GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

Seriously?  Wrong Cik.  Seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth.  When, in the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun it is summer in the north.  More sunlight covers that hemisphere, therefore longer days and shorter nights.  Actually if you really wanted to know, the more recent trend in the revolution of the Earth has the southern hemisphere closer to the sun during its summer than the northern hemisphere is, but only very slightly.  So we are actually closer to the sun during the winter here in the northern hemisphere than we are during the summer.

Quote from: cikljamas on March 19, 2015, 11:25:23 AM

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.

Hahaha, the argument hasn't been destroyed. You think it was destroyed. There is a difference. You guys don't care about the truth. The fact is the round Earth model is nonsense and totally made up to fool the sheeple around the world. 23.5 degrees tilt, hilarious!!!! There is no need to provide evidence that the Earth is not a globe. Only a totally naive person can seriously believe it is a globe. I just can't stop laughing when I see how brainwashed people are. They don't have any personal experience whatsoever, but still believe in some dogma with no basis on reality. Oceans curve, planets fly in space etc fairy tales... As for the midnight sun, go and ask anyone who lives in those latitudes. Ask them whether it is the same as when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon during the day. Just compare....

Quote from: Jet Fission on March 19, 2015, 11:30:27 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 19, 2015, 11:25:23 AM

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.

Hahaha, the argument hasn't been destroyed. You think it was destroyed. There is a difference. You guys don't care about the truth. The fact is the round Earth model is nonsense and totally made up to fool the sheeple around the world. 23.5 degrees tilt, hilarious!!!! There is no need to provide evidence that the Earth is not a globe. Only a totally naive person can seriously believe it is a globe. I just can't stop laughing when I see how brainwashed people are. They don't have any personal experience whatsoever, but still believe in some dogma with no basis on reality. Oceans curve, planets fly in space etc fairy tales... As for the midnight sun, go and ask anyone who lives in those latitudes. Ask them whether it is the same as when the Sun is 15 degrees above the horizon during the day. Just compare....

Please read the posts just made by Mike and  Mikey. It's also amusing how you ignored my previous post, just as ciklajamas would have done. Sheep do as the herder does I guess.

Well I have seen the (northern) midnight sun and have also seen the sun at low elevation angle at lower latitudes, I can't really see any difference between the light levels in those two scenarios when the sun is at the same angle. Only difference that comes to mind is that closer to the equator the sun sets quicker, while at a higher latitude the sun makes a sweeping arc towards the horizon from noon to midnight.

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.

Why are your arguments regressing? Uncritical reading of your posts will make someone dumber. Maybe writing them also does this?

You routinely toss out "impossible" when discussing the simple and commonplace. Axial tilt is what causes the seasons. You already know this, so why play dumb?

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!!!

Check two posts later for a thorough refutation. Why do you keep bringing this tired old crap up?

3.



So, what could be a possible solution here?

Solution for what? WTH are those drawings supposed to represent? Neither one of them make any sense.

I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...

A spherical Earth orbiting the distant Sun makes all the problems and complications (like directionally-regulated sunlight, among numerous other things) of your model simply disappear. That seems like an excellent solution.

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,

Yes. Quite easily and convincingly.

or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?

That will be quite a bit more difficult (even if it weren't wrong). How do you propose to "prove" that?

Do you remember this picture? It was originally posted by you here.


Why do you think the surface of Lake Michigan is blocking the view of the lower parts of the Chicago skyscrapers?

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

It's actually about the angle of the Sun's rays.

Look, Alpha2Omega obviously lies.

Any examples (obvious or otherwise)?

it is true the photo is not any proof, but you can find plenty of photos like that. Are they all underexposed?

If they're like that underexposed photo, then, yes, they're underexposed. Duh!

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!

Woah, hold on a second! Not long ago you were arguing it's darker in Svalbard when the Sun is 15° above the horizon than it is elsewhere when the Sun is 15° above the horizon. Now you're changing the argument to "it's darker in Svalbard when the midnight Sun is 15° above the horizon than it is when the Sun is higher in the sky". That's not at all the same argument, and I don't see why anyone would dispute that. I don't see the point of the new argument, either. Is it to deflect attention from the earlier one?

I am personally going to Svalbard this summer.

Cool! Could be an interesting trip. Work or pleasure?

That actually should ruin FEI, but somehow it doesn't.

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">

Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :

 

General direction of motion of the Sun and Moon is always the same looking from northern hemiplain (the Moon goes from RIGHT TO LEFT), but if the Earth rotated then the general direction of motion of the Moon would be from LEFT to RIGHT!!!!

Quote from: cikljamas on March 19, 2015, 04:43:28 AM

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">

Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :

 

General direction of motion of the Sun and Moon is always the same looking from northern hemiplain (the Moon goes from RIGHT TO LEFT), but if the Earth rotated then the general direction of motion of the Moon would be from LEFT to RIGHT!!!!

Why? Earth goes from west to east. I see no problem. By the way - how will you explain the Foucalt pendulum?

You see no problem? Ask Alpha2Omega if he sees any problem!

As for Foucault pendulum : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881

Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :

 

General direction of motion of the Sun and Moon is always the same looking from northern hemiplain (the Moon goes from RIGHT TO LEFT), but if the Earth rotated then the general direction of motion of the Moon would be from LEFT to RIGHT!!!!

The Sun and Moon both move across the sky from east to west (left to right when viewing from the north) due to the rotation of the Earth. There is no reference in your photos to recognize that - all you see is the bright Sun and silhouetted Moon centered in each frame. Nonetheless, I bet the Sun rose due east of you this morning and will move from left to right (as you're facing south) all day and set due west. Right?

What your pictures do show is the Moon moving eastward (right to left since they're south of you) relative to the Sun. This is exactly what is expected since the Moon makes a west-to-east circuit of the ecliptic about 12 times faster than the Sun does.

Those aren't bad pictures for a first try. #2 is somewhat overexposed but still quite nice; the others are more overexposed and maybe slightly out of focus, but still show what's going on quite well. If your camera allows manual exposure adjustment, setting it for something like -2 f-stops would probably help, but experiment. Thanks for posting them!

Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?

When you say that both celestial "bodies" (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the alleged rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main (false) argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your insane theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial "bodies" (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!

As for photographs : You welcome!

Did you say what you think actually causes the eclipse?

Alpha2Omega, the Moon goes cca 0.5 degree to the left per hour, and the Earth rotates 15 degrees to the left, so what are you saying? Is 15 degrees less than 0,5 degree?

When you say that both celestial "bodies" (the Sun and Moon) go to the right (as a consequence of the alleged rotation of the Earth), keep in mind your main (false) argument which you have used in a ZIGZAG case. The Sun is 400 times (according to your insane theory) farther away than the Moon. So, for all practical purposes (in our case) the Sun is stationary. That is why i wont even mention that both celestial "bodies" (The Earth and the Moon) allegedly travel 107 000 km/h in a direction LEFT to RIGHT (East - West) which direction is of course in favor of my argument, also!!!

As for photographs : You welcome!

Because of the Earth's rotation the Sun appears to be moving across the sky like the Moon, but when the eclipse was being photographed the photographer tracked the Sun and Moon so the Earth's rotation doesn't have an effect on the apparent position of the Sun and Moon, so the only factor that effects their relative position is where the Moon is in it's orbit and that agrees with reality.

Partial Solar Eclipse over Zagreb - March 20th - all photos taken by Cannon s5is and welding glass :

 

These images have obviously been Photoshopped, and therefore offer no proof of anything, let alone the direction of travel of the moon.  I could change its "direction" by simply mirroring the images LOL.

At any rate, given an LED flashlight, a cardboard disc, and a bit of exposed photographic negative film, I could duplicate this exactly.

So I'm betting that cikljamas won't be able to prove that the images are genuine, and simply expects us to take his word for it?  I don't think so.   

Ya, that Foucault's pendulum example annoys me. Funny, how people consider this experiment as absolute 100% evidence, but then sweep Airey's failure experiment under the carpet. Clearly a double standard, and only wanting to see what you want to see. Minds already made up, from about the age of 9.

[quote authhttp://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Themes/tintagel_fes/images/bbc/url.gifor=earth is a stage link=topic=62346.msg1672255#msg1672255 date=1426869722]
Ya, that Foucault's pendulum example annoys me. Funny, how people consider this experiment as absolute 100% evidence, but then sweep Airey's failure experiment under the carpet. Clearly a double standard, and only wanting to see what you want to see. Minds already made up, from about the age of 9.
[/quote]

What the heck is Airey's failure?

Speaking of FET, here is a video that proves it wrong:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The whole world would have known about Airey's experiment, if it had been considered a success. It is called a failure because instead of the experiment proving that the earth is moving, it unexpectedly seemed to show it was the stars that are moving. This experiment would have probably been taught to you at a very young age, and been considered absolute 100% conclusive evidence for a moving earth. Instead of an unknown experiment, it would have been one of the most famous. You could make this experiment your summer project Mike. It involves a telescope.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

1. Airy's failure experiment - a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480

2. Other crucial experiments and significant statements (an honest admissions) of a famous astronomers about the fraudulent heliocentric theory : http://www.energeticforum.com/262538-post223.html

3. Even if you watch our Universe from the heliocentric point of view this is how it really looks like if you think reasonably : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62293.msg1639407#msg1639407

The whole world would have known about Airey's experiment, if it had been considered a success. It is called a failure because instead of the experiment proving that the earth is moving, it unexpectedly showed it was the stars that are moving. This experiment would have probably been taught to you at a very young age, and been considered absolute 100% conclusive evidence for a moving earth. Instead of an unknown experiment, it would have been one of the most famous. You could make this experiment your summer project Mike. It involves a telescope.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

Walter van der Kamp was yet another scientifically-illiterate young-earth creationist and god-botherer who relied solely on centuries-old pseudoscience in order to earn a few dollars by selling dodgy books—just like one of his earlier peers, Samuel Rowbotham LOL.  Check out this site:  Cretinism or Evilution? for a bit more about this whack-job and his idiotic "theories".

   

Was Airey a whack job?  I don't care about politics or religion. (in this context)  I reason from the general to the particular. If the Earth is stationary the earth is stationary.  Nothing else matters. 

The whole world would have known about Airey's experiment, if it had been considered a success. It is called a failure because instead of the experiment proving that the earth is moving, it unexpectedly seemed to show it was the stars that are moving. This experiment would have probably been taught to you at a very young age, and been considered absolute 100% conclusive evidence for a moving earth. Instead of an unknown experiment, it would have been one of the most famous. You could make this experiment your summer project Mike. It involves a telescope.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

Do you know how small stellar parallax is?  It's very hard to detect.  Modern day astronomers have detected it though.

Imagine you were trying to prove that atoms existed and so you looked into a microscope.  You won't see atoms because microscopes are not powerful enough, does that mean that atoms don't exist?  That experiment was simply not precise enough to detect stellar parallax..

You should attempt the experiment. All I know is a very qualified scientist, expected he would have to re-adjust the telescope, after filling it with water, and he never did. Surely such a simple experiment, is repeatable. So let the scientific establishment do the experiment again, if they think it was done improperly.

You should attempt the experiment. All I know is a very qualified scientist, expected he would have to re-adjust the telescope, after filling it with water, and he never did. Surely such a simple experiment, is repeatable. So let the scientific establishment do the experiment again, if they think it was done improperly.

I think that the experiment is not precise enough and therefore fundementaly flawed.  Have you watched " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this video yet?

How is it fundementally flawed? Not precise enough, for what?  lol

How is it fundamentally flawed? Not precise enough, for what?  lol

This type of scenario is often suggested by flat earthers—that modern scientists revisit and repeat scientific experiments that were carried out hundreds—sometimes thousands!—of years previously to either prove or disprove their results.

For obvious reasons, this is a total waste of everybody's time, and won't prove anything one way or the other.  At any rate, if it does happen that an ancient experiment is repeated with modern instruments, it invariably confirms that the instruments and known science of the period were grossly imprecise and/or impracticable for the experiment, and therefore its results.  One only has to look at Rowbotham's primitive 1838 Bedford Level experiment and its erroneous conclusion to realise that.

How is it fundementally flawed? Not precise enough, for what?  lol

Watch the video please.

Mike, just put the video link in your signature line.  I am thinking about doing the same.

I suspect you all know there was nothing wrong with the experiment. You are uncomfortable with the results of the experiment. It would be SO EASY  for the scientific establishment to do this experiment again. Heck, if they need to re-adjust the telescope, then they have evidence for a moving earth.  Game over.   It is clear you all are side stepping!

Was Airey a whack job?  I don't care about politics or religion. (in this context)  I reason from the general to the particular. If the Earth is stationary the earth is stationary.  Nothing else matters.

It's not that simple. Stationary relative to what?