguments I provided which completely disproved your stupid crap.

You are the one spouting stupidity here.

Shall we recall to mind one wonderful example of your ingeniously stupid logic presented in that thread :

Quote
This shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.
You mean that wonderful example of me pointing out your stupidity.
It shows you understand that the rotation of Earth, that 1.25 degrees over 5 minutes, is the major contributor to the apparent motion of the moon, not the translation of a point on Earth's surface or the translation of the moon as it moves along its orbit.

Yet you ignore that and claim the translational speed of the moon relative to the point on Earth differing by 46% should make the moon's apparent motion should differ by 46 %, rather than continue to be based on the 1.25 degrees rotation.

So no, that is your stupidity/dishonesty, not mine, and thanks for reminding everyone of that.

Would you like to be reminded of your other stupidity, such as where you claim the direction of Earth's rotation magically changes between mid day and mid night?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2017, 04:11:23 PM
Quote
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
No. It isn't pure stupidity.
Yes, if Earth rotates and you set up a camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth (and the orbital motion, such that it turns roughly 0.25 degrees per minute), there would be an apparent zig-zag motion which you couldn't detect.
So what?
If Earth was stationary and the sun circled us, and again, you set up a camera to rotate that same roughly 0.25 degrees per minute, you would get the same result. There would be an apparent zig-zag motion there as well, again being too small to detect.

If the sun was much closer (such as in the FE models), then there would be a very noticable zig-zag motion.

So this isn't Rab's stupidity. It is yours.
Rab isn't saying there is no zig-zag. He is saying you would get it regardless of if Earth was stationary with the sun circling, or if Earth was rotating with the sun stationary.

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
The important part is not the absolute motion, it is the relative motion, and more specifically, the apparent rotational motion.

So lest set up our little frame doing what you typically do.
On a rotating Earth with a stationary sun:
We view Earth from above the north pole. The sun is up, Earth  is down.
At mid day the spot you are standing on is moving left. (thus suns relative motion is to the right).
At mid night the spot you are standing on is moving right. (thus suns relative motion is to the left).

What about a stationary Earth with the sun circling?
Well now we need a new setup. North pole in the centre, you are up from the north pole.
At mid day, the sun is circling further up, moving from East to west, or to the right.
At mid night, the sun is now on the other side of Earth, moving east to west there, which means to the left.

So you still get the same effect, the sun's apparent motion (when you remove the effect of rotation/orbit) remains the same.

However, the better time to examine it is at the time of the parallax.
This would be roughly 6 am and 6 pm.

In the rotating Earth example, at 6am you are to the right of the north pole, looking due east.
The sun is slightly to the north (left) (but imperceptibly so).
At 6 pm, you are to the left, and facing due west, and the sun is slightly to the north (right) but imperceptibly so.

Now the stationary Earth example (using the same references as the stationary example above):
At 6 am you are looking east (to the left), and the sun is slightly below the direction you are facing (i.e to the north).
At 6 pm, you are looking west (to the right), and the sun is again slightly below the direction you are facing (i.e to the north).

So you do get the same effect.
In both cases you get a parallax.

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
You get the same apparent motion.
Just because it is real motion doesn't mean it will no longer have any apparent motion.

You still get the same parallax.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
That is right, the problem is not calling into question if the parallax exists or not, it is just measuring the parallax to determine the distance. But that parallax exists regardless of which is moving.

The only way for there to truly be no parallax is if the sun is infinitely far away.

I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :
And you failed to do so honestly.

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth!
If it was you would be able to defend it rationally rather than dismiss arguments and continue to assert the same refuted nonsense.

I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another.
No. Several people have not only tried to refute it but succeeded.
I already did the math and showed what would happen with the moon.
Conveniently, that works fine for the sun by simply setting the orbital speed to 0.

That shows that it doesn't matter if Earth is rotating with the sun stationary or the sun is circling a stationary Earth, you get the same apparent motion.

Your argument is quite easy to refute.
It is not a proof in favour of a stationary Earth. It is a proof in favour of a distant sun, which is an absolute fact.

It is actually your response to these objection which fail.

1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turn around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).
And here you go again ignoring the rotational component of the motion.
Even during these 2 hours Earth is still rotating. Your motion is not simply a case of translation, it is a combination of translation and rotation.
During each of these hours the Earth you are on rotates 15 degrees. So you do still need to turn your camera.

You are the one missing the point here. You are the one you seems to completely ignore that regardless of what your translation is, there is still a rotational component to your motion which is the dominant factor in the apparent motion of the sun.

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!
No we wouldn't.
Again, you miss the core of the objection.
The dominant cause of the sun's apparent motion is the rotation of Earth. This remains constant and thus we do not observe any zig zag motion (as the parallax is too small).
The apparent direction of motion will remain the same due to the same direction of rotation.

Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?
Yes, that is true. But the rotation of Earth doesn't magically change.

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?
The difference is in your hypothetical situation, Earth is rotating at 0.25 degrees per minute in one direction then stops and rotates 0.25 degrees in the other direction, while in reality, Earth continues to rotate in the same direction. This lateral, translational motion you are discussing is the tiny, non-observable (at least by the naked eye) parallax.

Or to put it another way, the Earth is rotating at -0.25 degrees, causing an apparent motion of the sun of 0.25 degrees. In your hypothetical, this magically changes to 0.25 degrees, causing an apparent motion of -0.25 degrees, while in reality it remains at -0.25 degrees and thus the suns apparent motion remains 0.25 degrees.

So again, you fail to understand the core objection, that it is Earth's rotation which is the dominant effect and causes the 0.25 degree apparent motion of the sun. This remains the same.

To understand this, draw a circle.
Then draw a straight line that goes through this circle (touching both edges and the centre) and off to some distant point.
Then draw another straight line offset at a small angle, still passing through the centre, still touching both sides.
These lines indicate the direction you look without turning the camera. Notice how it doesn't matter if you are on the near or far side, that direction is still the same?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!
Again, it is not an apparent change in direction, it is an apparent change in speed, or a change in direction from an Earth-rotating reference frame (i.e. turning the camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth).

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!
This objection makes no sense.
You cannot spin sideways to have just have lateral motion.
You either have just lateral, translation motion and thus no spinning, or you have rotation as well.
If you have rotation then you still get the apparent motion.

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!
Earth is always turning. So we are always turning towards or away from the stationary sun.

Stop acting like you have magically stopped the rotation of Earth so the motion is purely translation. At no point is it ever that, unless you set up a camera to turn to compensate for the motion of the sun which means you no longer have the sun move.

I love how the ball earth fags are now changing their numbers on altitude to see a curve....First it was 35.000 feet,then 80.000 feet,then 100.000 feet and now it's 250 miles up haha...U dumbfucks are pathetic..
How about you try staying on topic and admit defeat or mount a rational defence?

Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flat
The horizon is always flat (barring irregularities of Earth). That is because it is the intersection of a plane with the sphere of Earth. It has the same dip angle all around.

Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see MUCH more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorable
Yes, for a flat Earth there should be no horizon except the edge of Earth.

It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun.
NO YOU ARE NOT!
This is because Earth is still rotating. Over the course of half an hour you will turn roughly 7.5 degrees. Stop acting like this rotation doesn't exist.

Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???
No, you wouldn't. That is because you are still turning 7.5 degrees in the same direction, causing the same apparent motion of the sun.
The actual difference would be very tiny, the parallax, which you have already admitted is so small you cannot see it.

So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?
You have already provided this video and I have already pointed out the problems with it. You aren't just translating the camera, you are rotating it as well.
This is most obvious with the roof at the bottom where the vertical line goes down it in different direction.

Do I need to take screen shots and draw your 2 reference lines in extending them to show they meet and thus it is effectively a rotation, not a translation?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2017, 04:37:50 PM
Damn it Jack, don't scare him off.  He may have the balls to answer the questions.

Always Brick... err Jack?, bringing hand grenades to melees.  Silly guy.

(http://media2.giphy.com/media/lhikHeY5zyE7K/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on June 25, 2017, 01:30:22 AM
Damn it Jack, don't scare him off.  He may have the balls to answer the questions.

Always Brick... err Jack?, bringing hand grenades to melees.  Silly guy.

(http://media2.giphy.com/media/lhikHeY5zyE7K/giphy.gif)
I'd prefer a tactical nuclear weapon.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2017, 05:28:20 PM
Okay Pyjama boy, since you want to keep bringing it up in other threads, like here:
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.
Basically the parallax he is talking about is correcting for Earth's average rotation of 0.25 degrees per minute (matching a solar day), and noticing that the sun doesn't remain in the exact same spot throughout the day due to you not being at the centre of Earth's rotation, while ignoring the more complex parts to it like the eccentricity of the orbit or the tilt.

You just explained what we are talking about (HC "ZIGZAG" (due to the non-existing rotation of the globe) DIURNAL parallax) while we are looking for non-existing peer-review article which would have to deal with non-existing diurnal parallax of the sun. Bravo Jack, you are evolving...:) Now, explain to us how would you measure "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax" (whatever it could be :)) ??? Or should we wait for your smart friend Rabinoz to explain to us what is the true meaning of "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax"??? :)

I will explain how to measure this apparent zig-zag, and give the math to calculate the expected result in a simplified geocentric and heliocentric model where you just focus on the daily motion, not on the yearly motion with axial tilt and the eccentricity of the orbit, in fact, for simplicity we will just pretend the orbit doesn't exist and it is just Earth turning, in reality the motion along our orbit will produce a small angular offset, however that is negated by using a solar day instead of a sidereal day):

We are set up with us at some distance r from the north pole. The sun is some distance R from the north pole. We have a camera set up on an equatorial mount to follow the approximate path of the sun through the sky.

We note that the sun appears to make one revolution every 24 hours. Thus its apparent motion is 15 degrees per hour.
So to compensate for this, we will turn the camera -15 degrees per hour.

This means we get something like the below:
(http://i.imgur.com/jm2arsz.png)
The red circle is our position on Earth, a circle of radius r from the north pole.
The blue lines are construction lines for figuring out the angles.
The green line is where the camera is facing.

On the left is the HC case, with a rotating Earth.
We centre it at mid day, and have the camera rotate. As Earth is rotating, the rotation of the camera is canceled by the rotation of Earth and the camera is facing in the same direction (the green line)

At 6pm we get a. The sun is a little off. At the north pole, it would align perfectly, but we are not there. So we have that small angle a offset due to us being distant from the centre of rotation. By geometry we note 90-a and thus a in the red triangle.
This gives us tan(a)=r/R.
Similarly at b (6am) the sun is still a little off, and we again use geometry and get tan(b)=r/R.
Due to symmetry a and b are the same.

So now for the GC case, well now we are stationary and the sun is circling the north pole.
We still align it at mid day, and still turn the camera the same amount.
But now, we no longer have the rotation of Earth to cancel our rotation of the camera so the camera faces different directions. At mid day the sun would be off to the left. We turn 90 degrees and end up at c, at roughly 6 pm
Now, if we were at the north pole, it would align with the sun perfectly. However we aren't.
As we are offset from the centre of the sun's path, the sun will be offset from the camera.
Again, using geometry, we get tan(c)=r/R.
After another 12 hours we end up at d.
Again using geometry we get tan(d)=r/R.
Again due to symmetry these are the same.

But notice how tan(a) and tan(c) are the same?
This is because the relative angular motion of the sun (w.r.t the camera) is the same.
In the case of HC, we have the rotation of Earth cancelling the majority of the rotation of the camera and are just left with a little zig-zag.
In the case of GC, we have the circular path of the sun cancelling the majority of the rotation of the camera and are just left with a little zig-zag.

So once again, your zig-zag argument is pure BS. You get the exact same result with a stationary Earth and circling sun as you do with a stationary sun and rotating Earth.

Going to admit defeat this time?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2017, 03:33:46 AM
Nice job Jack, thanks! Wouldn't it be good way to determine the true distance to the sun if latitudinal lines were perfect circles? However, they are not perfect circles, so we lose one of our precious orientation points :

An excerpt from the video "EARTH IS A RELM IT IS NOT A PLANET" :
(http://i.imgur.com/7IetFAt.jpg)

But, since the moon is much closer (according to HC bullshit theory) to the earth you can apply my ZIGZAG argument with much higher efficiency to "The ZIGZAG of The Full Moon" case and prove to us that there is 46 % difference between DAILY (during one certain arctic polar night within 24 hours period of time) RELATIVE speeds of The Full Moon, and there you go : once you have proven 46 % difference in DAILY speed of The Full Moon, you would prove an existence of ZIGZAG phenomena, that is to say you would prove that Moon's real motion really occurs in an opposite direction from everyone who ever lived seen it go, and thus HC theory acquires FIRST (in the entire history of fruitless attempts of promulgation of the veracity of HC bullshit theory) EXPERIMENTAL (and even SOLID one) PROOF. Jack, don't you want to become famous?

In order to spare your efforts, all you have to do is to carefully watch this video :

Why the video above provides 100 % reliable method of verification of validity of my ZIGZAG argument? Because of this :

GOING TO ADMIT DEFEAT THIS TIME???
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2017, 04:34:59 AM
Nice job Jack, thanks! Wouldn't it be good way to determine the true distance to the sun if latitudinal lines were perfect circles? However, they are not perfect circles, so we lose one of our precious orientation points :
They don't need to be perfect circles.
It either needs to rotate smoothly (for a daily basis) or have the sun circle smoothly.

The simple fact is you get the same zig-zag for both, the HC model and the GC model.

I provided it here again, and you just ignore it?
WHY?

But, since the moon is much closer (according to HC bullshit theory) to the earth you can apply my ZIGZAG argument with much higher efficiency to "The ZIGZAG of The Full Moon" case and prove to us that there is 46 % difference between DAILY (during one certain arctic polar night within 24 hours period of time) RELATIVE speeds of The Full Moon, and there you go : once you have proven 46 % difference in DAILY speed of The Full Moon, you would prove an existence of ZIGZAG phenomena, that is to say you would prove that Moon's real motion really occurs in an opposite direction from everyone who ever lived seen it go, and thus HC theory acquires FIRST (in the entire history of fruitless attempts of promulgation of the veracity of HC bullshit theory) EXPERIMENTAL (and even SOLID one) PROOF. Jack, don't you want to become famous?
Are you competely incapable of understanding anything?
THE ZIG ZAG IS THE SAME IN THE HC MODEL AND THE GC MODEL!!!
As such the zig zag being detected would not be evidence in favour of either model.

All the zig-zag would tell us is the ratio of the distances from the centre of rotation of us and the body we are monitoring (the sun or the moon).

It will not tell us which is moving.

In order to spare your efforts, all you have to do is to carefully watch this video :

Why the video above provides 100 % reliable method of verification of validity of my ZIGZAG argument? Because of this :
No, not because of that. There is nothing you can do to save your zig-zag BS. It is dead in the water. It has been completely refuted.
It cannot distinguish between a rotating Earth or a stationary Earth.

GOING TO ADMIT DEFEAT THIS TIME???
Why would I admit something that never happened?
You are the one being defeated, yet again.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2017, 06:10:38 AM
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433

However, since it seems that your delusional disorder is incurable i doubt that you will realize what is the true nature of your illness even after reading next elaboration :

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :

HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East

---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards East

---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

CONCLUSION :

1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.

3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2017, 03:01:50 PM
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?
Well, the idea would be for you to pretend I am stupid so you can ignore my arguments.
The problem is you can't prove it. Instead all you can do is spout ignorant crap which has already been refuted.

The only one you are making look stupid or dishonest here is you.
Especially when you need to post the same post in multiple threads to try and hide from your failure.

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433
That wasn't an explanation. It was a load of bullshit which I refuted already.

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

That was even shown up above.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :
In Midnight scenario :
-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West
In Noon scenario :
-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East
No it wouldn't be.
The main cause (as admitted by your already) and repeatedly shown to be the case is the rotation of Earth.
So here is a real analysis:
In Midnight scenario :
-  Earth rotates CCW (west to east) causing an apparent motion of moon CW. As the moon is to the south of the observer, this apparent CW motion will be towards the WEST!
-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East, which slightly increases the apparent westerly motion of the moon.

-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards east, which reduces the apparent westerly motion of the moon.

-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards WEST (i.e. CW)

In Noon scenario :
-  Earth rotates CCW (west to east) causing an apparent motion of moon CW. As the moon is to the north of the observer (at and a much greater distance from the centre of rotation than the moon), this apparent CW motion will be towards the EAST!
-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East which reduces the apparent easterly motion of the moon.

-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards west - which again reduces the apparent easterly motion of the moon.

-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards EAST (i.e. CW)

See how bringing in the dominant effect, which is a key part of the model, allows the model to match reality?

This has already been pointed out to you countless times.

STOP IGNORING THE ROTATION OF EARTH!!!
If Earth rotates -1.25 degrees, things in the sky will appear to move 1.25 degrees. (just looking at the celestial equator component).

---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
And this has been pointed out to be pure bullshit.
Within the GC theory you would expect the same difference as the HC theory. This is because you are at a different distance to the moon and thus the apparent angular motion of the moon will be different, just like something going past you at 1 m/s will appear quite fast if it is 1 m away, but look almost stationary at 1 km away.
In reality the change in distance is not that great. For the Arctic Circle, the change in distance is roughly 5000 km out of a total 400 000 km distance. And that applies in either a GC or HC model (if you want to be realistic and have it match reality).

Within the common FE model you would expect the difference to be much greater. This is because you are now going (assuming the moon is over the equator, it gets better as the moon moves south and worse as it moves north) the distance ranges from roughly 7500 km (midnight) to 12500 km (midday), which would cause a massive difference in apparent speed.

Also it has been pointed out before that that 46% is only looking at the LINEAR speeds. These linear speeds combined contribute (over a 5 minute period) -0.032 or -0.048 degrees to the moons apparent motion. That is very little compared to the contribution due to Earth's rotation (over the same 5 minute period) of 1.25 degrees.
This means the total apparent motion of the moon will be 1.202 to 1.218 degrees.

Stop bringing up the same refuted bullshit. It just makes you look stupid, dishonest and ignorant.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :
Exactly the same as above.

Again a real analysis:

In Midnight scenario :
-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards West

In Noon scenario :
-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards East However, as the observer is further away from the moon which is moving at the same speed, the apparent motion will be reduced.

---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
Again, only linear speeds. This is only a small amount. This results in an angular motion of -0.032 degrees or -0.048 degrees. This amounts to an actual observed apparent motion of 1.202 degrees or 1.218 degrees. Thus the difference is actually 1.3%.

It is only if you compensate for the rotation of Earth that you get a 46% difference.
To do that you rotate the camera 1.25 degrees to compensate for the -1.25 degree rotation of Earth, which would in turn cause a -1.25 degree apparent motion of all the objects in the sky (notice how it cancels? 1.25 degree for rotation of Earth, -1.25 degree for rotation of camera, resulting in 0 overall?).

So that means we would get just the -0.032 degrees and -0.048 degrees, a difference of 50% (the exact percentage varies depending upon how you calculate it and how many sig figs you use).

For the GC case, assuming the real distances to the moon (which I have approximated as 400 000 km), at midnight, the distance between the moon and the point on the Artic circle (which I estimated as 2500 km) is 397 500, and the moon's motion in its orbit, which would be a 1.21 degree motion over 5 minutes, putting it at a distance (which is approximately linear) of 8447 km, then the apparent angular motion of the moon will be an angular motion which you can get (at least to a good approximation) as atan(8447 km / 397500 km)=1.218 degrees.
At mid day, basically all that remains the same. The only difference is the distance from the observer to the moon. That changes to 402500 km.
That means the angle changes to atan(8447/402500)=1.202 degrees.

Notice how this matches the HC model?
But wait, there's more.
Just like how you can compensate in the HC model to find the 46% difference, you can do the same here.
To make it an honest comparison we simply compensate in the same exact manner, i.e. move the camera 1.25 degrees in these 5 minutes. This would match the average apparent angular speed of the sun. This would be how you do your measurement anyway, otherwise you are comparing apples and potatoes.
So what would we get now?

Well we have our observed motions of 1.218 degrees and 1.202 degrees. We get an apparent motion of -1.25 degrees due to the motion of the camera and thus get an observed motion of -0.032 or -0.048 degrees, just like above.

CONCLUSION :
1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.
3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!
And once again a conclusion full of BS.
So here are some actual ones:
0 - There is no difference in observed outcomes (regarding your zig zag BS) between the GC and HC models. They both produce the same apparent motion of the moon.
1 - There is no 46% difference in the apparent motion of the moon. The actual difference in apparent motion is roughly 1.3%, it is only if you attempt to correct for the rotation of Earth or apparent motion of the sun that you get this ~46% difference.
2 - By affirming the zigzag phenomenon all we confirm is the relative sizes of various things, such as the distance to the moon and the distance of the observer from the centre of rotation/orbit. It cannot distinguish between HC and GC, nor between a rotating Earth or stationary Earth.
3 - As such, this CANNOT be proof in favour of HC theory. The result expected is the same under HC and GC, and thus it will prove nothing.

Now are you going to respond rationally for once, admitting that you were wrong or pointing out what is actually wrong with my analysis in explicit detail, using math to show the expected results in both cases and so on, or will you continue your childish antics and just repeat the same refuted crap again and again?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2017, 03:57:49 AM
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

That was even shown up above.

Nothing is shown up above. Your diagram is one another example how skilled (in mathematics) idiots like you can use mathematics to prove whatever they want to prove, however every decent experiment would prove that your dazzling mathematical acrobatics boil down to NOTHING!!!

In first part of your diagram (HC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between three parallel lines, and in the second part of your diagram (GC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between one parallel (green) line and one perpendicular (blue) line which goes through the center of the spherical model of the earth, and you think you have done something meaningful? You have done nothing, as usual. In HC model with the 150 000 000 distant sun there would be 0,004 degrees parallax due to ZIGZAG motion of the rotating earth, but in GC model there would be 180 degrees geocentric "parallax" due to sun's translation along half of it's entire daily orbit around the earth, and you think you can compare these two scenarios in such manner that at the end of the day we get the same result? Only in your wet dreams, and your delusional disordered brain.

You said that if there wasn't ZIGZAG phenomena (regarding the parallax of the sun) it would only prove that the sun is "infinitely" far away from the earth, and if there were very easily noticeable ZIGZAG phenomena it would only prove that the sun is very close to the earth, but ZIGZAG phenomena would be the same either the sun circles around the sun or the earth rotates and orbits stationary sun.

THERE WOULD BE NO ZIGZAG PHENOMENA ON STATIONARY EARTH, AND ALTHOUGH AN ABSENCE OF ZIGZAG PHENOMENA COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE SUN IS INFINITELY FAR AWAY (IN THEORY, AND ONLY IN THEORY) IT COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THAT THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND THE STATIONARY EARTH.

In the case of non-existing ZIGZAG motion of the full moon, you said that there is ZIGZAG of the full moon, because you know that the moon is very close to the earth and if the moon is so close than there must be ZIGZAG within HC model, so you simply assert that there is ZIGZAG phenomena in reality because according to your insane logic : even if the earth were stationary there would be SAME ZIGZAG phenomena as in the HC model with a rotating earth.

So, you dug your own grave, because THERE ISN'T ZIGZAG phenomena in GC model, and you can frame it and display it on the wall right next to the certificate of your total insanity!

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2017, 04:47:46 AM
I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
Why? Why not go through what I have written and either accept it or point out specifically what was wrong?

Nothing is shown up above. Your diagram is one another example how skilled (in mathematics) idiots like you can use mathematics to prove whatever they want to prove, however every decent experiment would prove that your dazzling mathematical acrobatics boil down to NOTHING!!!
No, shown above is the fact that your argument is pure bullshit, that you would expect the exact same result for a rotating Earth as a stationary Earth.

In first part of your diagram (HC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between three parallel lines, and in the second part of your diagram (GC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between one parallel (green) line and one perpendicular (blue) line which goes through the center of the spherical model of the earth, and you think you have done something meaningful?
No, I'm not.
Firstly, I'm not comparing angles in the HC model. I am comparing them between models.
And yes, I have done something meaningful.
It shows that at 6am, the sun would not be due east.
Instead, it will be a slight angle off (towards the north), the angle indicated by b and d.
This applies for BOTH MODELS!!!
Similarly, for 6 pm the sun would not be due west, but would be slightly off, indicated by a and c.

The angles are the same in both models.
This shows the observation would be the same in both models.

You have done nothing, as usual. In HC model with the 150 000 000 distant sun there would be 0,004 degrees parallax due to ZIGZAG motion of the rotating earth, but in GC model there would be 180 degrees geocentric "parallax" due to sun's translation along half of it's entire daily orbit around the earth, and you think you can compare these two scenarios in such manner that at the end of the day we get the same result?
Yes, I can compare these 2 results.
The issue is you are not in an absolute reference frame where you can easily measure which is the case (not without a completely different argument regarding Earth's rotation, the zig zag argument stands on its own merit, or fails).
Instead, all you can measure is the apparent motion of the sun. You can also try to compensate for the "alleged" (real) rotation of Earth.

You are the one trying to compare completely different experiments.

In one experiment you have the camera set up, rotating 0.25 degrees per minute, compensating for either the sun's actual average motion, or the Earth's rotation.
In the other you have the camera fixed.
That is why you are getting completely different results.

If you were to hypothetically carry out the same experiment in both models, you get the same result.
With one experiment, you will get an apparent back and forth motion of the sun, where from 6am to 6pm it will move 0.005 degrees (for a person on the equator), and if you could watch it at night, it would move back the 0.005 degrees from 6pm to 6am.

With the other, you get a rotation of the sun between 6am and 6pm of 180.005, and from 6pm to 6am you would get 179.995 degrees.

The difference is entirely to do with rotating the camera or not and nothing to do with HC vs GC.

THERE WOULD BE NO ZIGZAG PHENOMENA ON STATIONARY EARTH, AND ALTHOUGH AN ABSENCE OF ZIGZAG PHENOMENA COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE SUN IS INFINITELY FAR AWAY (IN THEORY, AND ONLY IN THEORY) IT COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THAT THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND THE STATIONARY EARTH.
BULLSHIT!
Again, I proved that above.
If you think there would be no zig zag, go and refute the above.
Tell me how c and d can be 0 without r being 0 or R being infinite.

That is what is required for no zig zag.

Also, I take it logic isn't your strong suit?

If A indicate B or C, A is not proof of either.
It either proves one specific thing, or it doesn't prove anything by itself.

So, you dug your own grave, because THERE ISN'T ZIGZAG phenomena in GC model, and you can frame it and display it on the wall right next to the certificate of your total insanity!
No, you are the one digging your own grave.
I have proven that there is a zig zag phenomenon in the GC model.
The only way to have no zig-zag is if the object is infinitely far away.
Note: using the sun, insert other times for other objects)
Otherwise, at 6 am it will not be due east, at 6pm it will not be due west, at mid day it will be moving faster than at mid night, and if you cancel the average motion that means at mid day it moves one way and at mid night it moves the other, i.e. ZIG ZAGS!!!

If you wish to assert there will be no zig zag with a stationary Earth, you need to prove it.

Tell us exactly what experiment you would carry out.
This is just the experiment, so no changing it between the 2 models, it must be exactly the same. You cannot appeal to the rotation of Earth at all, only to the apparent motion of the sun or moon, as doing so would amount to an entirely separate argument as to if Earth is rotating, and thus it isn't your zig zag BS being proof.
Then show us what the expected results would be in this experiment for the 2 models, showing all calculations, even drawing a picture if you want.

If you can't do that, then why not try acting like an adult for once and admitting you were wrong?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2017, 07:49:00 AM
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433

However, since it seems that your delusional disorder is incurable i doubt that you will realize what is the true nature of your illness even after reading next elaboration :

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :

HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East

---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards East

---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

CONCLUSION :

1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.

3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!

As you know Jack, i was too generous when i said that within HC Noon scenario apparent motion of the moon would be towards West!!! It wouldn't be towards West, it would be towards East since THE DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE OBSERVER ON A SPINNING EARTH WOULD BE MUCH MORE DECISIVE THAN THE THE DIRECTION OF REAL MOTION OF THE MOON :

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

That was even shown up above.

Nothing is shown up above. Your diagram is one another example how skilled (in mathematics) idiots like you can use mathematics to prove whatever they want to prove, however every decent experiment would prove that your dazzling mathematical acrobatics boil down to NOTHING!!!

In first part of your diagram (HC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between three parallel lines, and in the second part of your diagram (GC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between one parallel (green) line and one perpendicular (blue) line which goes through the center of the spherical model of the earth, and you think you have done something meaningful? You have done nothing, as usual. In HC model with the 150 000 000 distant sun there would be 0,004 degrees parallax due to ZIGZAG motion of the rotating earth, but in GC model there would be 180 degrees geocentric "parallax" due to sun's translation along half of it's entire daily orbit around the earth, and you think you can compare these two scenarios in such manner that at the end of the day we get the same result? Only in your wet dreams, and your delusional disordered brain.

You said that if there wasn't ZIGZAG phenomena (regarding the parallax of the sun) it would only prove that the sun is "infinitely" far away from the earth, and if there were very easily noticeable ZIGZAG phenomena it would only prove that the sun is very close to the earth, but ZIGZAG phenomena would be the same either the sun circles around the sun or the earth rotates and orbits stationary sun.

THERE WOULD BE NO ZIGZAG PHENOMENA ON STATIONARY EARTH, AND ALTHOUGH AN ABSENCE OF ZIGZAG PHENOMENA COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE SUN IS INFINITELY FAR AWAY (IN THEORY, AND ONLY IN THEORY) IT COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THAT THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND THE STATIONARY EARTH.

In the case of non-existing ZIGZAG motion of the full moon, you said that there is ZIGZAG of the full moon, because you know that the moon is very close to the earth and if the moon is so close than there must be ZIGZAG within HC model, so you simply assert that there is ZIGZAG phenomena in reality because according to your insane logic : even if the earth were stationary there would be SAME ZIGZAG phenomena as in the HC model with a rotating earth.

So, you dug your own grave, because THERE ISN'T ZIGZAG phenomena in GC model, and you can frame it and display it on the wall right next to the certificate of your total insanity!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 24, 2017, 08:32:02 AM
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2017, 08:50:47 AM
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.

Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?

Title: Pyjamas ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof that the sun is far away.
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2017, 03:46:53 PM
As you know Jack, i was too generous when i said that within HC Noon scenario apparent motion of the moon would be towards West!!! It wouldn't be towards West, it would be towards East since THE DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE OBSERVER ON A SPINNING EARTH WOULD BE MUCH MORE DECISIVE THAN THE THE DIRECTION OF REAL MOTION OF THE MOON :
You mean like I pointed out?
In the noon scenario, the moon is on the far side, so you are facing north. You (along with Earth) undergo a CCW rotation (when viewed from above), making everything appear to move in a CW direction, which means the moon will appear to move in a CW direction which would mean it would move towards the east, JUST LIKE YOU OBSERVE.

It isn't the direction of motion, it is the direction of rotation which is the decisive factor.

No shitty videos, EXPLAIN IT HERE!!!

Tell us exactly what experiment you will do, and what the expected results would be for a rotating Earth and a stationary Earth.

I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
Again, why would you need his opinion? Just so he can agree with me and say you are an idiot?
Why not actually address what I have said?

Now you are literally repeating the same refuted crap, word for word.

Again, my diagram shows an experiment, where you rotate the camera 0.25 degrees per minute (watching the sun, not the moon). This is to either cancel out the rotation of Earth or the average motion of the sun.
The 0.25 degrees is the same regardless of the model.

The angles shown are the angles expected by the 2 models.
At both 6 am and 6pm the sun will not be due east or west. Instead it will be a little to the north.
The amount it is to the north is the same for both models. It is given by atan(r/R)

Thus for there to be no zig-zag you either need r to be 0 (which can only be true at the pole), or R to be infinite.

It makes no difference if Earth is stationary or spinning.

Unless you can provide an experiment an explain what the expected results are for each model, your zig zag remains as unsubstantiated crap.
Unless you can point out anything wrong with my experiment and observation, your zig zag argument remains refuted as you would expect the same results on a stationary or rotating Earth.

Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?
Basically the exact same one as for the rotating Earth frame of reference.

Relative to an average motion, the sun moves faster when closer to you and slower when further away.

This happens in all motion.
If 2 objects are moving at the same speed and one is close to you while the other is far away, the closer one appears to be moving faster because it has a greater angular speed.

So if you were to film the sun for a day (at the arctic circle) using an equatorial mount telescope set to rotate at 0.25 degrees per minute to cancel either the rotation of Earth (w.r.t a solar day), or the average motion of the sun, then you would see the sun race ahead during the period from 6 am to 6 pm and fall behind during the period from 6 pm to 6 am.
This produces an apparent zig zag. This zag zag occurs regardless of if Earth is stationary or rotating. (although it should be more of a sin wave rather than a tiranlge wave or sawtooth which zig zag would be, but I figured I would overlook that part).

If Earth is rotating, this zig-zag occurs due to the sideways motion of the part of Earth you are on. When you are close to the object, this combines with the effect of Earth's rotation to make the object appear to move faster and thus appear to race ahead of the reference point. When you are far away, this opposes the effect of Earth's rotation to make the object appear slower and thus fall behind the reference point.

If Earth is stationary and the object is circling us, then this occurs due to the difference in distance between you and the object. When you are close to the object, its apparent angular speed will be faster (as you are close to it), thus it appears to race ahead. When you are further away, its apparent angular speed will be slower (as you are further away), thus it appears to fall behind.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2017, 05:02:29 AM
In HC model ZIGZAG motion exists but it is not anything of that sort (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial object due to changed direction of rotational motion of the observer on the earth relative to the observing celestial object), it is just change in apparent speed (angular velocity) of celestial object in the sky?

So, in my video (above) you are not able to notice what is going on? When i move my camera to the RIGHT everything within FOV of the camera lens goes to the LEFT, and vice versa, but you are not able to notice this, isn't that so? And you can't see something that you won't see it because you are deliberately blind, what you see (in your delusional, deliberate blindness) instead is absolutely minute change in apparent speed of motion of observed environment, isn't that so?
CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!

In GC model ZIGZAG motion ALSO exists, and that motion is nothing else but changed apparent (angular) speed of the sun, moon, stars etc WITHIN ONE SINGLE POLAR DAY/NIGHT..., although no one has ever registered such change in apparent (angular) speeds of these objects (within one single day), and although in GC model there is no place for ZIGZAG motion about which we were talking all these years (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial objects which is applicable only within HC model)?
CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!

Now the question :

How come that angular velocity of the moon isn't 400 times greater than angular velocity of the sun?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

New question :

How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 275 200 times greater than angular velocity of Alpha Centauri?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 550 400 times greater than angular velocity of Sirius?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 1 600 000 times greater than angular velocity of Vega star?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

Well, you can stick your magic word ROTATION to your ass, because it is all utter bullshit! What you can see in these photos (watch my video (above) again if you need) is the result of motion of my camera to the RIGHT - everything goes to the LEFT, and vice versa. If an object is 3 times farther away from some other object than it's angular velocity will be 3 times lesser than angular velocity of 3 times closer object.

(http://i.imgur.com/Bz8KGSy.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/evm1KGC.jpg)

All you have to do is to ensure fixed spatial orientation of your camera, like this  :

ZIGZAG VIDEO DEDICATED TO TABOO CONSPIRACY :

Why above method is 100 % reliable? Because of this :
GYRO SLUM DUNK :

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

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, a 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 a 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.

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

THE STARS SAY SO :

“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.

This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad."
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2017, 02:40:39 PM
In HC model ZIGZAG motion exists but it is not anything of that sort (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial object due to changed direction of rotational motion of the observer on the earth relative to the observing celestial object), it is just change in apparent speed (angular velocity) of celestial object in the sky?
Yes, that is correct. The direction of rotation remains constant. All you have it a change in apparent angular velocity of the object in the sky, just like you do for the GC model, it is just the origin of that difference which is different, the result is the same.

So, in my video (above) you are not able to notice what is going on?
Like I said, no shitty videos. Explain it here, provide the math.

When i move my camera to the RIGHT everything within FOV of the camera lens goes to the LEFT, and vice versa, but you are not able to notice this, isn't that so?
Yes, that is what will happen if you just TRANSLATE your camera to the left.
But that isn't what Earth is doing.
Are you yet again ignoring the rotation of Earth? The most significant contributor?

How about this, just make a video with this: Turn your camera to the left while moving it to the left, looking at a distant object.
Then recenter it and turn it to the left while moving it to the right.
See what happens.

Preferably do so with motors instead of your shaky hand which would allow you to point the camera however you like.
Also make sure the distant object is very far away compared to the size of your translation.

Or you can make an animation, which I will do shortly.

And you can't see something that you won't see it because you are deliberately blind, what you see (in your delusional, deliberate blindness) instead is absolutely minute change in apparent speed of motion of observed environment, isn't that so?
That appears to be describing you, where you repeatedly refuse to see Earth's rotation and the effect of that rotation.

You also completely ignore the extremely large distance to the sun.
You moved your setup what, 1 or 2 m?

Do you know how far away an object would need to be to compare it to the sun?
Assuming you are using the Arctic circle, with a radius of roughly 2500 km (as Earth would get in the way below that) and assuming it was just 1 m, then each m represents 2500 km. So the distance to the sun, roughly 150 000 000 km would need to be 150 000 000 m / 2500=60 000 m = 60 km.

What did you use? An object 15 m away. Do you know what that would correspond to? An object that is a mere 15*2500 km=37 500 km away, so in the area of a geosynchronous satellite, nothing like the sun.

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!
Nope, that would be you. Spouting a bunch of dishonest crap and describing exactly what you are doing.

In GC model ZIGZAG motion ALSO exists
Well thanks for finally admitting it.

that motion is nothing else but changed apparent (angular) speed of the sun, moon, stars etc WITHIN ONE SINGLE POLAR DAY/NIGHT
Yes, just like I had been saying.
If you monitor the sun or moon by having a camera turn at the rate of its average angular speed this would result in it appearing to move back and forth.
This matches the zig-zag of a HC case.

although no one has ever registered such change in apparent (angular) speeds of these objects
So is this now the part where I claim this difference doesn't exist and thus HC must be right, where I demand you provide valid citations of this change and claim HC will be right until you do?
You know, just like you do with your zig zag argument and GC?

Or should I be honest and point out it is the same in both models and thus it not being observed when people aren't looking for it proves nothing, and that if it doesn't exist then all it would mean is the sun is further away.

although in GC model there is no place for ZIGZAG motion about which we were talking all these years (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial objects which is applicable only within HC model)?
That is because there is no place for that in any model which is trying to describe reality. In fact, I don't think there is a place for that in any model at all which is just focusing on the rotation of Earth with a "fixed" celestial body like the sun.

Instead, the GC model contains the exact same (result wise) zig-zag motion as the HC model does, an change in the apparent angular velocity of the sun/moon/whatever.

How come that angular velocity of the moon isn't 400 times greater than angular velocity of the sun?
HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION
You have already admitted the parallax of the sun amounts to basically nothing. And that is for an ENTIRE HALF A DAY (at the equator I think). It was 0.004 degrees if I recall correctly.
Now what was the rotation of Earth? 0.25 degrees per minute. For half a day it would be 180 degrees.

So is it surprising that as the dominant cause remains the same, Earth's rotation, that the objects appear to move roughly the same amount?

There isn't anything magic about it. It is simple geometry.

New question :
How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 275 200 times greater than angular velocity of Alpha Centauri?
No. Not a new question. The exact same question.
It is just asking why the apparent motion of celestial objects is basically always the same (at least when considered along the celestial equator).

Well, you can stick your magic word ROTATION to your ass, because it is all utter bullshit! What you can see in these photos (watch my video (above) again if you need) is the result of motion of my camera to the RIGHT - everything goes to the LEFT, and vice versa. If an object is 3 times farther away from some other object than it's angular velocity will be 3 times lesser than angular velocity of 3 times closer object.
Yes, we can see the result of your TRANSLATION to the left or right.
Now how about you ROTATE your camera and see what that does?
If you notice, all the objects move to the left or right equally.

Now you can combine the effects of translation and rotation (i.e. just rotate the stick, with the camera fixed to it pointing either straight in or straight out), and note what happens. Close objects appear to change quite dramatically, but distant objects just appear to move based upon the rotation.

All you have to do is to ensure fixed spatial orientation of your camera, like this  :
Which then appeals to completely different arguments for or against Earth's rotation.
But sure, go ahead, use Foucault's pendulum or a laser ring gyroscope to correct for Earth's rotation and see what you get?

Why above method is 100 % reliable? Because of this :
You mean because of a horribly imperfect gyro which needs a self-righting mechanism, which cannot detect small changes in angle?

How about this, to make it valid experiment, instead of turning it quickly like in a car, turn it slowly, over the course of an entire day, try it once clockwise and once counter clockwise. See how it compares.

As for your copied and pasted crap, yes stars are very far away, with very small parallax. Who cares?
This isn't even the zig-zag you have been discussing. It isn't based on a daily motion but a yearly one.

As for your crap about NASA saying it is stationary, I would then point to all the evidence against it, such as Foucault's pendulum and laser ring gyroscopes, the path of the sun and planets making no sense, orbits making no sense and so on.

Remember, in the past, people thought Earth was stationary. So we have already been through this. The evidence for a moving Earth won. We have plenty of scientific backing for it.

Just because you have no scientific backing for your claims, doesn't mean we don't have any.

So no, what you are doing makes no sense. You have no evidence at all for your position, you need to lie and fabricate evidence for your position and you need to reject evidence for a rotating Earth.

You also continue to appeal to nonsense like claiming you can't feel it moving, just like you can't feel any smooth movement.

It is akin to saying a car or a plane can't be moving because I don't feel it moving. It must be Earth moving past the car or plane.
And before you appeal to turbulence or bumps or the like, don't forget about Earthquakes.
Before you appeal to the same refuted nonsense of wind like if you were outside the plane or the car, don't forget about wind like during storms.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 26, 2017, 06:04:56 AM
JackBlack, muddying the water (as well as twisting my words) won't help!

1. These 0,04 degrees per hour is still 46 % of the difference between two alleged relative motions of the moon which don't exist. Had these two different DAILY speeds existed we would have known about them, until this day.

2. So, if changed direction of earth's motion (Noon time) doesn't matter then how come that we talk about alleged 46 % of the difference between two allegedly different DAILY relative speeds of the moon, in the first place?

3. Show me ONE SINGLE peer review article or ANY KIND of article ever published anywhere, which corroborates the existence of such phenomena!

4. Our motion is much more decisive than moon's alleged eastward motion, that is why the moon supposedly appears to move westward. The amount of displacement of moon's "apparent" westward (CW) motion : 2,5 diameters of moon's apparent angular diameter (or 1,25 degrees/5min.). IF YOU CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ALLEGED SPIN YOU WILL CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF MOON'S APPARENT MOTION. You can muddy the water by calling on circular motion and by doing that you can even achieve your ultimate goal (which is : to confuse other people), but to make this thing absolutely simple i restricted our hypothetical measurement to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight (which measurement would have to take place within 24 hours of one single polar Arctic day).

Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move 1,25 degrees (which is 2,5 apparent moon's diameters).

Only this displacement wouldn't be in the same direction at Noon (vs at Midnight) if the earth turned on it's axis, as simple as that.

Why?

Because the same decisive factor (alleged rotation of the earth) would be responsible not only for non-existing opposite outcome regarding 46 % alleged difference in two different relative DAILY moon's motion but it would be also responsible for one other (much more serious) opposite outcome = an apparent displacement of moon's angular diameter would occur in an opposite direction than it would occur at Noon (in relation to the result of our observation which would take place at Midnight).

What is the significance of restricting our measurement periods to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight?

Avoiding "circular motion" confusion!!!

I repeat :

While 4km distant moon (in our scaled down model) moved 3 m to the LEFT we moved (on our merry go round) 0,5 meter to the LEFT (also), and expecting result of our 0,5 m long motion should be apparent translation of our moon to the RIGHT for 2,5 apparent moon's diameters. While we are traveling these 0,5 m long trip we have to surmount 0,68mm bulge (which is less than 1 fucking mm which is less than 25th part of one fucking inch), and such lateral motion you are still ready to call "circular motion" (due to the fact that we have to overcome less than a whole 25th part of one fucking inch by moving along 0,5 meters (out of 157 m of total circumference) long path of our 50m (in diameter) big merry go round)?

So, in our scaled down model the moon should be ONLY 4 km away from us, and in the next video our "MOON" (the peak of a distant hill) is 14,4 km away from us, which is 3,6 times more than it should be if we were to imitate alleged HC reality...In this video you can see lateral and rotational translation, however rotational translation you can disregard since this particular rotational translation happens around the center of the fixed axis (as if we were centered at the north pole), but you can't disregard our lateral translation because you couldn't say the difference between this lateral translation and rotational motion along 0,5 m while turning CCW on our 50 m (in diameter) merry go round which represents our Arctic circle...

So, there is no doubt that the final result would be an apparent motion of the moon to the west (in noon HC scenario), that is to say : in the same direction in which the moon travels within HC scenario at noon as observed from the Arctic circle during appropriate Polar Night when the moon is visible 24 hours a day...

As for the amount of an apparent motion (which we would be able to easily measure as noticeable parallax if existed in the first place) to the west (as we travel to the east), a.k.a. the apparent angular speed in an opposite direction of our motion in relation to the moon's "real" motion, this would be the result on the basis of what has been recorded in my experiment :

(http://i.imgur.com/MQSFTNJ.jpg)
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 26, 2017, 02:52:03 PM
JackBlack, muddying the water (as well as twisting my words) won't help!
Nope. Not muddying the waters. You do enough of that already. Why would I make it worse?

And no, I haven't been twisting your words at all, but you sure do love twisting other peoples to blatantly lie about things.

1. These 0,04 degrees per hour is still 46 % of the difference between two alleged relative motions of the moon which don't exist. Had these two different DAILY speeds existed we would have known about them, until this day.
No.
Firstly, where did you pull the number from?

These -0.04 degrees per 5 minutes is the apparent angular velocity of the moon when correcting for the solar day and you being offset from the axis of Earth/centre of the moon's circular path. It is not a difference at all.

The difference is 0.016 degrees due to you being offset from the axis of Earth/centre of the moon's circular path.

This means the apparent motion of the moon changes between 1.202 degrees, and 1.218 degrees. This is expected in both models, the HC one and the GC one. The only way to change it is to change the relative sizes or the average speed.

That is not a 46% difference.
The 46% difference comes from correcting for the rotation of Earth (and technically orbit) or the average motion of the sun around Earth.
In this case you go from -0.048 to -0.032 degrees. This is a difference of 50% (I am fine accepting that 46% comes from a more accurate measure).
Again, this is expected in both models.

2. So, if changed direction of earth's motion (Noon time) doesn't matter then how come that we talk about alleged 46 % of the difference between two allegedly different DAILY relative speeds of the moon, in the first place?
So many errors I hardly no where to begin.
Firstly, the direction of Earth's motion does matter, and it does not change.
In both cases it is rotating in the same direction. When viewed from above the north pole, Earth is rotating CCW. This is the same at both midday and midnight.

You are the one repeatedly talking about a 46% difference. I am talking about a much smaller difference in apparent motion of the moon. It is a 1.3% difference.
This is because the translation of the spot of Earth you are on is an insignificant contributor. I say it is insignificant because it's effects are less than 5%. Yes, it still has an effect, but it is very small compared to the more significant effect of the motion of the moon along its orbit and the much more significant effect of Earth's rotation.

So if you wish to discuss the difference, discuss the 1.3% difference, as that is what most people would be looking for.

3. Show me ONE SINGLE peer review article or ANY KIND of article ever published anywhere, which corroborates the existence of such phenomena!
No. It is entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand.
The same phenomenon is expected in both the GC and HC models.
What dictates this phenomenon is the ratio of the distances (i.e. your distance/the moon's distance, both measured from the centre of the moon's path and centre of Earth's axis.

If you wish to claim that the moon is much further away, then we can start discussing if it exists or not.

4. Our motion is much more decisive than moon's alleged eastward motion, that is why the moon supposedly appears to move westward. The amount of displacement of moon's "apparent" westward (CW) motion : 2,5 diameters of moon's apparent angular diameter (or 1,25 degrees/5min.). IF YOU CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ALLEGED SPIN YOU WILL CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF MOON'S APPARENT MOTION.
Yes, if you changed the direction of Earth's spin but kept everything else the same you will change the direction of the moon's apparent motion. You would also change its magnitude. Ignoring the issue of the solar day changing, the moon's motion in 5 minutes would go from an average of 1.21 degrees to -1.29 degrees.

But who really cares? THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!!
Earth keeps spinning in the same direction. It never magically stops and starts going back the other way.

This is why the moon appears to move westwards when it is on the same side of Earth as you, and why it appears to move eastwards when it is on the opposite side of Earth to you.
Because the Earth's CCW motion makes the moon appear to move in a CW circle around you.

You can muddy the water by calling on circular motion and by doing that you can even achieve your ultimate goal (which is : to confuse other people), but to make this thing absolutely simple i restricted our hypothetical measurement to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight (which measurement would have to take place within 24 hours of one single polar Arctic day).
Again, I AM NOT CALLING ON CIRCULAR MOTION!!!!!
I am pointing out that Earth is rotating and that is the most dominant effect.
My goal is to point out your lies and explain what we would actually expect, vs your blatant lies about them.

Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move 1,25 degrees (which is 2,5 apparent moon's diameters).
No. Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move roughly 1.21 degrees, when measure along the celestial equator.
The main cause of this is Earth's -1.25 degree rotation.
The next most significant cause is the moon's -0.04 degree motion along its orbit. Note: -(-1.25)-0.04=1.21.

The circular path of the point of Earth you are on has very little to do with it and amounts to a 0.008 degree change (in either direction).
This means the actual apparent motion of the moon will be 1.202 or 1.218 degrees, a difference of 1.3%.

Only this displacement wouldn't be in the same direction at Noon (vs at Midnight) if the earth turned on it's axis, as simple as that.
That all depends upon how you measure it.

If you go for East-West, then that is correct. It wouldn't be in the same direction.
That is because at one time you are facing south, and thus the section of a CW path from above, which is in front of you, would be east-west, and thus the moon would appear to go to the west.
At the other time you are facing north, and thus the section of a CW path from above, which is in front of you, would be west-east, and thus the moon would appear to go to the west.

However, that is not the only way to measure it.
You can also measure that CW motion, or just note that it appears to go to the right.

Why?
Because the same decisive factor (alleged rotation of the earth) would be responsible not only for non-existing opposite outcome regarding 46 % alleged difference in two different relative DAILY moon's motion but it would be also responsible for one other (much more serious) opposite outcome = an apparent displacement of moon's angular diameter would occur in an opposite direction than it would occur at Noon (in relation to the result of our observation which would take place at Midnight).
No. Do you know why?
Because the same device factor(s), Earth's -1.25 degree motion (and the moon's -0.04 degree motion) will still result in the same apparent motion of the moon, i.e. an apparent angular displacement of 1.21 degrees, making the 0.008 degrees unable to effect the moon's apparent direction.

What is the significance of restricting our measurement periods to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight?
It means we can treat the translational components as a straight line, making it much simpler to calculate the apparent motion.

Avoiding "circular motion" confusion!!!
You are the only one appealing to circular motion.
Having the piece of dirt you are on travel in a roughly straight line doesn't magically move the rotation.

I repeat :
While 4km distant moon (in our scaled down model) moved 3 m to the LEFT we moved (on our merry go round) 0,5 meter to the LEFT (also), and expecting result of our 0,5 m long motion should be apparent translation of our moon to the RIGHT for 2,5 apparent moon's diameters. While we are traveling these 0,5 m long trip we have to surmount 0,68mm bulge (which is less than 1 fucking mm which is less than 25th part of one fucking inch), and such lateral motion you are still ready to call "circular motion" (due to the fact that we have to overcome less than a whole 25th part of one fucking inch by moving along 0,5 meters (out of 157 m of total circumference) long path of our 50m (in diameter) big merry go round)?
Repeating the strawman wont magically make you right. You are the only one appealing to a strawman.

I repeat, with your 4km distant moon, the mere -1.25 degree rotation of Earth still has you looking (assuming no correction) -1.25 degrees away from where the moon was. Scaled up that means your -1.25 degree rotation has resulted in the moon appearing to move 87 m. This is because you are now looking at a point that is 87 m away from where the moon originally was. This is quite significant compared to your pathetic 3m motion to the left or right.

Again:
THE CIRCULAR PATH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! IT IS THE ROTATION OF EARTH WHICH DOES!!!!

In this video you can see lateral and rotational translation
Yes and you make it impossible to tell the difference between them with your pathetic shaky hands.
I have pointed out that the rotation will be the most significant.

Also, rotational translation makes no sense. Translation by definition is just lateral movement, not rotation.

however rotational translation you can disregard since this particular rotational translation happens around the center of the fixed axis (as if we were centered at the north pole), but you can't disregard our lateral translation because you couldn't say the difference between this lateral translation and rotational motion along 0,5 m while turning CCW on our 50 m (in diameter) merry go round which represents our Arctic circle...
NO! You cannot disregard the rotation. That is because a rotation of -1.25 degrees will result in an apparent motion of all objects by 1.25 degrees.
Meanwhile, the lateral motion amounts to a pathetic 0.008 degrees.
If you are going to disregard one, it would be the translation, not the rotation.

If you want to compare the 2 you would need to accurate translate the camera without any rotation and then rotate the camera without any translation.
Or at least do one without the other.
Perhaps a better one would be to simply rotate the camera by a fixed amount while translating it left, and then do the same while translating it right, translating the same amount.

Guess what? Your pathetic attempt at translation failed miserably. That is because as well as translating the camera, you rotated it, as I have pointed out before.
You start with the line running diagonally up to the right for the roof in front, but then after your "translation" to the left, it runs diagonally up to the left.
This indicates you are rotating the camera as well.

But your video sure does show one thing, the rotation produces a very significant effect.
But your comment at the end is a blatant lie.
You haven't bothered showing the close roof. Is that because you know it would allow easy detection of the difference?

At best all it shows is that your translation was insignificant and the dominant factor in the apparent motion in the first case was the rotation.

Perhaps you should get a theodolite app and use that to take pictures so it can show your bearing (even better if you can take a video)?

So, there is no doubt that the final result would be an apparent motion of the moon to the west (in noon HC scenario), that is to say : in the same direction in which the moon travels within HC scenario at noon as observed from the Arctic circle during appropriate Polar Night when the moon is visible 24 hours a day...
No, there is no doubt that the rotation will be the most significant effect and thus for an observer on the artic circle the moon will appear to move roughly 1.25 degree to the right regardless of if it is mid day or mid night. The apparent movement due to their translation will amount to roughly 0.008 degrees.

this would be the result on the basis of what has been recorded in my experiment :
Your experiment is horribly flawed and without control.
You have a combination of rotation and translation, with no easy way to separate them.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 26, 2017, 04:04:52 PM
As you didn't want to bother with an honest experiment, or even an honest animation, I made some:
I have produced 2 models. One has a stationary Earth, with the sun circling around it.
The other has the sun stationary with Earth rotating.

In both these models the Earth is a sphere of radius 6.4 Mm
The sun is 80 Mm away from the centre of Earth (to exagerate the zig-zag, in reality it would be much further, that is only 80 000 km, closer than the moon, in reality the sun is 150 000 000 km away.
The sun is directly overhead a latitude of 25 degrees and the observer is at a latitude of 80 degrees, standing 0.000002 Mm (2 m) above the surface of Earth.
The camera is on an equatorial mount telescope, rotating 360 degrees a day in the equatorial plane.

For each, I have a camera with a horizontal (I think) FOV of 20 degrees and one of 90 degrees.

Here are the animations, see if you can tell which is which:
(http://i.imgur.com/gjMp0Fy.gif)
(http://imgur.com/X1lb7oU.gif)
(http://imgur.com/Wfw3aZr.gif)
(http://imgur.com/blCp8m9.gif)

And the code to produce each frame (it was done in POV-RAY), firstly, the ini file for the animation :
Code: [Select]
`Antialias=OffAntialias_Threshold=0.1Antialias_Depth=2Input_File_Name="[INSERT NAME OF POV FILE HERE]"Initial_Frame=1Final_Frame=360Initial_Clock=0Final_Clock=1Cyclic_Animation=onPause_when_Done=off`
Then the POV file for GC:
Code: [Select]
`#version 3.7;global_settings {  assumed_gamma 1.0 }#declare r=6.4;#declare R=80;#declare Sr=tan(radians(0.5))*R;#declare Slat=25;#declare Olat=70;#declare Slrad=radians(Slat);#declare Sx=R*cos(Slrad);#declare Sy=R*sin(Slrad);#declare Olrad=radians(Olat);#declare cx=(r+0.000002)*cos(Olrad);#declare cy=(r+0.000002)*sin(Olrad);#declare theta=clock*360;#declare trad=radians(theta);#declare st=sin(trad);#declare ct=cos(trad);//Cameracamera{ angle 20    right x*image_width/image_height    location  <0 , cy , cx>    look_at   <Sx*st , Sy , Sx*ct+cx>}                //Lightslight_source{ (R-Sr*10)/R*<Sx*st,Sy,Sx*ct>    color rgb<1,1,1>}              //Sunsphere{ <Sx*st,Sy,Sx*ct>, Sr    texture { pigment{ rgb<1,1,0> }        finish { diffuse 0.9            phong 1}    }}// Earth:sphere{ <0,0,0>, r    texture { pigment{ rgb<0,1,0> }    }} `For the large FOV, the 20 in the camera block was changed to 90, and Sy (also in the camera block) was changed to Sy*0.1

and the HC POV:
Code: [Select]
`#version 3.7;global_settings {  assumed_gamma 1.0 }#declare r=6.4;#declare R=80;#declare Sr=tan(radians(0.5))*R;#declare Slat=25;#declare Olat=70;#declare Slrad=radians(Slat);#declare Sx=R*cos(Slrad);#declare Sy=R*sin(Slrad);#declare Olrad=radians(Olat);#declare cx=(r+0.000002)*cos(Olrad);#declare cy=(r+0.000002)*sin(Olrad);#declare theta=clock*360;#declare trad=radians(theta);#declare st=sin(trad);#declare ct=cos(trad);//Cameracamera{ angle 20    right x*image_width/image_height    location  <-cx*st , cy , cx*ct>    look_at   <-cx*st , Sy , Sx+cx*ct>}                //Lightslight_source{ (R-Sr*10)/R*<0,Sy,Sx>    color rgb<1,1,1>}              //Sunsphere{ <0,Sy,Sx>, Sr    texture { pigment{ rgb<1,1,0> }        finish { diffuse 0.9            phong 1}    }}// Earth:sphere{ <0,0,0>, r    texture { pigment{ rgb<0,1,0> }    }} `
Now then, going to respond to that?
Going to finally admit the "zig-zag" is the same for both GC and HC?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2017, 12:42:37 AM
Jack, let's consider one solar eclipse situation :

1. Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.

What happens?

As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST means in this particular situation TO THE RIGHT (it's NOON and we are facing the sun - north is behind our back)!!!

2. Now we put the moon in motion

Since it's motion contributes - 0,008 degrees/min or - 0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?

So, why the shadow of the moon travels to the east, anyway?

3. Now imagine that we are somwhere in the Arctic circle, it's MIDNIGHT and solar eclipse occurs...

Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.

You can call it "holy CCW rotation", but this time we move in counter direction with respect to the moon (comparing classical "noon" scenarios).

What happens?

As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST this time means TO THE LEFT (it's MIDNIGHT and we are facing the sun - north is in front of us)!!!

4. Now we put the moon in motion

Now the moon travels in an opposite direction of our motion since we go to the RIGHT (to the EAST), and the moon goes to the LEFT (to the WEST), which means that this time the moon's motion contributes + 3 % (instead of - 3 %), and the shadow of the moon should go much faster to the WEST, isn't that so?

So, does the shadow of the moon travels to the west so much faster in this MIDNIGHT situation?

It doesn't
You know why?

Because the earth is stationary, that is why!
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 27, 2017, 05:32:29 AM
Jack, let's consider one solar eclipse situation :
How about you focus on the current argument first, either admitting you were wrong or providing an argument to counter it?

I will be nice this time and deal with your post, but next time, I won't. Instead I will keep bringing up your failed zig-zag argument and how you expect the same for both a GC and HC model (as shown by the gifs where you can't tell which is which, so I had to re upload them one at a time after trying to upload them all together and not knowing which is which).

1. Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.
But the moon does move, and so does Earth (but I will ignore the orbital motion of Earth to keep the reference frames constant).

What happens?
As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST means in this particular situation TO THE RIGHT (it's NOON and we are facing the sun - north is behind our back)!!!
Yes, the shadow will remain at the same location, with Earth turning below it, meaning it would move to the west, as the sun and moon appear to move to the west together. This also works for the GC model.

2. Now we put the moon in motion
Since it's motion contributes - 0,008 degrees/min
That is for us, not the sun. The angular speed of the moon relative to the sun (which would determine the motion of the shadow) is significantly different.

I'll explain the actual reasoning in a bit.

0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?
No, that isn't so. But if it was, don't worry, the same would apply for the GC model.
The moon's motion relative to the sun is only 0.04 degrees/5 minutes, out of 1.25 degrees. So the argument works just as well for the GC model.
What you are trying to suggest for these 5 minutes:
Relative motion of the sun compared to Earth is -1.25. This will result in the shadow moving 1.25 degrees.
Relative motion of the moon compared to the sun (but still measured from Earth) is -0.04 degrees. This will make the shadow move -0.04 degrees.
Thus in total, it will move 1.21 degrees.

Notice how I never appealed to which one is moving and instead just appealed to the relative/apparent motion?

So once again you have provided an argument which doesn't refute GC at all. It applies equally to GC and HC.

3. Now imagine that we are somwhere in the Arctic circle, it's MIDNIGHT and solar eclipse occurs...
Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.
You can call it "holy CCW rotation", but this time we move in counter direction with respect to the moon (comparing classical "noon" scenarios).
No, I just call it CCW rotation. Nothing holy about it.

What happens?
As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
Yes, that is right. It is the same this time because the shadow starts where you are, not off in the distance.
TO THE WEST this time means TO THE LEFT (it's MIDNIGHT and we are facing the sun - north is in front of us)!!!

Now the moon travels in an opposite direction of our motion since we go to the RIGHT (to the EAST), and the moon goes to the LEFT (to the WEST), which means that this time the moon's motion contributes + 3 % (instead of - 3 %), and shadow of the moon should go even faster to the WEST, isn't that so?
No it isn't for the same reasons as above. But again, this applies equally to the GC model.
The relative motion of the sun is -1.25 degrees, so the shadow moves 1.25 degrees (as measured from the centre of Earth), this makes it go west, i.e. to the left.
At the same time, the moon's motion relative to the sun is to the left, and thus the shadow should move even further to the left.

Notice how yet again this flawed reasoning results in the same analysis for both models??
Do you know what?
The only difference between the 2 models is a simple rotation of the entire system by 0.25 degrees per minute.

If you take the GC model at any point in time, you can rotate the entire model by some amount and match the HC model.

As such, all honest analyses will give the same result.

Do you understand this yet?

You know why?
Because the earth is stationary, that is why!
No, I know why, because you completely misrepresent the model yet again.
One thing I am 100% certain of is it is not because Earth is stationary as that would produce the exact same "results".

First a simple attempt at an explanation:
The 1.25 degree motion due to Earth's rotation amounts to (at the equator) ~140 km.
The moon's motion during that time (using its actual speed instead of the 400 km orbit) is ~ 300 km.
The shadow, as it is past the moon from the light source) thus has to move MORE than 300 km on Earth from the motion of the moon. (the exact amount depends upon distance).
What this means is that the minimum motion would be 160 km to the left.
A similar argument can be made for the GC model.
The sun has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees.

A more complicated one, but still somewhat simple. I am now going to use the angles used before, as well as a 400 000 km orbit of the moon (R) and a 150 000 000 km distant sun (S), and a radius of Earth (r) of 6371 km. (this will slightly not match reality)
Here is the pic for it:
(http://i.imgur.com/vIpuP52.png)
You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).

One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.

Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.

If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.

The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2

For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg

Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2

Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.

Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097

Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.

Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.

So pretty close.
Just to recap those 3 calculated motions:
1.26218495
1.268799292
1.268799395

All 3 quite close.
All 3 indicate an apparent motion of the shadow in the direction observed in reality.

Any objections?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2017, 06:34:20 AM
Jack, show me one peer-review article (just one) which claims that midnight solar eclipse lasts 6 % shorter than noon solar eclipse (under the same circumstances), solely due to earth's rotation in counter direction in relation to the alleged direction of moon's motion!!! (We shall - for the moment - neglect major role which "rotation in counter direction" plays in all this...)

Don't you tell me that no one would notice by now something of this magnitude of importance for your fraudulent theory?

Well, i noticed it, you see, it is that simple?

As for the core of ZIGZAG argument, it is only the question of the obviousness of this non-existing phenomena which (obviousness) depends of the distances between the earth and celestial objects.

Claiming that ZIGZAG motion somehow comes down to the differences in apparent speeds of celestial objects is utter nonsense because in GC model all celestial objects move (apart from retrograde motions) in one single general direction which means that there is no change regarding the direction of their motion.

So, when you are trying to reduce non-existing ZIGZAG motion to some minute differences which come as a consequence of minute differences in the distances of the observer on the earth in relation to the celestial objects, it akin to calling on retrograde motion as a proof for the existence of non-existing ZIGZAG motion which is very clearly defined phenomena (WHICH EXCLUSIVE CAUSE IS ALLEGED CHANGE OF THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ROTATIONAL MOTION IN RELATION TO THE CELESTIAL OBJECTS) which obviously doesn't exist.
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2017, 07:17:36 AM

0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?
No, that isn't so. But if it was, don't worry, the same would apply for the GC model.
The moon's motion relative to the sun is only 0.04 degrees/5 minutes, out of 1.25 degrees. So the argument works just as well for the GC model.
What you are trying to suggest for these 5 minutes:
Relative motion of the sun compared to Earth is -1.25. This will result in the shadow moving 1.25 degrees.
Relative motion of the moon compared to the sun (but still measured from Earth) is -0.04 degrees. This will make the shadow move -0.04 degrees.
Thus in total, it will move 1.21 degrees.

[/quote]
In which direction?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 27, 2017, 03:53:07 PM
Jack, show me one peer-review article (just one) which claims that midnight solar eclipse lasts 6 % shorter than noon solar eclipse (under the same circumstances), solely due to earth's rotation in counter direction in relation to the alleged direction of moon's motion!!! (We shall - for the moment - neglect major role which "rotation in counter direction" plays in all this...)
No. Like I said, deal with your zig-zag BS before moving on.

Once you either provide a rational justification for your zig-zag crap, showing the math backing it or at the very least provide a refutation of my math, then we can move on. Until then, that is all I will deal with.

As for the core of ZIGZAG argument, it is only the question of the obviousness of this non-existing phenomena which (obviousness) depends of the distances between the earth and celestial objects.
You are yet to show it is non-existent. But yes, it just depends upon the ratio of distances.

Claiming that ZIGZAG motion somehow comes down to the differences in apparent speeds of celestial objects is utter nonsense because in GC model all celestial objects move (apart from retrograde motions) in one single general direction which means that there is no change regarding the direction of their motion.
And in HC theory, due to the decisive nature of Earth's rotation, being much greater in magnitude than the angular velocity of the moon and much greater in magnitude than the effect of being off centre, there is no change regarding the direction of motion.
Instead all you get is a change in apparent speed.

That is not nonsense for the GC model either.
Sure, in the GC model their speeds are fixed, e.g. the sun circles 1.25 degrees every 5 minutes, the moon moves 1.21 degrees in that time.
But the distance between you and the object does change.
As the linear velocity is the same (taking a small section of the path such that the error from a straight line due to the curve is negligible), it would be the distance which determines its apparent motion.

For an extreme example, pretend there is a car travelling at 100 m/s around a track that is a circle with a diameter of 110 m.
You are standing close to the track, such that the car passes 10 m from you.
How fast does the car appear to be going as it goes past the section of the track near you?

Well, in 0.1 s it moved 10 m. So in 0.2 s it moves 20 m, 10 m from your left, to right in front then 10 m to your right.
It is 10 m distant. The math is pretty simple.
It forms 2 right angle isosceles triangles and thus moves at an apparent angular velocity of 45 degrees per second.

Now try it on the other side of the track, the far side, which is 100 m away from you.
Just looking at the 0.1 s before (or after) it goes past the point directly opposite you, you again get 2 right angle triangles, but this time the 2 lengths are 10 m and 100 m.
This means the angle is atan(10/100)=5.7 degrees.

So while it is close to you, its apparent angular speed is 45 degrees per second. While it is far away it is 5.7 degrees per second.

So notice how even in the GC model you get a difference in the apparent angular velocity.

So no, this same zig-zag motion will exist.

That was proven by the models I made, where the camera rotates in an equatorial plane at 0.25 degrees per minute watching a much closer sun.
In the HC model, this cancels the rotation of Earth, resulting in the camera always looking at the same direction, and thus looking to the left or right of the sun depending upon its offset from the centre, with the sun appearing to move to the right as the patch of dirt you are on moves left (now we are just looking at translation as we have removed the rotation by rotating the camera), and it appears to move left as the patch of dirt you are on moves right.
In the GC model, this cancels the average motion of the sun, resulting in the camera following the sun at the north pole, but not quite following it elsewhere due to the offset from the centre.
At noon, when the sun is close, due to it being closer it will have a faster angular velocity than average and thus appear to move to the right.
At midnight, when the sun is far, due to it being further it will have a slower angular velocity than average and thus appear to move to the left.

As such, you obtain the exact same experimental result under both HC and GC models.

There is no difference in the zig-zag result, just the origin of it.

How many times must this be repeated and explained in different ways before you accept it?

So, when you are trying to reduce non-existing ZIGZAG motion to some minute differences which come as a consequence of minute differences in the distances of the observer on the earth in relation to the celestial objects, it akin to calling on retrograde motion as a proof for the existence of non-existing ZIGZAG motion which is very clearly defined phenomena (WHICH EXCLUSIVE CAUSE IS ALLEGED CHANGE OF THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ROTATIONAL MOTION IN RELATION TO THE CELESTIAL OBJECTS) which obviously doesn't exist.
This sentence makes almost no sense.
The zig-zag motion would be due to minute differences in distances. That applies to both the HC and GC models, just not to a FE model with the sun circling overhead in which case the distance is no longer minute (for reality, 2500 km vs 150 000 000 km for the sun or 400 000 km for the moon; for FE, 2500 km vs 7500 km for the tropic, i.e. where the sun or moon would be directly overhead while it is visible from all locations in the arctic circle).

All your zig-zag argumment does is show the sun and moon are far away and thus the FE model is wrong. It cannot distinguish between GC and HC.

Once again, THE EARTH DOES NOT CHANGE THE DIRECTION IT ROTATES!!! (at least not anything like what you are suggesting).
It is always rotating CCW when viewed from above.

Now deal with the zig-zag BS before moving on.
Either show what is wrong with my analysis, or provide a hypothetical experiment and the math behind it to show what you would expect for each model.

Remember for this experiment you can just use the apparent motion of the sun/moon. You can't use something else like a gyroscope/laser ring gyroscope or Foucault's pendulum or the like as they constitute completely different arguments for Earth's rotation.
This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).

Are you capable and wiling to do that? Or do you know it will prove you wrong so you wont?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: 29silhouette on July 27, 2017, 06:53:53 PM

Can you be a little more shaky while moving the camera?  Perhaps pointing it around the room and up and down while moving it back and forth so that there is no question about it no longer being aimed along a parallel line of sight between positions.

Is it dishonesty on your part, or just plain clumsiness?
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 27, 2017, 08:12:09 PM
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.

Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?

The "zigzag" you refer to is a very slight change in rate of apparent daily motion of the moon (much less for the sun) from east to west while they're above the horizon in a day. It is insignificant except in the case of very high precision measurements. It is never a change in apparent direction.

Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: cikljamas on July 28, 2017, 03:37:58 AM
Jack, i explained everything in my posts #124 and #126, go and read them again if you need. Now, let's imagine this situation : solar eclipse is going to happen exactly at noon (it reminds me to the name of a legendary western movie "High Noon", not only that, it reminds me to the story told in that movie, also, so i am now Gary Cooper, and i am fightiagainst a bunch of criminal liars who are just about to be defeated :) )...

So, maximum of total solar eclipse is going to happen at high noon, all we have to do is to analyze these fraudulent words written by Jack Black :

Now deal with the zig-zag BS before moving on.
Either show what is wrong with my analysis, or provide a hypothetical experiment and the math behind it to show what you would expect for each model.

Remember for this experiment you can just use the apparent motion of the sun/moon. You can't use something else like a gyroscope/laser ring gyroscope or Foucault's pendulum or the like as they constitute completely different arguments for Earth's rotation.
This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).

Why this words are misleading? Because when we rotate camera relative to Earth (to counter Earth's rotation), in the same time we counter the average motion of the sun, also! Why? Because the sun is stationary within HC theory, is it not?

So, 2,5 minutes before noon our camera is starting to strictly focusing to the center of the sun, which means that our camera is turned about 0,65 degrees to the left (from the imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth), right at noon our camera is perfectly aligned with imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth (and still centered to the center of the sun), 2,5 minutes after noon our camera is turned 0,65 degrees to the right from our imaginary vertical line (and still centered to the center of the sun).

With such experiment (which can last even much longer, for example for one whole hour during which we have to compensate for 15 degrees of earth's rotation - 7 degrees before noon, and 7 degrees after noon) we can provide fixed spatial orientation of our camera (presuming that the earth really rotates), and thus modify our rotational motion into kind of lateral translation. I said "kind of" because if wouldn't be exactly LATERAL translation, but it would fulfil our needs quite good. To ensure as much LATERAL translation as this type of experiment allows, we have to reduce duration of our experiment to 5 minutes.

What would be the result of our experiment?

Since the moon is allegedly 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, then the effect of our LATERAL motion will have to be somewhere close to this difference (400 times), also. What this means is this : For the same amount of our LATERAL translation the apparent translation of the moon (in counter direction of our LATERAL motion) would be proportionally (400 times) GREATER than the apparent translation of the sun (in the same direction). We only need to reduce this number (400) for 3 % (due to moon's alleged motion towards east)...

Since the moon and the sun would be aligned we could easily measure disproportional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, if HC theory were true, but since HC theory is utter bullshit, then there is no such disproportiotional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, because their motions are REAL, not APPARENT!!!

ONCE AGAIN :

LATERAL MOTION VS ROTATIONAL MOTION :

MOON LATEARAL 3 X : http://i.imgur.com/MQSFTNJ.jpg
MOON LATERAL MOTION 3 XXX : http://i.imgur.com/2HwyMov.jpg
CAMERA MOVING DISTANCE : http://i.imgur.com/rEMSeUm.jpg

However, this is the reason why we can't ensure REAL fixed spatial orientation of our camera by using above method  :

ZIGZAG VIDEO DEDICATED TO TABOO CONSPIRACY :

Why directional gyros a.k.a. heading indicators are 100 % reliable instruments? Because of this :
GYRO SLUM DUNK :
Title: Re: My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
Post by: JackBlack on July 28, 2017, 04:54:03 AM
Jack, i explained everything in my posts #124 and #126, go and read them again if you need.
I have read them and I have refuted them.

If you think there is something I missed, feel free to provide it again.
You are also yet to refute the math which shows you are wrong, and the animations which do the same.

Now, let's imagine this situation : solar eclipse is going to happen exactly at noon
No, let's not. Let's deal with your zig-zag failure before moving on.

This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).
Why this words are misleading? Because when we rotate camera relative to Earth (to counter Earth's rotation), in the same time we counter the average motion of the sun, also! Why? Because the sun is stationary within HC theory, is it not?
Nope. Not mine that is misleading, yours.
I never said you are doing them both in the one model.
I said in one (implied to be the HC one) you turn the camera relative to Earth to counter Earth's rotation.
In the other, (implied to be the GC one) you still need to turn the camera relative to Earth, but now instead of countering Earth's rotation you are countering the average motion of the sun.

Is that easier for you to understand?

So, 2,5 minutes before noon our camera is starting to strictly focusing to the center of the sun, which means that our camera is turned about 0,65 degrees to the left (from the imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth), right at noon our camera is perfectly aligned with imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth (and still centered to the center of the sun), 2,5 minutes after noon our camera is turned 0,65 degrees to the right from our imaginary vertical line (and still centered to the center of the sun).
No it isn't.
At noon, it will be perfectly aligned (assuming that is the 0 point), shortly after noon and shortly before the sun will be misaligned, in both the HC and GC models.
In the HC model you are keeping the direction the camera faces fixed. What that means (assuming the direction of the sun at noon is forward) is that a little before noon you will be to the right of the sun, but still looking straight ahead. That means the sun will appear to be a little to the left.
Shortly after, you will be to the left of the sun and thus it will appear a little to the right.
In the GC model you get the same result, but for a different reason.
At noon the sun is closest to you, so it will be moving at a faster than average speed. What this means is that in those 2.5 minutes after noon, you will turn your camera 0.625 degrees, but the sun will move a little more than that (both going to the right) and thus the sun will appear to move to the right and be seen a little to the right after noon.
Due to symmetry (or going backwards), the sun will appear a little to the left before hand.
This matches the GC scenario.

Again, both can be seen in the animations above.

The only time you stay centred with the sun is if you are at the centre, either on Earth's axis, or the axis of the circle the sun takes.
If you are off centre, you will get a "zig-zag", even if it is imperceptible.

Since the moon is allegedly 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, then the effect of our LATERAL motion will have to be somewhere close to this difference (400 times), also. What this means is this : For the same amount of our LATERAL translation the apparent translation of the moon (in counter direction of our LATERAL motion) would be proportionally (400 times) GREATER than the apparent translation of the sun (in the same direction). We only need to reduce this number (400) for 3 % (due to moon's alleged motion towards east)...
No, the result due to the translation will be roughly 400 times greater for the moon. You don't try and adjust it by 3%. You would have to adjust it for the motion of the moon in its orbit, 0.04 degrees.

Since the moon and the sun would be aligned
Stop trying to change it to the eclipse. Deal with your zig-zag BS first.

there is no such disproportiotional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, because their motions are REAL, not APPARENT!!!
You are aware real motion gives rise to apparent motion?
It is how the motion appears to be.
A car travelling at 100 m/s 10 m away appears to me moving much faster than a car travelling 100 m/s 100 m away.
The apparent motion of the car is greater when it is closer, even though it has real motion.

ONCE AGAIN :
Repeating the same refuted BS won't magically make it true.

LATERAL MOTION VS ROTATIONAL MOTION :

Yes, good job, you failed to move the camera laterally and instead rotated it significantly, making your result meaningless.

Would you like me to make an animation showing the difference?

However, this is the reason why we can't ensure REAL fixed spatial orientation of our camera by using above method  :
We don't need to.

All we need to do is correct for the apparent average motion of the sun, regardless of if it is caused by a combination of Earth's orbit and rotation, or if it is caused by the sun's motion around us.

It produces the same result.

Why directional gyros a.k.a. heading indicators are 100 % reliable instruments? Because of this :
No, they aren't 100% reliable instruments, no instrument is.
Again, this is another argument entirely. Deal with your failed zig-zag BS before moving on.