Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.

  • 79 Replies
  • 15209 Views
Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2014, 10:34:50 AM »
Are you fucking serious right now? Are you sure you're not on any hallucinogens? The most rational thing in this post are the supposed dates in which this bullshit you spouted is supposed to go down, which is some sort of falsifiability, I guess.

Yes of course I'm serious, and I'm not on any hallucinogens, but I am on an anti-psychotic but that's it. Of course I don't really think I'm crazy. I think that stuff is real and even though I know it sounds rediculas I'm just telling you from my own observations what I think will happen. Yeah obviously some of that stuff sounds like I've completely lost my marbles but I don't think I have.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2014, 11:53:26 AM »
Are you fucking serious right now? Are you sure you're not on any hallucinogens? The most rational thing in this post are the supposed dates in which this bullshit you spouted is supposed to go down, which is some sort of falsifiability, I guess.

Yes of course I'm serious, and I'm not on any hallucinogens, but I am on an anti-psychotic but that's it. Of course I don't really think I'm crazy. I think that stuff is real and even though I know it sounds rediculas I'm just telling you from my own observations what I think will happen. Yeah obviously some of that stuff sounds like I've completely lost my marbles but I don't think I have.

Crazy people often don't think themselves to be crazy
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2014, 03:48:32 PM »
Are you fucking serious right now? Are you sure you're not on any hallucinogens? The most rational thing in this post are the supposed dates in which this bullshit you spouted is supposed to go down, which is some sort of falsifiability, I guess.

Yes of course I'm serious, and I'm not on any hallucinogens, but I am on an anti-psychotic but that's it. Of course I don't really think I'm crazy. I think that stuff is real and even though I know it sounds rediculas I'm just telling you from my own observations what I think will happen. Yeah obviously some of that stuff sounds like I've completely lost my marbles but I don't think I have.

Crazy people often don't think themselves to be crazy

ftfy
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2014, 06:26:51 PM »
Crazy people often don't think themselves to be crazy

I could be a lunatic or I could be right. I personally think I'm right but doesn't mostly everyone even though you know we can't ALL be right?

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2014, 08:22:52 PM »
Crazy people often don't think themselves to be crazy

I could be a lunatic or I could be right. I personally think I'm right but doesn't mostly everyone even though you know we can't ALL be right?
People usually think they're right when they have solid evidence backing up their position. Usually, and then there's people like you (or FE'ers in general)
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2014, 04:24:49 AM »
Yes of course I'm serious, and I'm not on any hallucinogens, but I am on an anti-psychotic but that's it. Of course I don't really think I'm crazy. I think that stuff is real and even though I know it sounds ridiculous I'm just telling you from my own observations what I think will happen. Yeah obviously some of that stuff sounds like I've completely lost my marbles but I don't think I have.


You may well not be "crazy", but your fanciful ideas are totally nonsensical—it's all science fiction.  Your propositions sound ridiculous to the average person simply because they are.  You're simply making all this stuff up, obviously fuelled by an overactive imagination.  You haven't—cannot have—made any "observations" as you claim, in support of what you think will happen in the future.

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2014, 03:48:12 PM »

Possibly, movement is definitely only shown on the X axis in my charts. Z axis is even more complicated. I think about redoing my diagrams with Z and Y axis of movement shown clearly but showing both greatly complicate the concept which is why I was trying to simplify it.
It should be the exact same unless you aren't using a circle for your calculation. But then again you never did any.

Quote
Of course, the Sun would always move East to West but it would just take +-8 minutes per day to do so so it would take 182.625 days to go from day to night and the same from night to day but the shift I think should still take place as it's literally impossible for you not to switch directions on the X axis.
We were talking about a planet not spinning here so there is no added time. If you use a non rotating earth and go off of a unit circle with north facing away from you, there would be night from 0 degrees to 180 degrees and then daylight from 180 degrees to 360 degrees. 


Quote
Indeed my wording was a little confusing, what I meant was getting closer to the turning point of the X axis which you have to have a point where you gaining and a point where you are losing in an orbit, it simply cannot be one linear movement the whole year is pretty much the whole point of this thread topic.

And it is not like we established, it's just not 8 minutes off and it changes from being off plus time to negative time twice as many times as you claim.

Quote
Fair enough, I'm just not really sure why if the Z and Y axis are both basically fixed to zero the entire year then why should either matter? That's the reason Y and Z aren't represented because only the X axis would cause any apparent motion shift of the Sun. Y axis should only matter if the Earth was rotating North or South. Z only would matter if I was speaking of specific places on Earth but even on opposite places of Earth the same should still apply only at opposite times of year.
They are not fixed to zero. Only the y axis would be. A circle changes on two axes. Plus just using a circle for the orbit, you can define the x and z axis anywhere you want and set that to your zero degree point. This is why the x and z axis movement matters. But going back to my chart for the time changes in 1998, you can see the maximum change in time don't exactly line up with the equinoxes and solstices but it is close.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2014, 06:44:11 PM »
I've been traveling and would stop in occasionally to see what was happening, but didn't want to take the time to compose a reply, so I'm late to the party.

This is an interesting thread, and a couple of the posts brought up a very interesting point about the number of sidereal days and solar days in a year.   

Think of an Earth which does exactly one rotation a year, in the direction that the Sun is always in the same position in the sky. Like it always is directly above the 0N 0E point on the map. At some place on the globe it is always noon, at some other it is always 11am, and it doesn't ever change. It is possible. In fact, this seems to happen over time to all the bodies in the solar system(most of the moons are always facing their planets with the same side, like our Moon). Now, is the sidereal time locked in place the same way? No! Through the course of the year, the shadow, night part, faces different stars as we circle around the Sun. This would give exactly zero rotation relative to the Sun, and exactly one rotation relative to the stars, each year. So, no, the sidereal time and mean solar time do not really have to be some "reflection" of each other. They exist as two different beings, both useful in different cases.
Followed immediately by...

Macpie Lets say for the sake of argument that Earth wasn't spinning at all okay but it still orbits in a fixed position. This would mean that there would still be one solar day and one solar night just because at different points you would have the Sun in different positions but solar day and solar night would take one full year to complete the cycle. The stars in question would never seem to change position at all in the above scenario it would be the same stars all the time every night unless your physical location changed.

So the real question then becomes why is there one more rotational (star) day per year then there is solar day? According to the above statement there should be one more solar day then there is side-real day because throughout the course of one year you should have added one artificial day. Rotation direction doesn't matter as changing it from clockwise to counterclockwise wouldn't change anything at all as you would still have an extra apparent day being added no matter what.
Now, in Macpie's case, where there's exactly one rotation (with respect to - "wrt" - the stars) in a year, as stated, we'd have one sidereal day but zero solar days. That is, the Sun would be over the same longitude all the time (approximately - actually, it would still trace out the Analemma in the sky if the only thing we changed was the rotation rate, but the elliptical orbit and axial tilt remained the same), but the stars visible on the dark side would slowly move from east to west during the year.

In Sculelos' case, where the earth wasn't rotating at all wrt the stars, we'd indeed have one solar day and zero sidereal days. The stars would be fixed above each point on earth, and the sun would make its way slowly across the sky as the year progressed - but - the Sun would be moving across the sky from west to east! That is, the sun would be showing the opposite motion compared to our "normal" conditions; this is called retrograde motion. So instead of one solar day per year, it makes sense to call it negative one solar day per year. In the sense that "less" or "fewer" means "closer to minus infinity" (3 is less than 2, 0 is less than 1, -11 is less than -10, etc.), we still have one less solar day (-1) than sidereal days (0).

This brings up the interesting situation that, if the rotation rate were exactly one-half rotation per orbit, we'd have 1/2 sidereal days per year and -1/2 solar days per year. The stars would creep slowly from east to west, but the sun would creep at the same rate from west to east. They still differ by exactly one, with the number of solar days (-1/2) less than the number of sidereal days (1/2).

If the earth were spinning at exactly the same rate as now but in the opposite direction (-366.25 rotations per year wrt stars), we'd have -367.25 solar days in a year (one less since it's more negative). The statement "Rotation direction doesn't matter as changing it from clockwise to counterclockwise wouldn't change anything at all as you would still have an extra apparent day being added no matter what." This is technically true since the number of solar days is more negative than the number of sidereal days, but if the earth were spinning in the opposite direction, but still orbiting in the same direction, you'd count one more sunrise or sunset in a year than rise or set of a given star (you'd use the absolute value of the number of solar and sidereal days, which makes the number of solar days greater than sidereal days). This is because celestial objects would rise in the west and set in the east (the rotation is reversed, remember), but the Sun would move about one degree eastward each day as it does now because the direction the Earth moves in its orbit remains the same, making the sidereal day longer than the solar day.

The upshot is: the orbit of the Earth about the sun causes the Sun to appear to move from west to east wrt the stars along the ecliptic, completing exactly one circuit in exactly one year - that's what defines a year. This also requires that the number of sidereal and solar days differ by exactly one per year. If the Earth spins on its axis in the same direction it orbits the Sun (it does), we'll count one fewer solar day than sidereal day per year. If the Earth were spinning in the opposite direction as it orbits, we'd count one more solar day than sidereal day. By ignoring the sign of the number of days (negative if the object moves west to east), we confuse ourselves.

Thanks again for the interesting topic, fellas!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2014, 10:19:13 PM »
Thanks again for the interesting topic, fellas!

Interesting yes, but I still see a flaw. If we see that the Sun takes slightly longer to make a day half the year in orbit because the Sun is fixed then the other half should be short to make a day the other half in orbit. Reason why this would be so is for East and West to work East and West must happen at opposite points of the day at opposite points in orbit.

So Sun would appear to go East to West half of the year then West to East the other half but when sun was going East to West it should make the day +4 minutes longer (average) and when going from West to East it should make the day -4 minutes longer (average) but then again if this happened then what would happen at equinox when the Earth shifted apparent East and West? This in theory should equalize out the days so your side-real days over the course of a year should be the same as your solar days so they should be one in the same if the Earth orbited the Sun. This is why I drew this diagram: However I'm still not quite sure Earth was said to have 364 celestial sphere rotations, I'm not sure how you would map that unless the sun is lagging behind about 1 day per year and the stars 2 days. Why I still don't know for sure.


Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2014, 09:23:09 AM »
And of course in the above statement there is also Planet X which is actually not a planet at all but it's name thereoff is a representation of outer-Earth which is about 6 times larger then this Earth so outer Earth actually has about 1/6th gravity of this Earth because it has a much greater pressurization value so the coil pressure is not wound as tight so to speak but when the Earth cracks outer Earth's pressurization will bleed into inner Earth and they will merge as one with inner Earth taking the pressurization of outer Earth which is 1/6th gravity which then will cause the dinosaurs from the other side to return to this Earth starting in the year 2045, I have seen the Dinosaur called T-Rex and it has fins and swam in the ocean and ate fish primarily, it jumped out of the water and used it claws to catch the fish and then bite them with it's mouth and swallow the fish after chewing it a few times.
From size and properties of gravity of 'planet X' to how many times a T-rex chews a fish, all in one sentence.  Who else but a genius could pull off such a feat?  :o


Re: Ultimate Proof against flat earth, geocentrism and heliocentrism combined.
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2014, 10:20:39 AM »
Interesting yes, but I still see a flaw. If we see that the Sun takes slightly longer to make a day half the year in orbit because the Sun is fixed then the other half should be short to make a day the other half in orbit.
The length of the Solar Day does vary slightly over the year - by a few seconds per day - for two reasons.
1) The orbit isn't a perfect circle, so the angle subtended by the Earth as it moves around the sun in the time it takes for one revolution varies slightly on an annual cycle.
2) The Obliquity of the Ecliptic (tilt of the Equator relative to the orbital plane) causes a two cycle per year variation.

Adding these two effects results in the Equation of Time. Note that the apparent solar day is up to a few seconds longer than 24 hours twice during the year (near the Solstices), and shorter by similar amounts twice during the year (near the Equinoxes). All this is well established by observations (you can do it yourself if you cared) and well understood. I linked this article before. Have you looked at it?

Quote
Reason why this would be so is for East and West to work East and West must happen at opposite points of the day at opposite points in orbit.
East and west work just fine throughout the orbit.

Quote
So Sun would appear to go East to West half of the year then West to East the other half
Why do you think it would do that?

Quote
but when sun was going East to West it should make the day +4 minutes longer (average) and when going from West to East it should make the day -4 minutes longer (average)
But it doesn't change directions, so the apparent solar day remains about 4 minutes longer than the sidereal day all year, resulting in exactly one less solar day in a year than sidereal days. This is exactly what is expected from a spinning planet orbiting the sun; it's well established by observations and well understood.

Quote
but then again if this happened then what would happen at equinox when the Earth shifted apparent East and West?
What happens at the equinoxes is that the Obliquity component of the Equation of Time is zero, and the length of the solar day due to this component is minimum. East and west don't shift at the equinoxes - why would they? In most ways the equinoxes are days just like any other.

Quote
This in theory should equalize out the days so your side-real days over the course of a year should be the same as your solar days so they should be one in the same if the Earth orbited the Sun.
No, as discussed in detail earlier, they should not be the same. They should (and do) differ by exactly one day per year.

Quote
This is why I drew this diagram: However I'm still not quite sure Earth was said to have 364 celestial sphere rotations, I'm not sure how you would map that unless the sun is lagging behind about 1 day per year and the stars 2 days. Why I still don't know for sure.
Who said the earth rotates 364 times in a year? Actually it's 366 and some change, making 365 and the same fraction solar days in a year. The complete circuit of the orbit is where that other solar day "went".

I have no idea what that diagram is supposed to indicate. If the arrows represent the motion of the Earth in the various quarters of its orbit, the upper right one should point up and to the left instead of left, the one in the upper left should point down and left, below that one, the arrow should point down and right, and the last should point up and right. This is more representative of the continually changing velocity vector and doesn't suggest the abrupt left-right reversal you show and seems to be confusing you. There are no abrupt changes as the Earth orbits the sun. None, zero, nada, nil, {}.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

364 celestial sphere revolutions refers to a celestial sphere spinning inside a concave Earth, and you really can't map it to any other model besides the concave earth theory. Reason I think this would be is inside a circle you have 4 90 degree revolutions thus each revolution would add up to 2 total days and nights which one day/night would be 180 degrees but the Sun returns half of the year so you subtract one, thus you get 364 celestial sphere rotations with 365 solar days and 366 star days. Moon would make 12 revolutions per year but you add 1 apparent one for the celestial sphere rotation so it looks like it's making 13. I also never see the Moon rotate around like it would appear to do so if Earth were rotating but the face of the moon appears to be fixed throughout the night no matter if it's +-10 hours.

Orbit would always be considered 1 revolution no matter how you think about it though as If I spin once in a spinning room that also spun once I would have spun twice but it would have only looked like I spun once. Direction doesn't really seem to actually matter in the spin scenario but if you could see past the house it would appear like +2 revolution but inside the house would look like +1 revolution and if you spun at the same time as the house in comparison to the house it would be +0.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
364 celestial sphere revolutions refers to a celestial sphere spinning inside a concave Earth, and you really can't map it to any other model besides the concave earth theory. Reason I think this would be is inside a circle you have 4 90 degree revolutions thus each revolution would add up to 2 total days and nights which one day/night would be 180 degrees but the Sun returns half of the year so you subtract one, thus you get 364 celestial sphere rotations with 365 solar days and 366 star days. Moon would make 12 revolutions per year but you add 1 apparent one for the celestial sphere rotation so it looks like it's making 13. I also never see the Moon rotate around like it would appear to do so if Earth were rotating but the face of the moon appears to be fixed throughout the night no matter if it's +-10 hours.

Orbit would always be considered 1 revolution no matter how you think about it though as If I spin once in a spinning room that also spun once I would have spun twice but it would have only looked like I spun once. Direction doesn't really seem to actually matter in the spin scenario but if you could see past the house it would appear like +2 revolution but inside the house would look like +1 revolution and if you spun at the same time as the house in comparison to the house it would be +0.

I'm sorry, and I don't want to insult you personally as I've never met you, but all of this sounds like an imaginative fantasy made up on an ad hoc basis by somebody who's totally out of touch with the real world—or a science-fiction author such as Terry Pratchett and his "Discworld".







Unfortunately, Pratchett's vision makes more sense than yours Sculelos.    :)

364 celestial sphere revolutions refers to a celestial sphere spinning inside a concave Earth, and you really can't map it to any other model besides the concave earth theory. Reason I think this would be is inside a circle you have 4 90 degree revolutions thus each revolution would add up to 2 total days and nights which one day/night would be 180 degrees but the Sun returns half of the year so you subtract one, thus you get 364 celestial sphere rotations with 365 solar days and 366 star days. Moon would make 12 revolutions per year but you add 1 apparent one for the celestial sphere rotation so it looks like it's making 13. I also never see the Moon rotate around like it would appear to do so if Earth were rotating but the face of the moon appears to be fixed throughout the night no matter if it's +-10 hours.

Orbit would always be considered 1 revolution no matter how you think about it though as If I spin once in a spinning room that also spun once I would have spun twice but it would have only looked like I spun once. Direction doesn't really seem to actually matter in the spin scenario but if you could see past the house it would appear like +2 revolution but inside the house would look like +1 revolution and if you spun at the same time as the house in comparison to the house it would be +0.

Imagine that. It seems like every time you misinterpret or miscalculate something, the only possible explanation for the result you see is "we're living inside a concave earth!"

And that makes BINGO! I win!!

Seriously, though, why do you feel it's necessary to invent this cuckoo inside-out cosmology when we have a perfectly good one that explains and predicts both everyday and uncommon phenomena to a very high degree of precision? Yours would result in no horizon at all (instead of the well-defined one we can see for ourselves) without exceedingly bizarre behavior of light, can't explain why the sun appears to drop behind objects at the surface near the horizon without a different bizarre behavior of light, can't explain why the sun appears the same size through the day, has no sensible (if any) answer for the apparent retrograde motion of planets against the background stars, the apparent motion of the stars, and on, and on. In short, it isn't coherent at all even without being anywhere near complete.

I still don't see why you think the horizon would be 30 degrees (or was it 60 degrees?) below level for a person standing on the outside of a spherical earth. This is simply incorrect. Even if you believe that, why would a concave world produce a horizon level with our eyes? Geometrically, we in North America would see the Atlantic Ocean, Europe and Africa looming up in the east above us (save for, of course, the aforementioned unexplained behavior of light, which fails to explain other observations).

You also still seem to have no grasp of simple two-body orbital motion, and for whatever reason, think that there must be abrupt "flips" in east and west (whatever that means) at certain points in the orbit. This is simply - and completely - wrong.

An inside-earth cosmology might be fun to daydream about but it doesn't fix anything - it makes it worse.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Why inside out cosmology? Well first and more important reason is that my other beliefs not only hinge on that fact being true, they actually depend on that fact being true. Quite simply the electric universe theory and the concave Earth theory actually depend on each other being true and neither can exist outside of the other. With an electric universe you have to have well defined borders. An expanding universe simply does not and can not fit within the framework for an electric universe unless you turn the World inside out, but then of course that changes the whole scale of the frame-work of how the universe actually works. If the Heavens are inside the Earth and actually an extension or expansion of the Earth then it changes things considerably.

Also flat out from a biblical point of view the world is concave. People think the bible says it's flat or a globe in shape but both points are wrong: "Job 38:33Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven?
canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?"

This verse was from the majority text which clearly used the meaning that the Heavens are inside the Earth. Which could be also said, "Do you know the way's of heaven, can you set the boundaries of heaven inside the Earth?"

This is using this definition of dominion of course: 2. A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.

So boundaries inside the Earth could be also said, "Know the orders of heavens? Can you set the borders of the celestial sphere of heaven inside the Earth?"

I know other translations try to change this verse to fit within their world view but even though you can try to change words you cannot really change their meanings of the ancients.

Enoch 18 is very clear on this fact (Ignore Enoch 2 and 3 which are called the Book of Secrets and the Hebrew book of Enoch, both of them are fakes and only Enoch 1 which is the full testimony of Enoch is genuine, Enoch 2 and 3 both are deeply contradictory to scripture as well as they contradict the first book itself where as the first book actually tells you what would be in scripture before scripture was as the first book was originally translated from Sumerian manuscripts by Daniel around 550 b.c.)

CHAP.  18.—And I saw  the repositories of all the    winds, and I saw how he had
ornamented all the creation and the foundations of the earth with them. 2. And I saw the
corner-stone of the earth, and I saw the four winds which support the earth and the
firmament of the heavens. 3. And I saw how the winds expand the heights of the heavens;
and they remained between heaven and earth, and they are pillars of heaven.   4. And I saw
the winds which turn the heavens, which lead down the course of the sun and all the stars.
5. And I saw the winds upon the earth which carry the clouds, and I saw the paths of the
angels; I saw at the end of the earth the firmament of the heavens above.  6. And I proceeded
towards the south; and it burns day and night there where seven hills of precious stones are,
three towards the east, three towards the south. 7. But of those towards the east, one of
colored stone, one of pearls, and one of antimony; and those towards the south of red stone.
8. But the middle one reached up to heaven, like the throne of God, of alabaster, and the
summit of the throne of sapphire.   9. And I saw a burning fire which was in all the hills.   10.
And there I saw a place, beyond the great earth; there the waters collected.   11. And I saw
a great abyss in the earth, with columns of heavenly fire; and I saw among them columns of
heavenly fire, which fall. and are without number, either towards the height or towards the
depth. 12. And over that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of heaven above it,
and no foundation of earth beneath it, and no water above it, and no birds upon it; it was a
void place.  13. And there I saw a terrible thing: seven stars, like great burning mountains and
like spirits, that petitioned me. 14. The angel said: “This is the place of the consummation
of heaven and earth; it is a prison for the stars of heaven, and for the host of heaven.  15. And
the stars that roll over the fire are they who have transgressed the command of God before
their rising, because they did not come forth in their time.   16. And he was enraged at them,
and bound them till the time of the consummation of their sins in the year of the mystery.”

So if you look at this passage carefully you can see that Enoch seen the pillars of heaven but they were pillars of wind, not literal pillars like ignorant ancients tried to display or more modern ignorant scholars tried to argue and again, if you believe this verse it clearly shows a concave world model, not a flat one as the heavens are inside the Earth again:

11. And I saw
a great abyss in the earth, with columns of heavenly fire; and I saw among them columns of
heavenly fire, which fall. and are without number, either towards the height or towards the
depth. 12. And over that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of heaven above it,
and no foundation of earth beneath it, and no water above it, and no birds upon it; it was a
void place.

It was a void place clearly refers to what we call outer space but the abyss or expanding hole is clearly inside the Earth which you have to remember height is clearly referencing to height means above and depth means below. Over the abyss means over the empty place. So clearly you can see that the Earth is resting upon nothing at all in this terminology but it's also concave. However in this verse I think it's referring to the Earth start to bend. So curving in this verse I think means bending (like the new Iphone lol) 

CHAP.  65.—And in those days Noah saw the earth that it was curved, and that its
destruction was near. 2. And he lifted up his feet from there, and went to the ends of the
earth, and called to his grandfather Enoch; and Noah said with a bitter voice: “Hear me! hear
me! hear me!” three times.

Of course I think the most important point I'm trying to get across is my belief in a concave Earth is most definitly religious for sure but I think it also can be determined to be true from a scientific standpoint. I mean look out your window and the Earth is always at eye level but if it were a very big globe or flat it would certainly be -45 degrees to the horizon all the way around you and because this would be a ratio size wouldn't actually matter that much. I mean even if you look at distant buildings in your line of sight you can clearly see the back of the building is taller then the front.

Ezekiel's vision of wheels within wheels is interesting because it also alludes to the fact that this vision is of the Earth and the four creatures that turn the Earth are these four creatures so they are like wheels within wheels or heaven inside the Earth:


Why inside out cosmology? Well first and more important reason is that my other beliefs not only hinge on that fact being true, they actually depend on that fact being true. Quite simply the electric universe theory and the concave Earth theory actually depend on each other being true and neither can exist outside of the other. With an electric universe you have to have well defined borders. An expanding universe simply does not and can not fit within the framework for an electric universe unless you turn the World inside out, but then of course that changes the whole scale of the frame-work of how the universe actually works. If the Heavens are inside the Earth and actually an extension or expansion of the Earth then it changes things considerably.

Also flat out from a biblical point of view the world is concave. People think the bible says it's flat or a globe in shape but both points are wrong: "Job 38:33Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

<snip>

Of course I think the most important point I'm trying to get across is my belief in a concave Earth is most definitly religious for sure but I think it also can be determined to be true from a scientific standpoint. I mean look out your window and the Earth is always at eye level but if it were a very big globe or flat it would certainly be -45 degrees to the horizon all the way around you and because this would be a ratio size wouldn't actually matter that much. I mean even if you look at distant buildings in your line of sight you can clearly see the back of the building is taller then the front.

Ezekiel's vision of wheels within wheels is interesting because it also alludes to the fact that this vision is of the Earth and the four creatures that turn the Earth are these four creatures so they are like wheels within wheels or heaven inside the Earth:

<snip>

EU and the Bible. Oh, dear...

"from a biblical point of view the world is concave. People think the bible says it's flat or a globe in shape but both points are wrong" This pretty much sums that part of it up. You can interpret the Bible as supporting whatever shape you want. Next!

Electric Universe requires a hollow earth? I'm hardly an expert on it, but this is the first time I've heard that.

"I mean look out your window and the Earth is always at eye level but if it were a very big globe or flat it would certainly be -45 degrees to the horizon all the way around you and because this would be a ratio size wouldn't actually matter that much." No, no, a thousand times, no! Why do you think this?

[Edit] Replaced omitted part of quote. Change "read" to "interpret"
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 12:54:48 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
364 celestial sphere revolutions refers to a celestial sphere spinning inside a concave Earth, and you really can't map it to any other model besides the concave earth theory. Reason I think this would be is inside a circle you have 4 90 degree revolutions thus each revolution would add up to 2 total days and nights which one day/night would be 180 degrees but the Sun returns half of the year so you subtract one, thus you get 364 celestial sphere rotations with 365 solar days and 366 star days. Moon would make 12 revolutions per year but you add 1 apparent one for the celestial sphere rotation so it looks like it's making 13. I also never see the Moon rotate around like it would appear to do so if Earth were rotating but the face of the moon appears to be fixed throughout the night no matter if it's +-10 hours.

Orbit would always be considered 1 revolution no matter how you think about it though as If I spin once in a spinning room that also spun once I would have spun twice but it would have only looked like I spun once. Direction doesn't really seem to actually matter in the spin scenario but if you could see past the house it would appear like +2 revolution but inside the house would look like +1 revolution and if you spun at the same time as the house in comparison to the house it would be +0.

I'm sorry, and I don't want to insult you personally as I've never met you, but all of this sounds like an imaginative fantasy made up on an ad hoc basis by somebody who's totally out of touch with the real world—or a science-fiction author such as Terry Pratchett and his "Discworld".







Unfortunately, Pratchett's vision makes more sense than yours Sculelos.    :)


Discworld FTW!
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

This isn't that hard to understand is it?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
When people bring the Christian bible to a scientific debate, it's the same as someone bringing a knife to a gunfight LOL.

Biblical scripture has NO place in any scientific debate.  It's nothing more than a fairy story cobbled together over hundreds of years by a group of disparate, ill-educated desert nomads whose knowledge of the earth sciences could be written on the back of a postage stamp—with room to spare.

Sorry Sculelos.  You lose.

When people bring the Christian bible to a scientific debate, it's the same as someone bringing a knife to a gunfight LOL.

Biblical scripture has NO place in any scientific debate.  It's nothing more than a fairy story cobbled together over hundreds of years by a group of disparate, ill-educated desert nomads whose knowledge of the earth sciences could be written on the back of a postage stamp—with room to spare.

Sorry Sculelos.  You lose.

Not so fast this actually proves that heliocentrism is wrong but you won't believe it.

If Rotation W-E and If Orbit is W-E then apparent Sun motion is E-W.
If Rotation is W-E and orbit is W-E then you are running parallel.
If objects move apart slower if traveling together then traveling apart then
objects also take more time to move apart then if traveling together.

If rotation = W-E and orbit is W-E then apparent Sun moves E-W. E-W =/ W-E so it is a contradiction.
If moving in opposition then your times will be shorter so Sun times should be 4 minutes shorter then
star-times which should be: 24H Sidereal, 23H 56M Solar.

Thus it should be that you have one MORE solar day per year then side-real.
Because that is not the case because we have 365 solar days and 366 side-real days
then this actually proved sidereal is sidefake because Earth cannot be turning.

Thus you have 364 real days with 1 solar day being added because E-W =/ W-E so you have contradiction and contradictions moves faster so you will overlap once so 364 real days becomes 365 solar days. Because stars move in the same direction all year long you have them moving 360 degrees. Because one day is 180 degrees from any earth perspective you get +2 star days or 366 star days.

So basically what I'm saying in simple terms of days per year:
364 Real
365 Solar
366 Star

Real is celestial sphere rotations
Sun appears to travel one more then this due to it's orbit which adds 1
Stars add two because they always travel in the same direction which adds 2.





 


Not so fast this actually proves that heliocentrism is wrong but you won't believe it.

If Rotation W-E and If Orbit is W-E then apparent Sun motion is E-W.
"Orbit is W-E" doesn't really make sense, but I think I know what you mean: a point on the Equator is moving CCW wrt the center of the Earth and the Earth itself is moving CCW wrt the Sun when viewed from north of the plane of the orbit. Is that right?   "Apparent Sun motion is E-W" is true if the rotation period is less than the orbit period. We discussed this earlier here. Admittedly, there's a lot of text in that post. Did you read it?

Quote
If Rotation is W-E and orbit is W-E then you are running parallel.
What is parallel to what? There are no straight lines here and the (approximate) circles aren't concentric.

Quote
If objects move apart slower if traveling together then traveling apart then
objects also take more time to move apart then if traveling together.
What?

Quote
If rotation = W-E and orbit is W-E then apparent Sun moves E-W. E-W =/ W-E so it is a contradiction.
What's a contradiction of what? The apparent motion of the Sun and stars should be opposite the direction of rotation. This should be obvious.

Quote
If moving in opposition then your times will be shorter so Sun times should be 4 minutes shorter then
star-times which should be: 24H Sidereal, 23H 56M Solar.
If, by "moving in opposition" you mean retrograde rotation, then this is exactly what we would see. Except we'd probably still call the Solar Day 24h, making the Sidereal Day 24h 04m; the second would be slightly shorter than our current definition.

Quote
Thus it should be that you have one MORE solar day per year then side-real.
Because that is not the case because we have 365 solar days and 366 side-real days
then this actually proved sidereal is sidefake because Earth cannot be turning.
You'd have one more solar day than sidereal days if the Earth were spinning in the opposite direction, but it's not so we don't.

"Sidefake" cute. Saw that one coming when you started using the gratuitous hyphen in "sidereal".

Quote
Thus you have 364 real days with 1 solar day being added because E-W =/ W-E so you have contradiction and contradictions moves faster
What?

Quote
so you will overlap once so 364 real days becomes 365 solar days. Because stars move in the same direction all year long you have them moving 360 degrees. Because one day is 180 degrees from any earth perspective you get +2 star days or 366 star days.

So basically what I'm saying in simple terms of days per year:
364 Real
365 Solar
366 Star

Real is celestial sphere rotations
Sun appears to travel one more then this due to it's orbit which adds 1
Stars add two because they always travel in the same direction which adds 2.
You're still very confused. It's much simpler than you're making it out to be.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I find it just rather hard to explain myself in a coherent way but yes I read your entire post.

But yeah say Earth is orbiting counter-clockwise and also rotating the same way. This means it's motion is a West to East orbit and it's rotation is also west to east ok. So if we have both matching each other it means they are running the same direction so on virtue alone 1 orbit will count as 1 rotation so if you have 364 Earth turns you would actually see 365 turns throughout the year. This is because if you turn once on a merry go round that has also turned once you have actually turned twice if you are of course going the same direction as the merry go round. If you go counter to the merry go round you will only turn once when the merry go round turns once but it will look like you haven't turned at all. If you do half a turn and then reverse direction you still have turned around once total even though it was two half turns if that makes sense.

Basically what I am saying is that if you add a day, you cannot subtract the day from a future reference frame as any attempts to do so will essentially add another day to the total.

Basically I'm saying because you have your orbit the same as your rotation you would be forced to have the apparent sun going East to West which is opposite of orbit which would be West to East. Because each day closes a loop this would result in solar days always being shorter then stellar days in Earth's case by 4 minutes.

As for the above I'm saying because in reality the Earth is not spinning or moving at all but there is a celestial sphere inside the Earth that is rotating that means the motion of the Sun and Stars are real and thus you have both of them going parallel to each other but the Sun makes a lap slower then the stars do. This would mean you have 24 H for the Sun and 23H 56M for the stars.

This in my opinion (ding, ding ;)) proves the Earth's concavity.   




 

I find it just rather hard to explain myself in a coherent way but yes I read your entire post.
Thanks. When I linked back to it, I realized what a wall of text it looked like.

Quote
But yeah say Earth is orbiting counter-clockwise and also rotating the same way. This means it's motion is a West to East orbit and it's rotation is also west to east ok. So if we have both matching each other it means they are running the same direction so on virtue alone 1 orbit will count as 1 rotation so if you have 364 Earth turns you would actually see 365 turns throughout the year. This is because if you turn once on a merry go round that has also turned once you have actually turned twice if you are of course going the same direction as the merry go round. If you go counter to the merry go round you will only turn once when the merry go round turns once but it will look like you haven't turned at all. If you do half a turn and then reverse direction you still have turned around once total even though it was two half turns if that makes sense.
The merry-go-round analogy is a good one and what you describe is mostly correct.

You do need to be careful to keep the frames of reference (FOR) straight. [The shorthand 'FOR' is capitalized to be distinct from the preposition 'for'.] If your FOR is the merry-go-round and you turned 364 times with respect to (wrt) it (the merry-go-round) during one revolution, and in the same direction, you would indeed have turned 365 times wrt the outside world. If you look at the exact same situation from the FOR of the outside world, you've turned 365 times wrt the outside world as you went around the merry-go-round once, but one of those turns was "used up" by the complete revolution when viewed from the FOR of the turning merry-go-round.

The half-turns in opposite directions produces zero net turns wrt the merry-go-round and one wrt the outside world, as stated, which is the same net result as not turning at all (wrt the merry-go-round). No surprise there.

Quote
Basically what I am saying is that if you add a day, you cannot subtract the day from a future reference frame as any attempts to do so will essentially add another day to the total.
But there's no need to add a day here and subtract one later. Each year has exactly one more sidereal day than solar day. Period.

Quote
Basically I'm saying because you have your orbit the same as your rotation you would be forced to have the apparent sun going East to West which is opposite of orbit which would be West to East. Because each day closes a loop this would result in solar days always being shorter then stellar days in Earth's case by 4 minutes.
You're almost there, but your conclusion is wrong. The apparent motion of the Sun across the sky is E-W due to the W-E rotation of the Earth.  The apparent motion of the Sun against the background stars is W-E, making the Solar Day longer than the Sidereal Day. The diagram in this post very clearly shows why the Solar Day is longer, not shorter.

Quote
As for the above I'm saying because in reality the Earth is not spinning or moving at all but there is a celestial sphere inside the Earth that is rotating that means the motion of the Sun and Stars are real and thus you have both of them going parallel to each other but the Sun makes a lap slower then the stars do. This would mean you have 24 H for the Sun and 23H 56M for the stars.
Indeed, you can design a model that shows exactly that 4 minute-per-day difference between the Sun and stars. Unfortunately, that model suffers numerous flaws that make it difficult or impossible to explain other phenomena like the horizon, sunsets (or, more generally, all apparent  motion of celestial bodies), acceleration of gravity weakening toward the equator as a function of latitude, etc. At least it doesn't suffer those shortcomings in addition to all the others, like travel distances, that the flat earth models have.
Quote
This in my opinion (ding, ding ;)) proves the Earth's concavity.
And, for the final time...
Imagine that. It seems like every time you misinterpret or miscalculate something, the only possible explanation for the result you see is "we're living inside a concave earth!"
...the point's been made, and I'm sure this is getting stale.  :D
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
This in my opinion (ding, ding) proves the Earth's concavity.


And your "proof" is easily invalidated.  People living in London should be able to see the Eiffel Tower.  But they can't.  End of story.


This in my opinion (ding, ding) proves the Earth's concavity.


And your "proof" is easily invalidated.  People living in London should be able to see the Eiffel Tower.  But they can't.  End of story.

London is 465 ft elevation where Paris is 400 ft about 213 miles across this should put you about 65 ft above horizon level, Eiffel tower is 986 ft tall so you have about 1051ft total before the Eiffel tower fades completely. This puts your viewing distance at 39.7 miles until the Eiffel tower fades into the horizon with plain eyesight. This is because if an object is higher then you the light reflected from it will be above your head so you won't be able to see it. If you were in an aircraft about 5.5 miles above London you might be able to see the Eiffel tower but your viewing range would still be 416 miles and because the Eiffel tower is only 986 ft tall you would only see about less then 1/6th of 1 degree which would still make it impossible to see good without at least a 32 power zoom device and even then it would still appear pretty small like the Moon with naked eyes. 

As for Alpha20mega this diagram explains why Heliocentrism is clearly wrong:

Why does the distance change from 213 to 416?

Why does the distance change from 213 to 416?

Because you can see twice as wide as you can see far and I was calculating viewing angle. (think of seeing far like radius in a circle where wide is like diameter)

Why does the distance change from 213 to 416?

Because you can see twice as wide as you can see far and I was calculating viewing angle. (think of seeing far like radius in a circle where wide is like diameter)
Please explain in detail.

Why does the distance change from 213 to 416?

Because you can see twice as wide as you can see far and I was calculating viewing angle. (think of seeing far like radius in a circle where wide is like diameter)
Please explain in detail.

Distance remains 213 miles far. But viewing angle is double that or 416 miles. So if you measured far left from far right 90 degrees apart from each other you would see a distance of 416 miles wide.

As for Alpha20mega this diagram explains why Heliocentrism is clearly wrong:
Your additions to the diagram show how utterly confused you are.

BTW, if you modify someone's illustration, it's a courtesy to attribute the original but indicate it's been modified. It still says the source is CWU, but your additions aren't theirs, and I doubt they'd want to be blamed for your incoherent "explanation". Can you edit the linked image to indicate that it's been modified, please?

But why embellish it at all? The diagram as originally presented clearly shows why the Earth has to rotate a little farther to bring the Sun back to the same position in the sky than it does to bring a distant star back to the same point after a day.

Quote
London is 465 ft elevation where Paris is 400 ft about 213 miles across this should put you about 65 ft above horizon level, Eiffel tower is 986 ft tall so you have about 1051ft total before the Eiffel tower fades completely. This puts your viewing distance at 39.7 miles until the Eiffel tower fades into the horizon with plain eyesight.
I doubt any location in London is much above 100' ASL at ground level. Paris, maybe 300 ft. or so.

At any rate, an object 1000' above your local horizon will drop below your horizon at a distance of about 40 miles if you're viewing it from just above horizon level.
Quote
This is because if an object is higher then you the light reflected from it will be above your head so you won't be able to see it.
No. If that were true, you couldn't see the top of the Eiffel Tower (or any other structure taller than you) if you were standing near its base. This is clearly not the case. Light is scattered from diffuse objects in all directions, not just level and above.
Quote
If you were in an aircraft about 5.5 miles above London you might be able to see the Eiffel tower but your viewing range would still be 416 miles and because the Eiffel tower is only 986 ft tall you would only see about less then 1/6th of 1 degree which would still make it impossible to see good without at least a 32 power zoom device and even then it would still appear pretty small like the Moon with naked eyes. 
5.5 miles above London, you should be able to see most or all of the Eiffel Tower at a distance of 213 miles.  I calculated the horizon to be 209.8 miles from a height of 5.5 miles above a 4,000-mile radius sphere. The Earth's radius is slightly larger smaller, and but this neglects refraction, both of which which, if used, will extend the affect distance to the horizon a little further in opposite ways. I estimate that an object 1000' high at a distance of 213 miles will subtend about 1/20 of a degree. The Moon subtends about 1/2 degree, so a magnification of 10 should make it appear about the same size as the diameter of the Moon to the naked eye.

[Edit] Oops... earth's radius is about 40 miles less than 4,000 miles, not more.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2014, 01:58:50 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan