GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

If I remember correctly from school, angular velocity (measured in degrees) is not the same as linear velocity (in metres per second). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity

We have been trying to tell him that for a long time...

Quote from: Gustav H on March 17, 2015, 02:43:44 PM

Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this

Quote

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.

Tell that to the professional astronomer (Alpha2Omega).

I'm not a professional astronomer. My dad was. I'm a long-time amateur astronomer.

Here is his (Alpha2Omega's) opinion on this:

Quote

It's not. The Moon moves more slowly across the sky than the Sun does, and the Sun moves across the sky more slowly than the stars. The Moon transits a meridian approximately 50 minutes later each day, so its average transit-transit time is about 24h50m. Recall that the Sun takes exactly 24h on average, and the stars 23h56m. Which is slowest? This is exactly as cikljamas expects, but, for some reason, doesn't realize actually happens; maybe if he spent more time looking at real data instead of tracking down ludicrous ideas posited by charlatans he wouldn't make mistakes like this. We can hope - probably in vain. It certainly would save all of us time. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671243#msg1671243

Here is the truth:

According to one anonymous source:

The Sun makes a complete transit around the Earth in ~24.25 hours, or 360
degrees in 87,300 seconds (.0041 degrees/sec).

The Moon makes complete transit around the Earth in ~29 days or 360 degrees in 2,531,700 seconds (.00000039 degrees/sec).

Why use an anonymous source? His (her?) information is wrong. Even you should know this. The length of the mean solar day is 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds (you use this number in your calculations below, so WTF?) The apparent solar day varies by a few seconds each way depending on the time of year.

Way to compare the (incorrect) rotation period of the Earth relative to the Sun and the period of revolution of the Moon. What are you trying to show? That you have no clue what you're doing? If so, great job! Or are you just bashing numbers together to see if you come to some revelation? If so, good luck.

According to my own calculation:

The speed of the Moon:

29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec

27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec

The speed of the Sun:

360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec

Why not your anonymous source's 87,300 seconds? What was the point of even bringing that up if you're not going to use it?

It is true that the Moon moves fastest against the background sky (GHA) [?] but it is also true that because of the Moon's alleged orbital motion in a direction W - E and because of the rotation of the Earth (in the same direction) the algebraic addition of both movements should result in slower local motion (LHA) than that of the Sun or stars.

It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

I'm not sure what you mean by "GHA" (Greenwich Hour Angle?) and its significance in this context. If "LHA" is Local Hour Angle, then that does apply.  This is still a pretty good synopsis. See what you can learn when you use more reliable sources for your information. I do note that Dr. Seligman (your reference) says "The Moon moves around the Earth in an approximately circular orbit". I hope this means you now recognize that the Moon's orbit is not "significantly eccentric".

Secondly,

As the Moon approaches perigee its angular speed among the stars will appear to increase by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its lesser distance, and half being due to an actual increase in speed; and as it approaches apogee, its angular speed among the stars will appear to decrease by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its greater distance, and half being due to an actual decrease in speed. Since 12% of 13.2 degrees per day is 1.6 degrees per day, the daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6 degrees per day near apogee to as much as 14.8 degrees per day near perigee.

So, why do we NEVER see the Farther/Another side of the Moon if it rotates on ax like NASA says?

We do see farther around one side or the other as the orbital speed changes. Have you never looked at the information on libration that was provided to you?

According to my own calculation:

The speed of the Moon:

29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec

27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec

The speed of the Sun:

360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec

What this means?

This means that the retrograde motion of the Moon (with respect to the Stars) is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun (with respect to the Stars)!!!

So, it is really odd that whenever you come across the various articles on internet about this issue, you always see this type (see above) of reckoning / comparing the speeds of the Moon and the Sun.

So, is this deliberate or accidental misinterpretation?

What is actually wrong here?

If we presumed that the Moon and the Sun have exactly the same orbits, then we would have to conclude that because retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars) of the Moon is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun, apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Sun is faster than the apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Moon.

I would say that this is the logic that Alpha2Omega rely on.

So, everything depends on the real shape (width, eccentricity) of an actual orbits of the Moon and of the Sun.

When Dr. Seligman says this:

It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

...what Dr. Seligman actually means by these words?

Does he talk about forward motion of the Moon and the Sun or he talks about retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars : direction West - East) of the Moon and the Sun?

Now the question is this:

Is it possible that the Moon moves much faster (than the Sun) forwardly (East - West) and retrogradely (with respect to the Stars : West - East) in the same time?

It is, and it must be so, because it is measurable and from my own experience (observations) i can tell you that this is the fact: The Moon moves much faster than the Sun forwardly (East - West)!!!

One interesting testimony:

My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.

When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.

My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldn't it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?

Any thoughts or ideas?

One another discussion on the same topic which shows how people are terribly confused about this issue:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816

According to my own calculation:

The speed of the Moon:

29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec

27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec

The speed of the Sun:

360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec

What this means?

This means that the retrograde motion of the Moon (with respect to the Stars) is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun (with respect to the Stars)!!!

So, it is really odd that whenever you come across the various articles on internet about this issue, you always see this type (see above) of reckoning / comparing the speeds of the Moon and the Sun.

So, is this deliberate or accidental misinterpretation?

What is actually wrong here?

If we presumed that the Moon and the Sun have exactly the same orbits, then we would have to conclude that because retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars) of the Moon is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun, apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Sun is faster than the apparent forward (East - West) motion of the Moon.

I would say that this is the logic that Alpha2Omega rely on.

So, everything depends on the real shape (width, eccentricity) of an actual orbits of the Moon and of the Sun.

When Dr. Seligman says this:

It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

...what Dr. Seligman actually means by these words?

Does he talk about forward motion of the Moon and the Sun or he talks about retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars : direction West - East) of the Moon and the Sun?

Now the question is this:

Is it possible that the Moon moves much faster (than the Sun) forwardly (East - West) and retrogradely (with respect to the Stars : West - East) in the same time?

It is, and it must be so, because it is measurable and from my own experience (observations) i can tell you that this is the fact: The Moon moves much faster than the Sun forwardly (East - West)!!!

One interesting testimony:

My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.

When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.

My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldn't it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?

Any thoughts or ideas?

One another discussion on the same topic which shows how people are terribly confused about this issue:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816

I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.

According to my own calculation:

The speed of the Moon:

29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec

27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec

The speed of the Sun:

360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec

What this means?

This means that the retrograde motion of the Moon (with respect to the Stars) is faster than the retrograde motion of the Sun (with respect to the Stars)!!!

That's prograde motion against the stars. Retrograde motion is East to West.

So, it is really odd that whenever you come across the various articles on internet about this issue, you always see this type (see above) of reckoning / comparing the speeds of the Moon and the Sun.

I only see that here, by you.

So, is this deliberate or accidental misinterpretation?

You tell us. You're the one calculating diurnal motion for the Sun due to earth's rotation but and synodic and sidereal motion due to the Moon's orbit, ignoring diurnal motion, and then comparing them. Why are you doing this? Do you really not see the difference, or are you deliberately trying to BS?

What is actually wrong here?

You don't know what you are talking about but keep posting.

If we presumed that the Moon and the Sun have exactly the same orbits,

Why would we do that? They're nowhere near the same.

then we would have to conclude that because retrograde prograde motion (with respect to the Stars) of the Moon is faster than the retrograde prograde motion of the Sun, apparent forward diurnal (East - West) motion of the Sun is faster than the apparent forward diurnal (East - West) motion of the Moon.

If the orbits were the same (they're obviously not), then why would you conclude that? If the orbits were the same, the average motion would be the same.

I would say that this is the logic that Alpha2Omega rely on.

I resent that. What you are saying is just plain wrong. I don't agree with it at all.

So, everything depends on the real shape (width, eccentricity) of an actual orbits of the Moon and of the Sun.

That and the rotation of the Earth, yes.

When Dr. Seligman says this:

It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

...what Dr. Seligman actually means by these words?

Does he talk about forward diurnal motion of the Moon and the Sun or he talks about retrograde motion (with respect to the Stars : direction West - East) of the Moon and the Sun?

The latter. It's quite easy to track the Sun across the daytime sky. It's hard to see the Sun move relative to the stars because you can't see stars near the Sun, but quite easy to see the Moon move relative to them. The Sun follows the ecliptic through the stars; the Moon stays within a few degrees of the ecliptic, so these paths are similar.

Now the question is this:

Is it possible that the Moon moves much faster (than the Sun) forwardly (East - West) and retrogradely (with respect to the Stars : West - East) in the same time?

No, since these are opposite directions, the Moon can't do both.

It is, and it must be so, because it is measurable and from my own experience (observations) i can tell you that this is the fact: The Moon moves much faster than the Sun forwardly (East - West)!!!

How much faster? How did you determine this? You may want to repeat your experiment and measure more carefully next time. Take notes.

One interesting testimony:

My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.

When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.

My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldn't it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?

Any thoughts or ideas?

A good rule of thumb is the Moon moves across the sky by its own apparent diameter in slightly more than two minutes. The setting time for the Moon depends on its phase; a thin crescent would be expected to set a couple to a few hours after the Sun. It sets at the same time as the Sun when new, and roughly 50 minutes later each day, on average. A first-quarter (half) moon sets roughly at midnight (depending on where you are in your time zone and whether or not DST is in effect, how far you and the moon are from the equator, topography, etc.).

One another discussion on the same topic which shows how people are terribly confused about this issue:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2719816

His experiment apparently includes noticeable parallax in addition to the rotation. You can see the same thing using two fingers held up, one behind the other.

If it were pure rotation, then distance doesn't matter. His eye(s) isn't (aren't) fixed - they move laterally a significant distance compared to the distance to the pens. This is not a good experiment because the distances involved aren't realistically replicated.

I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.

Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:

1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?

If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:

2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.

According to current HC theory :

-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)

Now, the question:

In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?

Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?

If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!

Do you agree with me?

Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!

Cikljamas, you would be right if you were standing on the North Pole watching an eclipse, but most solar eclipses are observed from other places and sense up, down, left, and right are relative you are wrong in most scenarios.

Cikljamas, you would be right if you were standing on the North Pole watching an eclipse, but most solar eclipses are observed from other places and sense up, down, left, and right are relative you are wrong in most scenarios.

Don't be stupid, just answer the question. Generally right or generally left? It doesn't matter if the Sun appears in Upper-Left or Lower-Right (or vice versa) corner...

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 18, 2015, 10:06:51 AM

Cikljamas, you would be right if you were standing on the North Pole watching an eclipse, but most solar eclipses are observed from other places and sense up, down, left, and right are relative you are wrong in most scenarios.

Don't be stupid, just answer the question. Generally right or generally left? It doesn't matter if the Sun appears in Upper-Left or Lower-Right (or vice versa) corner...

Please specify a frame of reference.

Cik, he is asking for a frame of reference.  So the best way to get an answer to your question is to give a place that you are at experiencing this total eclipse, then the direction you are looking towards.  Example, you are in the USA and the total eclipse is happening in the afternoon, so you are generally looking west, with north to your right side.  Try to reformat your question in these terms, otherwise it looks like you are trying to illicit a response based upon incomplete information and then you could prove him false because he had to make assumptions on what you were asking.  This would lead into the probably 4 or 5 pages of argument about the question and not the topic. 

Quote from: Saros on March 18, 2015, 06:48:42 AM

I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.

Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:

1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?

If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:

2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.

According to current HC theory :

-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)

Now, the question:

In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?

Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?

If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!

Do you agree with me?

Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!

If the Earth rotated all these scenarios would be reversed:

NORTHERN HEMIPLAIN :

Eclipse total de Sol - 11 de agosto de 1999, Balatonlelle (Hungría) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Total Solar Eclipse Mexico 2006 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

SOUTHERN HEMIPLAIN :

Total Solar Eclipse delights Australians 2012 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Total Solar Eclipse Australia 2014 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: cikljamas on March 18, 2015, 10:00:12 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 18, 2015, 06:48:42 AM

I agree with your remarks. Indeed the Moon moves much faster than the Sun on many days(if not always) and it literally can disappear within an hour or two, but supposedly then the Moon also manages to cause the sun eclipses and it takes a long time for it to cross the sun's disc. I am suspicious about this one, however, I might be missing something.

Now that you have said that, i've got a few questions for you:

1. Haven't you figured out ZIGZAG argument by now?

If you haven't figured it out by now, let's try something else:

2. Imagine total solar eclipse. The Moon is totally eclipsed the Sun.

According to current HC theory :

-- The Sun is stationary
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)

Now, the question:

In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?

Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?

If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!

Do you agree with me?

Alpha2Omega, feel free to answer to the second question, also!

If the Earth rotated all these scenarios would be reversed:

NORTHERN HEMIPLAIN :

Eclipse total de Sol - 11 de agosto de 1999, Balatonlelle (Hungría) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Total Solar Eclipse Mexico 2006 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

SOUTHERN HEMIPLAIN :

Total Solar Eclipse delights Australians 2012 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Total Solar Eclipse Australia 2014 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Yeah, I know. I think the heliocentric model is a joke too. It is enough to take a look at the night and day map where you can see the supposed position of the Sun and the Moon for any given day. It is funny if the Moon is 285000 km away and the Sun is 150 million km how come they can be located above a certain region of the Earth. In addition, in northern latitudes even when the Sun is above the horizon the sun's intensity is noticeably smaller which suggests increased distance?!? How can it be farther away from the pole if it is distance to the Earth is 150 million km? It should be the same distance to any part of the Earth if the HC model was correct, and then we would observe nothing of what we do now. Also, during the midnight sun period with the sun being above the horizon it is still a bit dark which never happens in lower latitudes. It only gets dark when the Sun is below the horizon not when it is still above it! I am guessing it is darker near the pole because it is far away from the Sun literally, which is impossible if the Sun was 150 million km away. It wouldn't make a difference where on Earth you're located, you would experience sun's intensity the same way.

Are you really so ignorant you can't understand simple concepts?  Distance doesn't matter, the sun can still be above a certain place on the earth. The earth is a 3D object, why would every point on the earth be the same distance to the sun?

Are you really so ignorant you can't understand simple concepts?  Distance doesn't matter, the sun can still be above a certain place on the earth. The earth is a 3D object, why would every point on the earth be the same distance to the sun?

Yeah, right. Explain to me then why when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Germany it is still daytime, but when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard during the summer when we experience the midnight Sun, it is not really daytime and it is more like twilight. Explain that please. It makes no sense.The reason why it gets dark supposedly is because the Sun sets, well it doesn't set there at all for few months, but it still gets darker. Tell me why! It is pretty clear to me that the Sun literally goes farther away from the pole, and that is why it gets darker but it is still above the horizon during the midnight sun period.

The map of the world can never look like this. On the posted picture of the map Greenland is larger than Australia! When Australia is actually 3.5 times bigger!

Here is a good quick site that shows how out of proportion presented maps are to make all the continents fit on a flat paper http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography

The world being round means that there is always going to be one side closer to the sun than the other side. The poles are not colder because they are further from the sun, but because the sun either reaches the atmosphere and surface at acute angles in summer, and hardly at all during winter.

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 06:29:26 AM

The map of the world can never look like this. On the posted picture of the map Greenland is larger than Australia! When Australia is actually 3.5 times bigger!

Here is a good quick site that shows how out of proportion presented maps are to make all the continents fit on a flat paper http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/cartography

The world being round means that there is always going to be one side closer to the sun than the other side. The poles are not colder because they are further from the sun, but because the sun either reaches the atmosphere and surface at acute angles in summer, and hardly at all during winter.

OMG, what you wrote is total nonsense. I am not talking about why the poles are colder, I just told you that closer to the north pole it is darker even though the Sun is above the horizon compared with more southern latitudes. Do you still not get it? Tell me how this makes sense. Two identical scenarios - the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard and in Germany. In Svalbard it is darker. Explain why. The angle of the Sun is absolutely the same, but it is darker. Please note, I am comparing 15 degrees above the horizon in Germany before sunset with 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard during the midnight sun period in the summer. That is when the Sun is farther away. During the day it is close and it is brighter, but later it gets darker even though it is still above the horizon. It is just farther away, but still visible.

Here is a photo:

Please take a photo with the Sun so much above the horizon from any southern latitude and let's see if it will be that dark.

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

Actually the atmosphere has little to do with it, the ground is dimmer because of the angle of the sunlight which causes the sunlight to be more spread out if that makes sense.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:03:25 AM

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?

Actually the atmosphere has little to do with it, the ground is dimmer because of the angle of the sunlight which causes the sunlight to be more spread out if that makes sense.

OK, let's say this is true. Then why when the Sun is about to set in more southern latitudes it is not so dark? I intentionally mentioned that hypothetical scenario - 15 degrees above the horizon in two different locations. The angle of sunlight if the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon is exactly the same in both places. However, in Svalbard if it's during the midnight sun it is darker than, let's say, in Germany in winter when the Sun could be 15 degrees above the horizon too. Same angle of the Sun! Generally, it shouldn't be different. Do you see what I am saying?

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:14:31 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:03:25 AM

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?

You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole.  The angle is the same in both place.

This thread seems to have devolved into utter chaos. 

OMG, what you wrote is total nonsense. I am not talking about why the poles are colder, I just told you that closer to the north pole it is darker even though the Sun is above the horizon compared with more southern latitudes. Do you still not get it? Tell me how this makes sense. Two identical scenarios - the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard and in Germany. In Svalbard it is darker. Explain why. The angle of the Sun is absolutely the same, but it is darker. Please note, I am comparing 15 degrees above the horizon in Germany before sunset with 15 degrees above the horizon in Svalbard during the midnight sun period in the summer.

Citation needed. Why do you think it's darker in Svalbard in those conditions? Do you have any data to support this, or are you simply making "facts" up to support your idea?

That is when the Sun is farther away. During the day it is close and it is brighter, but later it gets darker even though it is still above the horizon. It is just farther away, but still visible.

Wouldn't the Sun be the same distance from any point on the Earth when seen at a given elevation angle, regardless of whether earth is flat or spherical? Why would this affect polar regions more than temperate or tropical ones?

Here is a photo:

You find a photo with an underexposed foreground and say "see how dark it is!" Is that your reason? You're just funnin' us, right?

Please take a photo with the Sun so much above the horizon from any southern latitude and let's see if it will be that dark.

If it's similarly underexposed, why wouldn't it be?

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:27:52 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:14:31 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:03:25 AM

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?

You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole.  The angle is the same in both place.

Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...

I sympathize with you!!! 

Do you sympathize with me?

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:50:21 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:27:52 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:14:31 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:03:25 AM

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?

You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole.  The angle is the same in both place.

Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...

I sympathize with you!!! 

Do you sympathize with me?

Did you deliberately decide to ignore Alpha2Omega's post on how Saros' claims are not accurate? Why do you enjoy making yourself look bad?

I suggest you actually read our responses before posting the same argument again, or supporting somebody else's flawed argument.

Quote from: cikljamas on March 19, 2015, 09:25:23 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:50:21 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:27:52 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:14:31 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:03:25 AM

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?

You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole.  The angle is the same in both place.

Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...

I sympathize with you!!! 

Do you sympathize with me?

Did you deliberately decide to ignore Alpha2Omega's post on how Saros' claims are not accurate? Why do you enjoy making yourself look bad?

I suggest you actually read our responses before posting the same argument again, or supporting somebody else's flawed argument.

Look, Alpha2Omega obviously lies. it is true the photo is not any proof, but you can find plenty of photos like that. Are they all underexposed? Go to Svalbard and see for yourself midnight sun and tell me it is the same as daytime. It is definitely much darker even though the Sun is above the horizon. Prove me wrong! I am personally going to Svalbard this summer.

Quote from: Jet Fission on March 19, 2015, 09:39:53 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 19, 2015, 09:25:23 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:50:21 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:27:52 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 19, 2015, 07:14:31 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 07:03:25 AM

Think about it. Think of the angle of sunlight reaching very northern area. It has to travel through a lot more atmosphere than at regions closer to the equator. Hence sun light feels "weaker". Seriously, did you people not do this in school?

Seriously? Go get a globe. The Sun is supposedly in space 150 million km away and not 50 km above the equator, so what you said about it traveling through more atmosphere is meaningless.

What? The distance of the sun has nothing to with it! Yes, get a globe, can you not see the difference between the angle of light hitting the equator and the north pole? At the equator the sun is overhead at midday. The sunlight goes "straight through" the atmosphere covering the minimum possible distance through the atmosphere. At the north pole, it's at an angle where it travels through a lot of atmosphere. It's not the change in distance of the sun we are talking about, that's negligible, it's the amount of atmosphere the light has to get through? Do you understand?

You seriously have no clue what you just said. I repeat, the Sun is supposedly 150 million km away from the Earth. The angle of the Sun changes during the day. When the Sun sets in Rome it is the same angle as when the Sun sets at the North pole. The angle is something absolute for a given location. The sunlight doesn't go through any more atmosphere unless the Earth is flat. If the Sun is in space far away it would hit the North pole or the equator through exactly the same amount of atmosphere for any given angle when it is the same. Comparing 15 degrees at the equator with 15 degrees at the north pole.  The angle is the same in both place.

Saros, you are absolutely right! In this whole thread (and in all other threads, also) i had to deal with the same kind of round-earth(er's) logic which is actually so perverted and insane anti-logic that at first you can't believe it happens, but after certain amount of time you get the point (that they deliberately lie all the time, or that some of them are genuine round-earthers a.k.a. completely insane guys) then it becomes easier to deal with them (NASA shills and genuine lunatics)...

I sympathize with you!!! 

Do you sympathize with me?

Did you deliberately decide to ignore Alpha2Omega's post on how Saros' claims are not accurate? Why do you enjoy making yourself look bad?

I suggest you actually read our responses before posting the same argument again, or supporting somebody else's flawed argument.

Look, Alpha2Omega obviously lies. it is true the photo is not any proof, but you can find plenty of photos like that. Are they all underexposed? Go to Svalbard and see for yourself midnight sun and tell me it is the same as daytime. It is definitely much darker even though the Sun is above the horizon. Prove me wrong! I am personally going to Svalbard this summer.

Your claim that the luminance of the sun is greater when the sun is 15 degrees above the horizon on anywhere besides in the far north, where it is supposedly dark, has no evidence. Until you can provide such evidence, we will continue to not take you seriously.

Besides, there are hundreds of photos and videos of an obviously round Earth, yet you deny it. Of course we aren't going to accept your photos as evidence. Have fun taking your own medicine.

Do not call people liars unless you have evidence to support such a claim. Disgusting.

1.

The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.

2.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 14, 2014, 02:39:41 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 14, 2014, 02:29:00 PM

Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...

Man this isn't very fair is it?

Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.

Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?

If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:

1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

3.



So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...

But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?

Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!

1.

The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun.

2.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 14, 2014, 03:10:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 14, 2014, 02:39:41 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 14, 2014, 02:29:00 PM

Come on Alpha2Omega, stop playing stupid games (as you always do) and just briefly explain us due to WHAT (exactly) are the seasons in HC model? Hardly can wait to see your answer...

Man this isn't very fair is it?

Seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth.

Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?

If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:

1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

3.



So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...

But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?

Conclusion: It's not about the distances, it's about the intensity of the Sun's rays!

It never has been about distances. People have destroyed this argument before, how about you read that through again? Oh right, you're going to act like nobody said anything like you usually do.

Ignored.

It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun.

No.  No it's not.  It's caused by Earth's axle tilt, Earth's distance from the Sun is small and doesn't effect much.  In fact: in the northern hemisphere Earth is closest to the Sun in winter and furthest in the summer, that's how little effect the small distance change has.



When the Sun's rays are more direct then you get more sunlight per swuare foot of ground which makes the ground heat up more.  They teach this in elementary school, how did you not learn it?