Flat Earth Challenge: Explain different directions of sky rotation.

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 09:17:12 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:52:01 AM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 08:48:01 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:54:01 AM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 07:47:10 AM

First time I knew about concave earth, it was only about one year ago (after 58 years of life thinking convex heliocentric, moon landings, etc..I met flat earth with 56 yo). At first I thought I would be very easy to debunk (just one reason is enough...if strong enough). But each time I tryed to find arguments to debunk concave, I found myself debunking all other models (and met geo convex in 2014 with the principle), specialy the convex heliocentric mainstream that have a motion for earth of about 1 million km per hour in 7 directions, and a misterious dark matter, much more misterious than ether. By October 2014, I already had put dark matter in garbadge and elected ether.
I must confess that the great work of LSC (Steven Christopher*) was an important factor for electing ether. But ether is present in convex geocentric and flat model (maybe?) too.

* Hollow earth of Edmund Halley, observations of Brahe, experiments by Ulysses Grant Morrow and Cyrus Teed, (except electric knowledge of Nikola Tesla that never admited gravity and relativity as mainstream science still describe it), geometry of Mostafa Abdelkader, the intuition of Peter Bender (a german pilot), the article of Karl E. Neupert, the book of  Johannes Lang and the work of Rolf Kepler are nothing compared with the work and research of Steven Joseph Christopher, That is amazing!

OK, LSC is obviously joking, so if you believe him that you don't have any sense of humor. I think Wild Heretic does the same, but no idea why. Perhaps in several years they would admit it was an experiment to test how gullible people can be.

If he is joking , he is joking he uses quite a time of his life joking, as Halley did, as Brahe did, as Morrow and Teed did and the famous german nazi scientist did : Johannes Lang. Maybe too mant people joking. Wild Heretic has good fresh ideas (and interesting debate site) and some diferences with LSC. I like also this one http://debunkingrelativity.com/ or even the real great 'heretic´http://heiwaco.tripod.com/

Come on, Heiwa doesn't believe the Earth is concave or does he? Brahe didn't believe in concave Earth either. Halley had some similar ideas, but it doesn't mean he was right. Teed was a cult leader. Johannes Lang didn't believe in concave Earth but in hollow Earth. Two different things. Anyway, it doesn't matter who believes in what. But currently, lots of people are simply joking and laughing at their computers at the expense of those who believe them.

I don't know if Anders believe in concave earth but he certainly don't believe most space travels are possible. Brahe never agreed with Kepler's model, but he beleaved the earth is static and his observations are important observations, still today. Halley yes was not sure about concavity or just hollow but Johannes Lang, my friend, you are completly wrong, I am sorry, Lang wrote a book that all major nazi scientist had to read and it is about concave earth. Youi can read it (in german) here:
https://archive.org/stream/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie/LangJohannes-DieHohlwelttheorie1938293S.Scan-text#page/n27/mode/2up
About Teed you are right, he was a cult leader. I respect him even if he was a cult leader. But it is his expensive scientific experiement of the rectiliniator with Universities that is what matters for debate.

I am not wrong. Johannes wrote a book about the hollow Earth, not about the concave Earth. Anyway, this doesn't matter. Of course, space travel is fake, so what? That doesn't mean the Earth is concave. If the Earth is static it doesn't mean it is concave either. Actually, all of that fits much better within the flat Earth idea than within the concave Earth idea. You cannot possibly know if a concave Earth is static or not since you live on the inside. One more time though I would like to tell you that concave Earth is not the same as hollow Earth. Hollow Earth suggests that we live on the surface of the planet, but inside there is another world while concave Earth simply suggests we live on the inside and doesn't explain whether there is anything on the outside or if anyone lives there or whatever.

I am sure you did not read the book. You can see it all in the link I gave you. Don't read just the title and you will se you are completly wrong. Johannes lang wrote a book about a concave earth where nobody lives outside. We are all inside in his book. Just read a few pages, any...and you can see your enormous mistake, I am sorry, but I cannot debate other matters with somebody that cannot see the evidence - just read the book.
I give you again the link , just click the right page to go next page or left page to go back:
https://archive.org/stream/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie/LangJohannes-DieHohlwelttheorie1938293S.Scan-text#page/n173/mode/2up

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 09:17:12 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:52:01 AM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 08:48:01 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:54:01 AM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 07:47:10 AM

First time I knew about concave earth, it was only about one year ago (after 58 years of life thinking convex heliocentric, moon landings, etc..I met flat earth with 56 yo). At first I thought I would be very easy to debunk (just one reason is enough...if strong enough). But each time I tryed to find arguments to debunk concave, I found myself debunking all other models (and met geo convex in 2014 with the principle), specialy the convex heliocentric mainstream that have a motion for earth of about 1 million km per hour in 7 directions, and a misterious dark matter, much more misterious than ether. By October 2014, I already had put dark matter in garbadge and elected ether.
I must confess that the great work of LSC (Steven Christopher*) was an important factor for electing ether. But ether is present in convex geocentric and flat model (maybe?) too.

* Hollow earth of Edmund Halley, observations of Brahe, experiments by Ulysses Grant Morrow and Cyrus Teed, (except electric knowledge of Nikola Tesla that never admited gravity and relativity as mainstream science still describe it), geometry of Mostafa Abdelkader, the intuition of Peter Bender (a german pilot), the article of Karl E. Neupert, the book of  Johannes Lang and the work of Rolf Kepler are nothing compared with the work and research of Steven Joseph Christopher, That is amazing!

OK, LSC is obviously joking, so if you believe him that you don't have any sense of humor. I think Wild Heretic does the same, but no idea why. Perhaps in several years they would admit it was an experiment to test how gullible people can be.

If he is joking , he is joking he uses quite a time of his life joking, as Halley did, as Brahe did, as Morrow and Teed did and the famous german nazi scientist did : Johannes Lang. Maybe too mant people joking. Wild Heretic has good fresh ideas (and interesting debate site) and some diferences with LSC. I like also this one http://debunkingrelativity.com/ or even the real great 'heretic´http://heiwaco.tripod.com/

Come on, Heiwa doesn't believe the Earth is concave or does he? Brahe didn't believe in concave Earth either. Halley had some similar ideas, but it doesn't mean he was right. Teed was a cult leader. Johannes Lang didn't believe in concave Earth but in hollow Earth. Two different things. Anyway, it doesn't matter who believes in what. But currently, lots of people are simply joking and laughing at their computers at the expense of those who believe them.

I don't know if Anders believe in concave earth but he certainly don't believe most space travels are possible. Brahe never agreed with Kepler's model, but he beleaved the earth is static and his observations are important observations, still today. Halley yes was not sure about concavity or just hollow but Johannes Lang, my friend, you are completly wrong, I am sorry, Lang wrote a book that all major nazi scientist had to read and it is about concave earth. Youi can read it (in german) here:
https://archive.org/stream/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie/LangJohannes-DieHohlwelttheorie1938293S.Scan-text#page/n27/mode/2up
About Teed you are right, he was a cult leader. I respect him even if he was a cult leader. But it is his expensive scientific experiement of the rectiliniator with Universities that is what matters for debate.

I am not wrong. Johannes wrote a book about the hollow Earth, not about the concave Earth. Anyway, this doesn't matter. Of course, space travel is fake, so what? That doesn't mean the Earth is concave. If the Earth is static it doesn't mean it is concave either. Actually, all of that fits much better within the flat Earth idea than within the concave Earth idea. You cannot possibly know if a concave Earth is static or not since you live on the inside. One more time though I would like to tell you that concave Earth is not the same as hollow Earth. Hollow Earth suggests that we live on the surface of the planet, but inside there is another world while concave Earth simply suggests we live on the inside and doesn't explain whether there is anything on the outside or if anyone lives there or whatever.

See this image and you don't need to read the book. The evidence will be complete:

http://wiki.astro.com/imwiki/de/Lang_Hohlwelttheorie.jpg

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 01:21:52 PM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 09:17:12 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:52:01 AM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 08:48:01 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:54:01 AM

Quote from: x2m on March 10, 2015, 07:47:10 AM

First time I knew about concave earth, it was only about one year ago (after 58 years of life thinking convex heliocentric, moon landings, etc..I met flat earth with 56 yo). At first I thought I would be very easy to debunk (just one reason is enough...if strong enough). But each time I tryed to find arguments to debunk concave, I found myself debunking all other models (and met geo convex in 2014 with the principle), specialy the convex heliocentric mainstream that have a motion for earth of about 1 million km per hour in 7 directions, and a misterious dark matter, much more misterious than ether. By October 2014, I already had put dark matter in garbadge and elected ether.
I must confess that the great work of LSC (Steven Christopher*) was an important factor for electing ether. But ether is present in convex geocentric and flat model (maybe?) too.

* Hollow earth of Edmund Halley, observations of Brahe, experiments by Ulysses Grant Morrow and Cyrus Teed, (except electric knowledge of Nikola Tesla that never admited gravity and relativity as mainstream science still describe it), geometry of Mostafa Abdelkader, the intuition of Peter Bender (a german pilot), the article of Karl E. Neupert, the book of  Johannes Lang and the work of Rolf Kepler are nothing compared with the work and research of Steven Joseph Christopher, That is amazing!

OK, LSC is obviously joking, so if you believe him that you don't have any sense of humor. I think Wild Heretic does the same, but no idea why. Perhaps in several years they would admit it was an experiment to test how gullible people can be.

If he is joking , he is joking he uses quite a time of his life joking, as Halley did, as Brahe did, as Morrow and Teed did and the famous german nazi scientist did : Johannes Lang. Maybe too mant people joking. Wild Heretic has good fresh ideas (and interesting debate site) and some diferences with LSC. I like also this one http://debunkingrelativity.com/ or even the real great 'heretic´http://heiwaco.tripod.com/

Come on, Heiwa doesn't believe the Earth is concave or does he? Brahe didn't believe in concave Earth either. Halley had some similar ideas, but it doesn't mean he was right. Teed was a cult leader. Johannes Lang didn't believe in concave Earth but in hollow Earth. Two different things. Anyway, it doesn't matter who believes in what. But currently, lots of people are simply joking and laughing at their computers at the expense of those who believe them.

I don't know if Anders believe in concave earth but he certainly don't believe most space travels are possible. Brahe never agreed with Kepler's model, but he beleaved the earth is static and his observations are important observations, still today. Halley yes was not sure about concavity or just hollow but Johannes Lang, my friend, you are completly wrong, I am sorry, Lang wrote a book that all major nazi scientist had to read and it is about concave earth. Youi can read it (in german) here:
https://archive.org/stream/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie/LangJohannes-DieHohlwelttheorie1938293S.Scan-text#page/n27/mode/2up
About Teed you are right, he was a cult leader. I respect him even if he was a cult leader. But it is his expensive scientific experiement of the rectiliniator with Universities that is what matters for debate.

I am not wrong. Johannes wrote a book about the hollow Earth, not about the concave Earth. Anyway, this doesn't matter. Of course, space travel is fake, so what? That doesn't mean the Earth is concave. If the Earth is static it doesn't mean it is concave either. Actually, all of that fits much better within the flat Earth idea than within the concave Earth idea. You cannot possibly know if a concave Earth is static or not since you live on the inside. One more time though I would like to tell you that concave Earth is not the same as hollow Earth. Hollow Earth suggests that we live on the surface of the planet, but inside there is another world while concave Earth simply suggests we live on the inside and doesn't explain whether there is anything on the outside or if anyone lives there or whatever.

See this image and you don't need to read the book. The evidence will be complete:

http://wiki.astro.com/imwiki/de/Lang_Hohlwelttheorie.jpg

Yeah, you're right about Johannes, but I still don't see how this is relevant? How would you know if the sphere moves or not if you live on the inside? On top of that this theory does nothing. It is the opposite of the convex model. It is just a distraction and a fun thing to consider. I spent enough time reading wild heretic's site last year. His space hoax theories are not exactly original as those theories are well known and widely discussed for instance on the cluesforum.

Of course Johannes Lang is a main concave earth beleaver as many nazi scientist (that went to NASA). But, of course, you are right about it doesn't matter much because the main topic is stiil the same: Flat Earth Challenge: Explain different directions of sky rotation. And still no explanation.
But in the concave earth theory the land don't move at all, just the field (eather) , the sun (it takes 24 hours to come the same place again) and the inside celestial sphere (it takes 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds to complete the circle), but that is another more complex explanation that I will be glad to explain you in detail (with seasons, milky way effect, light bending, eclipses of sun and moon in detail too, the Maurice Alllais effect of Foucault Pedulum, etc...etc...)
But, I am sorry, I just enter here to have an answer: Flat Earth Challenge: Explain different directions of sky rotation....And still no explanation.
After an explanation, maybe I can consider flat earth theory, not before.
In concave earth theory, the explanation is clear as cristal and precise as a swii clock for different observations of star rotations (23hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds for complete circle any palce) north hemisphere and south hemisphere.
Put yourself aboeve a ball rotating and you see it rotating in one direction. But now put yourself below the same rotating ball (celestial inside earth sphere containing small stars and about 6000 km) and the direction of rotation is obviously observed as going the other side (because you are below the the celestial spere, not above).
As you can understand easily, concave earth (even convex) can explain diferent rotation of stars in our Bubble called earth (the land is older than our Bubble - motionless, not spinning but still expanding...) . And cavitation demonstrate that life can appear in a few years, All elements can appear with transmutation from cavitation too (no need of fusion in enormous stars (satrs are just a particular event of cavitation called sonoluminiscence caused by sound). But As I said, that is more complex, you just have to explain different directions observation of rotating sky above and below equator. Just that. Please. I cannot consider any flat earth theory without that completly missing explanation.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1675760#msg1675760

That still doesn't explain the constant angular distances between stars and your map has Utah (where I live) extremely deformed.  I can prsonally verify that the distances in Utah according to the round Earth map are correct because I have done a lot of driving around Utah.

Halley had some similar ideas

Halley theorized that earth could be hollow. I forgot the reason why and I'm too lazy to look that up. But he never believed or would even have expected someone could believe in a Concave Earth.

Mustafa Abdelkader is interesting, although his model is just an example for geometrical inversion, btw also a popular tool for lion hunting:http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63116.0#.VRlx_pMh8t4

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1675760#msg1675760

Both convex models (mainstream and geocentric) are less complicated (even with dark matter, dark energy and black holes and billions light years) than your analogy to the subquark vortices for motion of stars, or am I missing something that might be really simpler?
Sorry but I will need more explanation for that motion of stars. Anyway thank you for your first try (and only one till now) to answer the question; Flat Earth Challenge: Explain different directions of sky rotation.

You haven't done your homework.

I was the first to present IE (inverted earth theory) here, a long time ago.

The IE planetary/solar/lunar model is VERY complicated, perhaps you have never bothered to learn the details.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101219081839/http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/1998-March/012724.html (section Shape of the Cosm)

The other theory that explains the nature of Europa is the Hollow Earth
Theory. There are two versions. The more common is that our world is a
sphere with a hollow inside, usually with its own interior sun to support
life on the inner surface.

  Europa, however, incorporates the other version: that the world we know
exists on the inside of a sphere rather than on the outside. The
astronomical phenomena seen in the sky are illusions created to hide and
distract from the sight of the other side of the world across the inner
diameter of the sphere. This cosmological view was popular among senior
members of the German Navy and Hermann Göring during the second World
War. In fact, the Navy carried out experiments to detect British boats
using the inward curving properties of the world. Radar units were
trained upwards at 45 degrees to try and detect shipping over the
'horizon'. However, the nature of the illusion that covers the sky
prevented them from getting back any meaningful results; the data
continued to insist that the world existed on the outside of a globe.

Due to the presence of extremely fine particles of ice - some of them
no more than single molecules of water ice - that are spread throughout
space, there is a force of 'drag'. Thus, if an astronomical body comes
under the effect of another larger body's gravity field, it will slowly
spiral in towards the larger one, eventually crashing into it. Larger
planetary bodies and ice bolides spiral in much more slowly than smaller
ones. Under the Hörbigian physics of Europa, the distance of the force of
gravity is much smaller than that of Newtonian gravity, and the gravity
field of Europa's Sun only reaches out to beyond Neptune. Nevertheless,
originally the Sol system had many more planets than today, but over time
the small ones have gravitated inwards, becoming moons of planets or
falling into the Sun.

  Meanwhile, it is also true that that the physical entirety of Europa's
universe exists inside of a sphere which - like the similarly finite and
bounded Aysle cosm - has no 'outside' in the mundane sense. The Core
Earth-like 'planet' of Europa proper exists on the inside surface of the
sphere, in accordance with the Hollow Earth Theory. However, the nature
of the world perversely hides this fact by creating the elaborate
illusion of day and night existing in different areas, of causing the
shadows of sticks at different latitudes to vary in length, and
distorting the readings of radar units aimed upwards at 45 degree angles.
In this regard it is also somewhat like the Cyberpapal home cosm of Magna
Verita: to the casual observer at ground level there is no way to tell
that the astronomical arrangement of this cosm is not identical to that
of Core Earth.

  It is important to note, however, that most of the astronomical objects
seen in the night sky are *not* illusions; they exist and can be visited.
(Or could be, if Europa had a higher Tech axiom; at Tech 21 it is one
point short of both orbital spacecraft and interplanetary probes.)
Moreover, the other planets and stars also have the universe contained
within them as well.
  A hypothetical Storm Knight (group) with the means to fly above the
atmosphere would discover Europa's cosmology in this order: As they
pierce the atmosphere the illusion that Peter Bender called 'The Phantom
Universe' dissipates, and the horizon turns upwards. Stretching up and
around them on the inside of the globe is the world; the cities and
continents of Europa can clearly be seen (one half in day, the other in
night with city lights shining, and the halves of light an dark skewed so
that he polar regions receive extended periods of light and dark). The
view directly opposite the Storm Knights on the far side of the sphere is
obscured by the light of the sun, which - along with the planets -
occupies the center of the space inside the sphere.
  In a moment of curiosity, the Storm Knights might ask themselves what
the exact nature of the stars and planets ahead of them are. Are they
illusions too? Or tiny worldlets that can be scooped out of space and
kept in shoe boxes? They decide to travel on.

  Considering the size of the size of the cosm seems to be determined by
an inside circumference of about 40,000 kilometres (creating a
supposition of a diameter of some 12,750 kilometres), the Storm Knights
are rather surprised when about 40,000 kilometres later they have still
not even reached the Moon, and the view of outer space shifts. The scene
of the universe being encompassed by the planet is gone, and outer space
now only contains little spherical worlds. Continuing to approach the
Moon - which as predicted by Hörbiger is made of ice - some 7,000
kilometres out from the lunar surface the shift of perspective reverses
itself, and now it seems as though the universe is now contained within
the hollow sphere of the Moon.

  It quickly becomes apparent that by some sort of fourth dimensional
topological contortion each planetary or solar body is a hollow world
which contains the entire universe within it, including all the other
hollow worlds that also hold the universe with themselves. (Or at least,
so it would seem to visitors from realities like Core Earth, Terra, or
the Star Sphere, where science dominates people's points of view and
where Einstein's general theory of relativity is valid. In Europa the
effect of one of the world laws means that fourth dimensional topology is
invalid as a means of describing the space-time continuum.) However, it
is only when you come close to the planetary or solar bodies - to within
a distance equal to the body's diameter - that this hollow world effect
becomes apparent. Away from astronomical bodies the universe is
superficially similar to normal outer space in Core Earth.

  The Hörbigian nature of Europa's Solar system reflects the state of
astronomical knowledge extant at the time the World Ice Theory was
published, in 1918. The order of the major planets of the Solar system is
mostly unchanged - Mercury, Venus, Europa (Earth), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune. Then planet Pluto as Core Earth knows it does not
exist, even though its 1930 discovery was predated by predictions of its
location as early as 1916. In any case, the eccentric orbit of Core
Earth's Pluto would take it far outside the gravitational reach of
Europa's Sun. Instead, Europa's solar system has a number of other, minor
planets in the outer solar system, one of which is a rough analogue of
Core Earth's Pluto and which shares its name. In time Europa's Pluto -
like the other minor planetoids - will spiral further into the solar
system to become moons of the larger planets.

  Also out beyond the orbit of Neptune are the ice bolides of the Milky
Way. Occasionally gravitational shadows will cause them to be thrown into
the solar system or one of the other solar systems at varying rates of
drift. Some will be perturbed sufficiently to be sent in as comets.
Others may drift in to be captured in semi-stable orbits as asteroids or
as new moons for planets, or less frequently a particularly large piece
may become a new planet entirely.
  Eventually, however, all of the pieces within range - rocky planets
and ice bolides alike - will have one by one spiralled into the sun of
one stellar system or another by the forces of Attraction, only to be
spat out again by the forces of Repulsion. By this means the process
repeats.

  The specific mechanics of the Hollow Earth theory is, at one an the
same time, relatively simple and quite complex.
  To understand how the Hollow Earth theory works it is best to imagine
an analogy of it as it exists in four dimensional space. Take the three
dimensional world of the planet Europa. Reduce those three dimensions
down to two: you now have a hoop. The 'outer space' that exists within
the planet of Europa is represented by an elastic membrane stretched
across the hoop. If 'outer space' within the approximately 40,000
kilometre circumference planet were to be 12,750 kilometres in diameter,
then these measurements would match that of the ratio of a circle's
diameter to its circumference on a flat Euclidean surface. In such a
case, the elastic membrane stretched across the hoop would be flat.
  However, the outer space within Europa is nothing like 12,750
kilometres in diameter. It is much larger. In the analogy, the elastic
membrane of outer space stretched across the hoop is distorted upwards as
an non-Euclidean surface into the fourth dimension. Thus, it is perfectly
possibly to have a hollow world enclosing a universe far larger than the
enclosing world's circumference would normally allow.



I explained the northern circumpolar/southern circumpolar/regular stellar orbits a long time ago, also.

If you had read my messages on the subject, you would have understood why I made the analogy between the vortices of the subquarks and the motion of the stars (north/south).

Also, you wrote this:

The truth is that nobody has ever proved any model (flat, concave convez heliocentric, convex geocentric or others)

For now, just the link to the Tunguska file:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281819 (no curvature across 5,200 km)


You might also want to check the original set of Maxwell's equations (as they relate to the shape of the earth):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521

Also, you wrote this:

The truth is that nobody has ever proved any model (flat, concave convez heliocentric, convex geocentric or others)

For now, just the link to the Tunguska file:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281819 (no curvature across 5,200 km)


You might also want to check the original set of Maxwell's equations (as they relate to the shape of the earth):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521

Have you got any evidences for "Englishman saw Tunguska's light"? Because without it it's just an utter sh*t.

I have already posted the bibliographical references.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

The following article was published on the following day, Thursday, July 2, 1908, in “The Times” (London):

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

You wrote
I explained the northern circumpolar/southern circumpolar/regular stellar orbits a long time ago, also.
If you had read my messages on the subject, you would have understood why I made the analogy between the vortices of the subquarks and the motion of the stars (north/south).

I will be glad to read and study your long time ago exlaination and messages about subject. Maybe so complicated that I cannot understand it?
Or the explantion I could read on
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1675760#msg1675760
is recent.
Where are the other explanations?
PS
About other matters we agree in many observations (maybe not about light itself - I beleave it bends depending of the activity of the sun and moon).

Quote from: skycentrism on March 10, 2015, 02:42:23 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 02:33:47 AM

Quote from: skycentrism on March 10, 2015, 02:27:50 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 02:25:27 AM

Quote from: skycentrism on March 10, 2015, 02:17:16 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 02:14:18 AM

I think a wrong question is being asked; the sky does rotate in only one direction, east to west. Problem for fet is that the sky/rotation is spherical.

I think you didn't watch the videos or can't tell left from right.

I think you haven't actually observed the sky rotate. Rotation is always from east to west. Sorry but that's a fact. If I am misunderstanding your point or if you have a differing view, please elaborate.

Right, I expressed myself wrong. The direction of rotation is one, BUT it appears like the sky rotates in two directions depending on our location.

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

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

Explain these for the Flat Earth:)

It appears that Australia is not above our heads, therefore you're a fool to believe the Earth is concave. End of story.

We are talking about Flat Earth here You can't even stick to the subject.
Are these videos fake or what ? Oor maybe you have an explanation for the Flat Earth ? Or are you gonna behave like a child and say: la lala I can't hear you !

I don't care what you have to say. You're not a round Earther, but a concave Earther(pretended one). I don't have to argue with someone who believes in something else than the traditional model, but argues against flat Earth. First prove your own model is correct then attack flat Earth, ok? I guess you can't, so basically now you believe the Earth is convex, but still pretend it is concave. It is like saying dinosaurs didn't exist, but instead giant rabbits existed, so those who believe dinosaurs existed are wrong?!?

What are you even talking about?? Stick to the subject here.

you wrote:
I don't care what you have to say. You're not a round Earther, but a concave Earther(pretended one). I don't have to argue with someone who believes in something else than the traditional model, but argues against flat Earth. First prove your own model is correct then attack flat Earth, ok? I guess you can't, so basically now you believe the Earth is convex, but still pretend it is concave. It is like saying dinosaurs didn't exist, but instead giant rabbits existed, so those who believe dinosaurs existed are wrong?!?

Wrong comparision: It is like saying the dinosaurs did not exist because one crucial proof of their existence is wrong. And I you need a explanation about that proof. Just that. It doesn't matter in that debate if there are rabbits or not.
I care about any person (that is interested in honest science) have to say.
I am not 'any earther', I am open to truth. No model (any concave, any convex or any flat) has been proved yet. That is the only thing I still beleave. But I found too many holes in all of them (each time less in the concave one, I must admit). But the main hole on flat earth models are the topic. That is why I want an explanation about it from who beleave in flat earth model.
If I was a flat earth beleaver I would be the first to explain the diferent directions of sky rotation.
I don't have a model to prove. I just think there are models that might have less holes than others (but even that, might change, of course).
I don't want to attack any model. But, by the contrary, each time I make a question to one model I give an oportunity for this model to become stronger.
Science and truth must not be just a contest of intuitions, but an healthy field for intelectual debate and ...good friendship.