# GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

• 1592 Replies
• 257916 Views

#### 29silhouette

• 3302
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1020 on: February 15, 2015, 09:16:01 AM »
cikljamas, you got the part in black wrong.  Rotation is still from west to east all the way around.  Anyone with a desktop globe can use it to prove your zig-zag hypothesis wrong.

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1021 on: February 15, 2015, 09:21:13 AM »
So instead of listening and actually trying to offer proof, you call Alpha and me liars?  Explain what you mean by the sun will go across the sky then reverse its direction on a spinning Earth.  I know its getting hard to conceptualize for you since you refuse to listen to reason.

The sun does not zig zag back and forth across the sky.  It would not in any way do so on either a flat Earth or a spinning Earth (whether its shaped like a ball or not)

If you are on a very large sphere and there is a light source on one side of that sphere, your sunrise will happen in the same direction every day.  I am not even going to go into the tilt argument yet because you are completely lost on the spinning part right now.

ZIG ZAG is utterly STUPID and in no way represents reality of anyone who can think or reason for themselves.

Your arguments are redundant at best, you make a claim of fact, then use that claimed fact to "disprove" other facts.  Seriously?
What I said is if you want to think completely in 2 dimensions then the sun would go one direction behind you then the other in front of you, now look up and widen your viewing angle a bit to observe the same thing and the sun would appear to circle all the way around you.

Your posts are utterly STUPID, but since we came so far away (51th page), i will give a try once more:

If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:

1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM

What is it exactly that you don't understand here?

The animation that I made a few pages back disproved your zig zag argument, just face it, it's false.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3974
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1022 on: February 15, 2015, 10:06:59 AM »
Five orders of magnitude, wow, i am trembling...hahaha...

So, it is not 0,002, it's 0,010, ha?

I see in the earlier post you claimed 0.01°, not 0.001°, for the expected parallax... sorry about that. How did you get that number? I keep getting 0.002° of parallax over a day for an object 1 AU (93 million miles) away for an observer 1600 miles from the Earth's axis - close to the arctic circle. It would be just under 0.005° for an observer on the equator.

Quote
But, wait, the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is the result of the angular velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun, so we should neglect this 0,010 or we shouldn't neglect it?

Go back and read. Since 0.002° (the amount of parallax in 12 hours) is about 100,000 times less than 180° (diurnal motion in 12 hours), we can safely neglect the parallax. Five orders of magnitude means a difference in magnitude of 100 thousand, in case that was not clear.

Quote
Mixing two different criteria (applying "0,002" logic to "the parallax issue", and in the same time avoiding to apply "0,010" logic to "a huge apparent motion of the Sun across the sky issue", can confuse some readers, but it can not confuse me.

You apparently still seem confused. Where did that 0.010 come from? Are you suggesting that 0.01° of motion (presuming it even means something) is significant compared to 180° of motion? It isn't. We can ignore it.

Quote
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:

1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM

No, the Sun doesn't "go in the opposite direction". It continues on the same circular path.

If you're confused about the eastward or westward component of this motion, imagine driving around a roundabout (imagine riding a bicycle if you don't have a car). At some point you'll be traveling due west, then south, then east, then north, then west again (if you go counterclockwise like we do). You're traveling in a smooth circle, not "zigzagging".

What does this have to do with the tiny solar parallax we've already calculated? "Zigzag" would be a good description of the apparent retrograde motion of the planets against the stars due to parallax from earth's orbit. The baseline for this parallax is the diameter of earth's orbit, not the much, much smaller diameter of the planet.

Quote
And this effect would be FIVE orders of magnitude greater than the ZIGZAG phenomena observable from within the Arctic circle.

It would be five orders of magnitude greater than parallax at the Arctic Circle, yes. This is why we can safely ignore the tiny amount of parallax (in case that wasn't clear earlier).

Quote
I told you, people are not stupid:

I never said they were. Mikey, quoted below, seems to get it. Listen to him if you don't want to listen to me.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on February 14, 2015, 01:31:51 PM

You keep trying to say the sun goes East then West therefore it zigzags.  It circles all the way around you on a tilted sphere.  But if you want to think in 2 dimensional then yeah it travels from your right to your left behind you then it travels from your left to your right in front of you so long as you remain fixed facing one direction and don't look up.

You know, Alpha2Omega, one day you will stand in front of your Creator who created Heaven and Earth, and then you will have to explain some things....

It's one thing when someone don't understand something, but it is completely different when someone deliberately and persistently lie...

<yet another religious rant>

Since I don't happen to believe that particular superstition, it doesn't scare me. Believe what you want if it gives you comfort, but there's no point in repeating it here again and again.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1023 on: February 15, 2015, 11:15:13 AM »
Aha, sorry, now i know what you meant by "five orders of magnitude"...

180 degree of Sun's motion (as we know it from our reality) is possible (in this manner) only because the Sun is few hundreds or few thousands (maximally) km far away from the Earth.

If the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away from the Earth there would be my ass "five orders of magnitude"..., will you finally stop with your ridiculous and repugnant technique of spreading your disgusting lies (mixing different criteria)?

If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:

1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM

What is it exactly that you don't understand here?

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### Jet Fission

• 519
• NASA shill
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1024 on: February 15, 2015, 11:45:59 AM »
Cikljamas, let me know if this image visualizes what you're trying to convey-

I think visualizing the system from this perspective is much better than from any other. Now, tell us, why you think the sun would zig zag in the first place, using this type of visualization.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

#### Mainframes

• 2088
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1025 on: February 15, 2015, 11:52:53 AM »
The earth is always rotating west to east. So there is no change in rotation.....
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1026 on: February 15, 2015, 02:34:27 PM »
Cikljamas, let me know if this image visualizes what you're trying to convey-

I think visualizing the system from this perspective is much better than from any other. Now, tell us, why you think the sun would zig zag in the first place, using this type of visualization.

1.

Quote

Explanation No 1:

If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...

Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?

Explanation No 2:

If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.

This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".

On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.

What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?

You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!

Explanation No 3:

When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.

So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!

After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).

Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.

On top of that:

What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:

http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html

However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:

Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.

Now, we have to put this question:

If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)

You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :

This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:

@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???

This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.

They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.

Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???

The point is this:

If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.

If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.

Should i be more clear?

2.

Quote
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.

@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?

So, how come Tappet and Hoppy easily understand my ZIGZAG argument, and you still can't figure it out? Are you stupid, or what?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3974
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1027 on: February 15, 2015, 02:40:57 PM »
Aha, sorry, now i know what you meant by "five orders of magnitude"...

180 degree of Sun's motion (as we know it from our reality) is possible (in this manner) only because the Sun is few hundreds or few thousands (maximally) km far away from the Earth.

If the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away from the Earth there would be my ass "five orders of magnitude"..., will you finally stop with your ridiculous and repugnant technique of spreading your disgusting lies (mixing different criteria)?

I sure hope you're being intentionally obtuse here, or is this another gambit that's going to end in "I was just kidding... can't you take a joke?"

You were the one that suggested parallax was somehow significant, not me. I just showed that it's way too small to make the sun appear to reverse direction in its movement across the sky.

Those black arrows in your drawing are still west to east. And all meridians divide the Earth into halves; what's special about the one you marked?

Quote
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:

1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM

What is it exactly that you don't understand here?

I don't understand is what your point is with this sketch. The fuscia-colored arrows are right, so what's confusing you? Are you suggesting the far side of the Earth would have to rotate in a different direction than the side facing the Sun? Why?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#### Jet Fission

• 519
• NASA shill
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1028 on: February 15, 2015, 02:54:57 PM »
Just because I don't think your argument is valid does not mean that I don't understand it. You clearly don't understand our explanations for why you are wrong.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1029 on: February 15, 2015, 03:06:09 PM »
Alpha2Omega, you've changed your tactic, now you are playing the role of a complete idiot, ha?

Jet Fission, you are just awesome...
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 03:12:04 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1030 on: February 15, 2015, 08:15:02 PM »
Cikljamas, let me know if this image visualizes what you're trying to convey-

I think visualizing the system from this perspective is much better than from any other. Now, tell us, why you think the sun would zig zag in the first place, using this type of visualization.

1.

Quote

Explanation No 1:

If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...

Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

@ Hoppy, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?

Explanation No 2:

If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.

This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".

On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.

What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?

You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!

Explanation No 3:

When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.

So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!

After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).

Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.

On top of that:

What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:

http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html

However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:

Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.

Now, we have to put this question:

If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)

You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :

This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:

@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???

This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.

They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.

Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???

The point is this:

If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.

If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.

Should i be more clear?

2.

Quote
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?

After you correctly answer to this question, everything is going to be perfectly clear, even to you.

@ Hoppy, are you waiting for an explanation no. 4?

So, how come Tappet and Hoppy easily understand my ZIGZAG argument, and you still can't figure it out? Are you stupid, or what?

Clearly it's because they lack basic special reasoning skills, the aperent direction the Sun moves in terms of right and left depends on what hemisphere you are in and what direction you are facing, neither of which were specified.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

?

#### tappet

• 2162
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1031 on: February 16, 2015, 12:58:23 AM »

Clearly it's because they lack basic special reasoning skills, the aperent direction the Sun moves in terms of right and left depends on what hemisphere you are in and what direction you are facing, neither of which were specified.
That would be one of the most pathetic attempts at trolling I have seen on this forum.

#### kman

• 990
• Pastafarian
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1032 on: February 16, 2015, 08:20:27 PM »
The zigzag argument has already been completely debunked. There's even a simulation showing it.

Give it a rest.
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1033 on: February 18, 2015, 09:16:03 AM »
When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts 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. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruđer Bošković (1711 -1787).

The performance of Bošković's proposed decisive experiment was deemed superfluous and unnecessary. Two plus two equals four, and the earth races around the sun—those are truths beyond reasonable doubt. Not until one and a half centuries later did new theoretical developments make it advisable to affirm assurance doubly sure by buttressing the Copernican conviction with Bošković's verification of Bradley's exegesis. And thereby hangs a tale!

The point is this: Bradley's 20”.5 angle of aberration depends on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth. The latter, Boscović reasoned, we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one.

Enter Airy

In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!

If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)

If 1 & 2 then...guess what?

If 3 then 4!

How come?

This way:

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1034 on: February 18, 2015, 10:01:15 AM »
When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts 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. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruđer Bošković (1711 -1787).

The performance of Bošković's proposed decisive experiment was deemed superfluous and unnecessary. Two plus two equals four, and the earth races around the sun—those are truths beyond reasonable doubt. Not until one and a half centuries later did new theoretical developments make it advisable to affirm assurance doubly sure by buttressing the Copernican conviction with Bošković's verification of Bradley's exegesis. And thereby hangs a tale!

The point is this: Bradley's 20”.5 angle of aberration depends on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth. The latter, Boscović reasoned, we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one.

Enter Airy

In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!

If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)

If 1 & 2 then...guess what?

If 3 then 4!

How come?

This way:

Fun fact: the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum and that was not known at the time because it was Einstein who figured that out.  No matter how the stars were moving the result of the experiment would be the same and that means that the experiment in question proves nothing.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1035 on: February 18, 2015, 10:37:59 AM »
What would be the point if we were to discuss with a complete idiots?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6753
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1036 on: February 18, 2015, 04:09:34 PM »
Watch the personal attacks.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1037 on: February 18, 2015, 04:23:59 PM »
It was a rhetorical question! Nothing personal!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1038 on: February 18, 2015, 05:33:47 PM »
cikljamas, again, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west. To trace the arc of the sun when in the southern hemisphere you need to be facing north. To trace the arc of the sun in the northern hemisphere you need to be facing south. MILLIONS of people see this every day. I summer the sun will be as close to overhead as it is possible and in winter it will be closer to the horizon.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1039 on: February 22, 2015, 04:24:29 AM »
iWitness,

These trolls are epical!

Do we really need better FET argument than this  : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799

You have to see this video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I suggest you to watch this video, also : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Yeah, you really do.

You mean something like this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662598#msg1662598

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662743#msg1662743

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799

...or something like this :

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

And here is an explanation of one of Bill's modus operandi: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! Video not found

OBAMA THE ABORTION EXTREMIST : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html
Barack Obama brings pro-abortion history to white house  :  http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama.htm

Supports partial-birth abortion

Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling … I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

In the Illinois State Senate, Obama opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion.

(The partial-birth abortion procedure—used from the fifth month on—involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers.) There is a current federal law that bans partial-birth abortions.

Abortion absolutist

Throughout his U.S. Senate career, Obama compiled a 0% voting record on right-to-life issues scored by the National Right to Life Committee. By contrast, he has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. As president he has shared their views and enjoyed their ongoing support.

Writes investigative journalist Freddoso, "Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

As Peter Wehner observes, Obama "has embraced legislation that is extreme, inhumane and outright brutal. There is no indication that he has the slightest sympathy for unborn children or any interest in ending the ‘culture wars.’ His past policies would, in fact, deepen the divisions."[/i] His policies as president have upheld that prediction as current divisions continue to widen.

...or something like this :

Dr. Kent Hovind: Satanic, Illuminati - Doctrine That Damned America : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Kent Hovind Innocent. PEDOFILE Lawyer kills himself after trial. : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

KENT Hovind 8 minutes : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT!  : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

...or something like this :

J. F. Kennedy talks about secret devils,(Masons& Illuminati) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 05:23:23 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3974
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1040 on: February 22, 2015, 07:14:06 AM »
iWitness,

These trolls are epical!

Do we really need better FET argument than this  : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799

You have to see this video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I suggest you to watch this video, also : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Yeah, you really do.

You mean something like this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662598#msg1662598

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662743#msg1662743
Neither of those are very good either. Read the replies to see their weaknesses.

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62884.msg1662799#msg1662799
This is the same as the original link to a post with your bad argument. Was there a reason for including it again, or did you forget you'd already done that?

Quote
Yep... you really need better (and more relevant) arguments than those. What does any of that have to do with the shape of the Earth? Youtube videos about 9/11, vaccination, and Satanism? Seriously???
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1041 on: February 22, 2015, 08:08:03 AM »
1. These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.

2.

Every point on a UNTILTED globe that is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the observer - NOON time), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!

Since there is no motion of the Earth whatsoever, there is no TILT of the Earth, also!

Now, if there is no TILT of the Earth, and if you still want to stipulate RET, you have to take into consideration that on an UNTILTED globe EVERY point which is situated more than 9 time zones (9 meridians) Westward or Eastward from that particular point (where the Sun is directly above the NOON time meridian), is out of reach of the Sun's rays! PERIOD!

It doesn't matter if the Sun is above the tropic of capricorn, the sun's rays still can't reach Australia from that particular point (being directly above the meridian which goes thru Salt Lake City, Utah), because we are now on an UNTILTED globe for this particular purpose!

Did you forget this illustration:

3.

Here's a photo of my globe centered on those coordinates from a distance about 35 times its diameter (roughly the distance of the Moon at scale).

Yeah, i can see East Coast of Australia, but i can't see West Coast of Africa...

December 1th

Sydney - Sunrise 5.37

Dakar Senegal - Sunset 18.51

Time difference between Sydney and Dakar = 11 hours

So, in the first half of  December (at least) Sun is already above the horizon for the observer in Sydney and in the same time the Sun is still above the horizon for the observer in Dakar - Senegal.

You can't even explain this with the help of your heliocentric holly grail "the alleged tilt of the Earth", let alone how could this be possibly explainable without the alleged tilt of the Earth???

Now, will you show us the picture of your globe in a proper position, so that we can see in the same time Sydney and Dakar?

Watch:

4.

When you split a globe into two halves, Sydney is about 1,5 hours away from the meridian thru which we have cut a globe (into two halves), and Dakar is aproximately 0,5 hours away from the same meridian.

You have to compensate 2 hours in order to make this possible, and you can't do it, because no one can do it.

Watch this, once again:

Do you notice something?

Even if we were on a tilted globe this would be the problem:

When you tilted your model of a globe (toward us who watch this illustration (imagine that your nose represents the sun)) so that Australian East Coast can receive some light from the Sun (when is the NOON above the meridian which goes through Salt Lake City), what you have just done (also) is that you have tilted West Coast of Africa (Dakar - Senegal) AWAY from the Sun.

So, it's mission impossible even on TILTED globe!

And the Earth is not a globe at all! Have you forgotten it?

5.

OBAMA THE ABORTION EXTREMIST : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html
Barack Obama brings pro-abortion history to white house  :  http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama.htm

Supports partial-birth abortion

Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling … I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

In the Illinois State Senate, Obama opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion.

(The partial-birth abortion procedure—used from the fifth month on—involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers.) There is a current federal law that bans partial-birth abortions.

Abortion absolutist

Throughout his U.S. Senate career, Obama compiled a 0% voting record on right-to-life issues scored by the National Right to Life Committee. By contrast, he has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. As president he has shared their views and enjoyed their ongoing support.

Writes investigative journalist Freddoso, "Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

As Peter Wehner observes, Obama "has embraced legislation that is extreme, inhumane and outright brutal. There is no indication that he has the slightest sympathy for unborn children or any interest in ending the ‘culture wars.’ His past policies would, in fact, deepen the divisions."[/i] His policies as president have upheld that prediction as current divisions continue to widen.

...or something like this :

Dr. Kent Hovind: Satanic, Illuminati - Doctrine That Damned America : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Kent Hovind Innocent. PEDOFILE Lawyer kills himself after trial. : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

KENT Hovind 8 minutes : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT!  : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

...or something like this :

J. F. Kennedy talks about secret devils,(Masons& Illuminati) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

So, what is the point here?

So, what is the point here?

Everybody can see what kind of people these masons are, just watch your current president.

Lyndon Johnson and Nixon were masons, also!

Now, the question:

Had Kennedy knew that Mission to the Moon is mission Impossible, maybe he wouldn't have been killed at all?

At the bottom of this story is the fact that the Earth is flat!!!

« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 08:10:16 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3974
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1042 on: February 22, 2015, 08:40:09 AM »
Does copying and re-posting all that make it more correct? No, it doesn't. Your arguments still have no merit.

Stick with using links if you insist on referring to your debunked posts, please; doing so won't make your arguments more correct, but at least it saves space.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1043 on: February 22, 2015, 10:11:31 AM »
Does copying and re-posting all that make it more correct? No, it doesn't. Your arguments still have no merit.

Stick with using links if you insist on referring to your debunked posts, please; doing so won't make your arguments more correct, but at least it saves space.

It's ultimately a waste of time even endeavouring to debate a contentious issue of any sort with people such as cikljamas.  They're invariably so rigidly single-minded and tunnel-visioned that no amount of viable, empirical scientific evidence will alter their personal opinions on or about anything.

Daniel Pipes PhD, in an early essay "adapted from a study prepared for the CIA", attempted to define which beliefs distinguish 'the conspiracy mentality' from 'more conventional patterns of thought'.  He defined them as: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains power, fame, money, and sex.

The only thing Pipes left out, in my opinion, was paranoia.  And cikljamas has that in spades.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1044 on: February 22, 2015, 11:13:14 AM »
@ AusGeoff, have you forgotten this sentence : "If you can't beat them, join them!" ?

What are you waiting? Why don't you try to join us? We won't accept you, but you can  still give a try, anyway...

You have to see this video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I suggest you to watch this video, also : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### sokarul

• 18454
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1045 on: February 22, 2015, 11:18:45 AM »
@ AusGeoff, have you forgotten this sentence : "If you can't beat them, join them!" ?

What are you waiting? Why don't you try to join us? We won't accept you, but you can  still give a try, anyway...

You have to see this video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I suggest you to watch this video, also : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
You are like the Oakland Raiders, you don't beat anyone.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1046 on: February 22, 2015, 12:01:12 PM »
@ AusGeoff...

Sorry;  I'm not prepared to have a frontal lobotomy.  Thanks all the same.

#### cikljamas

• 2174
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1047 on: February 22, 2015, 12:24:37 PM »
The entire video sums up this forum in a nutshell﻿ : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

#### Lemmiwinks

• 2161
• President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1048 on: February 22, 2015, 06:08:07 PM »
@ AusGeoff, have you forgotten this sentence : "If you can't beat them, join them!" ?

What are you waiting? Why don't you try to join us? We won't accept you, but you can  still give a try, anyway...

You have to see this video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I suggest you to watch this video, also : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
You are like the Oakland Raiders, you don't beat anyone.

That's a deep burn he probably doesn't get.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3974
##### Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #1049 on: February 22, 2015, 06:56:56 PM »
@ AusGeoff...