GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

  • 1592 Replies
  • 404051 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #150 on: December 01, 2014, 12:33:23 PM »
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?

Yes, you have this right:



It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.

Why would that be a physical impossibility? We talk about the Polar Day when the Sun is above the horizon all day long!!!

This zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight only as a consequence of an unbelievable ratio between the distance (150 m which is in reality 150 000 000 km) and a "gigantic" proportions of our hypothetical 1 mm wide wheel which represents 1000 km wide circle on the allegedly round Earth...

In the context of a reality as we know it, this zigging and zagging would be utterly striking because the Sun is only a few thousand miles from us, but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality.

That is why you have to imagine the whole paradigm from the scratch!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #151 on: December 01, 2014, 12:47:59 PM »
You call this a whale? An elephant? A microbe indeed. I actually think you are right in that such motion likely exists. I just don't think you understand how minute it is compared to the motion of rotation.

Do you not realize that this is not applicable unless you intentionally turn your head toward the sun or have some mechanism to ensure that it remains unaffected by the earths rotation? Perhaps if you could put a camera onto a Foucault's pendulum then you might see what you are describing but other than that, this is quite preposterous.

From anywhere that you can physically stand, if you just look the same direction all day, the only relevant motion you'll see is the motion caused by rotation.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 01:02:30 PM by rottingroom »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #152 on: December 01, 2014, 01:14:13 PM »
You want to scale this to a football field? Fine.

You said 1000 km, but I'm just going to use miles. So 1000 miles of motion to the left.

convert: 100 yds (football field) = 300 ft = .0568182 miles

scale: 93,000,000 miles of distance to sun and 1000 miles of motion to the left.
to: .0568182 miles of distance to theoretical football field sun and x miles of motion to the left.

93000000/1000 = .0568182/x
93000000x = .568182 * 1000
93000000x = 56.8182
x = 56.8182/93000000
x = .00000000061904 miles to the left
Convert to inches: .000039222 inches of motion to the left

And you think you would notice this while the earth is also rotating?



« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 01:22:57 PM by rottingroom »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #153 on: December 01, 2014, 01:41:28 PM »
You want to scale this to a football field? Fine.

You said 1000 km, but I'm just going to use miles. So 1000 miles of motion to the left.

convert: 100 yds (football field) = 300 ft = .0568182 miles

scale: 93,000,000 miles of distance to sun and 1000 miles of motion to the left.
to: .0568182 miles of distance to theoretical football field sun and x miles of motion to the left.

93000000/1000 = .0568182/x
93000000x = .568182 * 1000
93000000x = 56.8182
x = 56.8182/93000000
x = .00000000061904 miles to the left
Convert to inches: .000039222 inches of motion to the left

And you think you would notice this while the earth is also rotating?

That is what i am talking about, but you cannot see the forest for the tree!

This whole idea is preposterous to you only because you don't understand the true meaning of these words, i repeat:

...but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality...


In reality the Sun is very close to us, and turns around and above us, this is your observational experience that you are used to and you can not discard it, neglect it, throw it away out of your mind , but if you want to reason in correct manner you have to forget all that you know, and start to think from the scratch, that is the only way!!!

Why is the problem to turn your head towards the sun?

I don't describe in my ZIGZAG argument all details ((alleged tilt of the Earth (and accompanying "up & down" apparent motion of the sun), "turning head" and things like that)), i only describe one major thing which is the core of my argument: ZIGGING & ZAGGING ( LEFT AND RIGHT) OF THE SUN!

If the Earth turned on it's axis, and if the Sun were stationary spot in the sky 150 000 000 km away from us, then you would see in the sky what i have explained in my ZIGZAG argument, but fortunately this is not the case. Only this zigging and zagging would be really hardly noticable because of a ratio (150 m = 150 000 000 km : 1 mm = 1000 km).

The only thing that is really preposterous is HC theory!!!

Regarding whales in your tight room, the only way not to see them is if you keep your eyes wide shut!!!

And these whales are really gigantic, absolutely colossal whales!!!

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #154 on: December 01, 2014, 01:52:26 PM »

IF the Earth turned on it's axis, and IF the Sun were stationary spot in the sky 150 000 000 km away from us [...]

I've bolded the two words that totally refute your argument.  There is no "if" in either case.  And the sun does not "zig zag" above us.

End of story.  Sorry.
 

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #155 on: December 01, 2014, 01:53:54 PM »
The sun is not very close, observe from different places on earth.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #156 on: December 01, 2014, 02:24:17 PM »
If the sun is really 93,000,000 miles away then we should notice it move 3/100,000 of an inch to the right, 6/100,000 of an inch to the left and then back 3/100,000 of an inch back to the right? All this while contending with the rotational motion of the earth?

Is this your proof?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 02:53:45 PM by rottingroom »

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2014, 03:00:15 PM »
I still don't know what you mean by zig zag argument. It seems like you are trying to say that as you rotate 1000 km from the pole, with the sun starting right on front of you, you start out going to the left for 1/4 of the rotation, then you go to the right for 1/2 the rotation, then you go back to the left for the final 1/4 of the rotation. So essentially you are saying the sun should do the opposite motion, it would go right, the left twice as long, then back right to the starting point. In addition, you are saying that it would go up and down because of the tilt? Do I have this right?

Yes, you have this right:



It seems to me that you are still trying to observe the sun from this metaphysical spot that rama set and I acknowledged but you mentioned that we are 1000 km away from the true north pole but that can't be what you mean but neverthless, even if you were then not only is it a physical impossibility that see the sun move around in that manner, but even if you could this zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight. What's more relevant is the fact that as the world turns, and an observer stays put relative to the ground below them, then the observer turns too.

Why would that be a physical impossibility? We talk about the Polar Day when the Sun is above the horizon all day long!!!

This zigging and zagging would be so utterly slight only as a consequence of an unbelievable ratio between the distance (150 m which is in reality 150 000 000 km) and a "gigantic" proportions of our hypothetical 1 mm wide wheel which represents 1000 km wide circle on the allegedly round Earth...
And it is. Whether you find these ratios "unbelievable" or not matters not a whit.

Based on the calculations on the equator in my post above, solar parallax would be about 1.5 seconds of arc with a 2,000 km baseline, and about 3/4 second of arc with a 1,000-mile baseline. Your hypothetical observer illustrated above would have to be constantly turning (otherwise the Sun would "do a 360" around him over a day) and trying to discern a sub-arcsecond shift relative to background stars he can't see because the Sun's so bright (and ignoring relativistic bending of light, which would make precise measurement of shifts more difficult, even if they could be made). He simply won't discern *any* "zigzag" (parallax).

Quote
In the context of a reality as we know it, this zigging and zagging would be utterly striking because the Sun is only a few thousand miles from us, but the problem is that we can not mix (observable) facts taken from a reality as we know it with alleged numbers and alleged ratios, because alleged numbers and alleged ratios are in complete disagreement with reality.
Lets examine this statement for a moment. Let's say the Sun is circling above the tropic only, say, 5,000 km above it, and we are 500 km from the pole. The tropic is 2611 miles from the equator (assuming 10,000 km pole to equator), so our distance from the tropic would be 6,889 km (call it 6,900 km) at the nearest point, and 7,889 km (7,900 km) in the opposite direction. Our distance from the Sun would vary from:

( (6900 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 8521 km

to

( (7900 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 =  9349 km

A difference of about 10%. Forget about arc seconds or less of "zigzag" (parallax).  Why don't we see a 10% change in the apparent size of the sun through the day from this location if it's as close as you say? This effect would get larger as you approach the equator because the distance change gets larger (and larger still as you continue south). If the Earth were flat, and the Sun was 5,000 km above the equator, and the observer on it, and the equator is still 10,000 km from the pole, the distance from observer to sun would change from

( (14142 km)2 + (5000 km)2 )1/2 = 15,000 km (90° from it, at "sunrise", however that would happen)

to 5,000 km (directly overhead).

This is a factor of three. Does the Sun appear to grow three times in size as it rises until noon from the equator at an equinox? I didn't think so, either.

Quote
That is why you have to imagine the whole paradigm from the scratch!

We don't see an obvious change in the size of the Sun through the day. That's why this paradigm is a non-starter.

The pole-to-equator distance is pretty well established, but there is no indication that the equator is >60,000 km circumference; another obvious problem. This is not to mention sunrises and sunsets, and southern circumpolar stars. You're fretting about distances that are difficult (for you) to comprehend, and offering a model that would require obvious phenomena that we just don't see. It simply doesn't work at all.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2014, 05:05:50 PM »
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #159 on: December 02, 2014, 06:13:43 AM »
If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)

Because, every time we prove that the Earth is at rest someone comes up with questions like this...

First conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : Airy's failure experiment, year 1871.
Second conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : MMX experiment, year 1887.

See this conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat: Amateur rocket reaches 121,000 ft : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Jay Dee
6 months ago :

"Have you ever noticed that Earth only looks like a globe if they're using a fish eye lens? After some brief searching, I found that scientists say that you should clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth at 35,000 feet. They were almost 4 times that altitude and Earth doesn't seem to resemble any type of globe or sphere...at least in this video or any other high altitude videos I've seen that didn't use a fish eye. Thoughts?"


Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:

1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun, and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...

When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:

If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!

How intuitive is this picture to you?

It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?

But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!

Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:

"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."


Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #160 on: December 02, 2014, 06:28:15 AM »
It's in one ear out the other with you.

We've responded with reasonable and known explanations for everyone of your contentions about how it should look if the were really round. Every single one.

Please return the favor. Stop adding arguments and respond to ours.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 06:42:52 AM by rottingroom »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #161 on: December 02, 2014, 07:02:17 AM »
@ rottingroom, everything explained here:

If there is a global conspiracy, why then has this website not been shut down? We all know governments are able to shut down suspicious websites at will. Surely any authority would have noticed this website by now..... ;)

Because, every time we prove that the Earth is at rest someone comes up with questions like this...

First conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : Airy's failure experiment, year 1871.
Second conclusive evidence that the Earth is at rest : MMX experiment, year 1887.

See this conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat: Amateur rocket reaches 121,000 ft : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Jay Dee
6 months ago :

"Have you ever noticed that Earth only looks like a globe if they're using a fish eye lens? After some brief searching, I found that scientists say that you should clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth at 35,000 feet. They were almost 4 times that altitude and Earth doesn't seem to resemble any type of globe or sphere...at least in this video or any other high altitude videos I've seen that didn't use a fish eye. Thoughts?"


Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:

1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun, and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...

When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:

If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!

How intuitive is this picture to you?

It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?

But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!

Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:

"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."


Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html

On top of that:

Before Copernican heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up at the sky and notice that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary Earth. All empirical evidence from our perspective clearly shows that we are fixed and everything rotates around us. We feel motionless and experience the sun, moon, stars and planets spinning around us. To suspend this common sense geocentric perspective and assume that it's actually the Earth revolving beneath us daily while rotating around the sun yearly is quite a theoretical leap.

"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning." -Marshall Hall, "Exposing the Copernican Deception"

"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"

Right up through the 20th century many attempts have been made to try and prove that heliocentricity is true and geocentricity is false. All such attempts have failed and only reinforced geocentricity. The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.

In order to save the dying heliocentric theory from the conclusive geocentric experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and others, establishment master-mind Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity which in one philosophical swoop banished the absolute aether/firmament from scientific study and replaced it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit. If there is no universal aetheric medium within which all things exist, then philosophically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects (such as the Earth and sun). Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein's theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable.

If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!

I'd like to know if we're really being subject to all those forces/motions, then why hasn't anyone in all of history ever felt it? How is it that all the centrifugal, gravitational, inertial and kinematic forces somehow cancel each other out perfectly so that no one has ever felt the slightest bit of motion or resistance? Why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?

"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun ... or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy ... or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"

Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; ...that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling "knowledge" today...all of it... is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #162 on: December 02, 2014, 07:12:57 AM »
tl;dr

Direct observation from space has confirmed that the Earth is round and rotates, so except for cries of "conspiracy!" You are utterly incorrect.

Now perhaps you could take rottingroom's advice and stop piling on arguments in a shotgun debating approach and directly address the rebuttals made to your contentions?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #163 on: December 02, 2014, 07:20:15 AM »
Look we've gone through 9 pages of the same thing over and over again and it is getting boring. You present an argument, we rebuttal it to satisfaction and you drop the argument and move onto the next one. If you drop your claims then that can be taken as nothing more than concession. Frankly, it's our turn so let's start with the suns size not changing as it necessarily would if it was as close as you claim, if you can explain that away to our satisfaction then we will concede and present a new argument, fair? So explain yourself and stop pasting stuff from the nooks and cranny's of geocentric websites around the net.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 07:37:13 AM by rottingroom »

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #164 on: December 02, 2014, 07:50:00 AM »
Let's summarize our ZIGZAG argument:

1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day,

We don't observe this casually because it's small and difficult to measure, but it's there. Perhaps your notion that the Sun is close is wrong.

Quote
and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner,

This we do see if you're not right at the pole. It's very apparent when you're more than a few degrees from it.

Quote
we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

One effect is very tiny. It's difficult to see, but there, even though the other is obvious.

Quote
2. If the Sun were 150 000 000 km away from us, and if the Earth rotated on it's axis, despite the Earth's rotation we wouldn't be able to notice any apparent motion of the Sun,

What? Regardless of how far something is, if you turn away from it you won't see it any more because it's "moved" out of your field of view (of course it's your FOV that actually moved, but the effect is the same - that's why it's called "apparent" motion). If it's far away, walking left or right while facing it won't have much effect - or any effect you can detect if it's far enough.

Quote
and that goes much more for the Stars which are allegedly much, much, much more distant from us than the Sun allegedly is...

See above.

Quote
When we take into account assumptions about the enormous alleged distances of the Sun and of the Stars we have to come to this conclusion:

If these astronomical distances were true, we would see in the sky frozen picture of the distant stars, and of the Sun, there would be no apparent motions of a distant celestial objects, at all, although we would keep rotate on our "1 mm" "giant" wheel!

No, this would happen if the Earth weren't rotating. But it is, so the stars appear to move across the sky as the night progresses; they appear to move across our FOV because our FOV is rotating, and their distance doesn't matter.

Quote
How intuitive is this picture to you?

A rotating spherical earth is very intuitive. Flat, fixed earth, not so much.

Quote
It is hard to imagine it, ain't it?

But, as i said, if you want to think consistently, you have to start to think from the scratch!

There's nothing at all wrong with starting from basic principles. If your thinking takes you to conclusions vastly different from what is known to work, you might want to double check what got you there. If it checks out, and your new model explains what we already observe, and makes predictions about what we should be able to observe, then publish that paper and be prepared to defend it.

Your model, a nearby small sun and all the stars circling a fixed flat earth, however, fails that first test (explaining what we do see) in several ways:

What makes the Sun appear to rise and set? Why isn't it visible from everywhere on earth all the time?

How do southern circumpolar stars work?

Why does the acceleration of gravity at the surface decrease as you approach the equator and increase as you approach either pole?

Why do Foucault Pendulums precess in opposite directions north and south of the equator?

It predicts at least one obvious phenomenon we don't see:

The distance from sun to observer would change by a factor of three, in six hours, in some situations. How come it the Sun doesn't appear significantly larger at noon than at sunrise and sunset? Why doesn't it appear to change size noticeably as you travel north or south of it?

Quote
Here is described very similar fantastic hypothetical conclusion in the context of one another problem:

"Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky."


<link>

Would you please cite the source when you include quotes from elsewhere? At any rate, there's no evidence that I know of to suggest the premise "every object we see has an object behind it or near it" is correct. "every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us", if I understand what they're trying to say, is simply not correct.

Where did you read this?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #165 on: December 02, 2014, 07:54:00 AM »
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #166 on: December 02, 2014, 08:21:36 AM »
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...

Do you want us to take this comment seriously?

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #167 on: December 02, 2014, 08:27:21 AM »
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...

The amount of ignorance in one small paragraph...

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #168 on: December 02, 2014, 11:30:01 AM »
All the theories collapse when you cannot see the sun and the stars in outer space : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #169 on: December 02, 2014, 11:47:39 AM »
All the theories collapse when you cannot see the sun and the stars in outer space : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Why do you buy into his claim that the sun cannot be seen from space? He says the moon can but not the sun but how can that be if we assume what he is saying about light not traveling through space to be true?

You know what forget that. Address our arguments!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 02:38:23 PM by rottingroom »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #170 on: December 02, 2014, 02:57:01 PM »
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...
Your ignorance is not evidence for your argument.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #171 on: December 02, 2014, 05:29:14 PM »
The Sun is not a solid celestial object, have you forgot it again? Don't you know that you cannot see the sun and the stars in free space? If the sun and the stars are solid celestial objects, we should be able to see them in free space. Nobody knows how sun really works.. It's just a surface, a converter of energy from another dimension (counter space)...

Do you want us to take this comment seriously?

Would this be implying that the Hubble Telescope and all its pictures are fakes ?
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #172 on: December 02, 2014, 09:04:24 PM »
The Sun is not a solid celestial object [...]

Like many flat earthers, you make these claims based on a total lack of first-hand evidence.  Have you ever been to the surface of the sun to see its composition with your own eyes, or do you know of anybody who has?  Can you cite from your Flat Earth Wiki wherein it supports your claim that the sun is not solid?  I couldn't find any reference in your Wiki to the sun's composition.

Or are you simply relying on the research and the word of round earth scientists?  You refute the results of their work on the majority of other astrophysical phenomena—why do you accept their word about the sun without question?

In short, please prove that the sun is not solid.


*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #173 on: December 03, 2014, 04:19:09 AM »
Quote
1. If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!

One effect is very tiny. It's difficult to see, but there, even though the other is obvious.

Really now?

Because you asked for it:



So, if the Earth were round and tilted 23,5 degree, the ratio between "Sun's up & down" motion AND "Sun's Zigging & Zagging" would be 1 : 3,8. Here we don't take into account the distances, but if we took into account the HC alleged distances, then there would be no Zigging & Zagging, but there would be no Up & Down Sun's apparent motions also!!!

So, you basically take into account HC distances to discard Zigging & Zagging, and when you have to explain away obvious observable phenomena (Sun's everyday Up & Down motion) then you don't take into account HC distances, ha?

Who do you think you are fooling?

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #174 on: December 03, 2014, 04:38:51 AM »


So, if the Earth were round and tilted 23,5 degree, the ratio between "Sun's up & down" motion AND "Sun's Zigging & Zagging" would be 1 : 3,8. Here we don't take into account the distances, but if we took into account the HC alleged distances, then there would be no Zigging & Zagging, but there would be no Up & Down Sun's apparent motions also!!!

So, you basically take into account HC distances to discard Zigging & Zagging, and when you have to explain away obvious observable phenomena (Sun's everyday Up & Down motion) then you don't take into account HC distances, ha?

Who do you think you are fooling?

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)

Left and right zig zagging as you call it: it's there but like I said, utterly slight

Up and down tilting: angle changes so that there is a new FOV.

Rotation: angle changes so that there is a new FOV.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #175 on: December 03, 2014, 04:45:14 AM »
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #176 on: December 03, 2014, 04:56:22 AM »
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?

Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #177 on: December 03, 2014, 04:57:58 AM »

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)

So by default, you're admitting that you do accept the word of round earth scientists that the sun is not solid?

I'd say I've proved my point that flat earthers are very selective when it comes to accepting the theories of round earth scientists—or rejecting them to suit their argument on the day.  Which is simply because their is no such person as a flat earth scientist.  Every scientist in the world—all 6 million of them—accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

And I challenge you to name one single accredited contemporary scientist that accepts the flat earth model.  But I'm betting my left testicle you won't be able to.

—Prove me wrong.  If you can.  And I'll even supply the bolt cutters.   ;D

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #178 on: December 03, 2014, 05:00:05 AM »

@ ausGeoff, had you ever written something wise and sane, i could/would have quote you also, despite the fact that you are REr.  ;)

So by default, you're admitting that you do accept the word of round earth scientists that the sun is not solid?

I'd say I've proved my point that flat earthers are very selective when it comes to accepting the theories of round earth scientists—or rejecting them to suit their argument on the day.  Which is simply because their is no such person as a flat earth scientist.  Every scientist in the world—all 6 million of them—accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

And I challenge you to name one single accredited contemporary scientist that accepts the flat earth model.  But I'm betting my left testicle you won't be able to.

—Prove me wrong.  If you can.  And I'll even supply the bolt cutters.   ;D

Oh boy, here we go again. What makes you think this is an effective argument? A conspiracy suggests a lack of FE scientists, so what is your point?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 05:02:50 AM by rottingroom »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #179 on: December 03, 2014, 05:10:59 AM »
By the way, I've asked you several times to answer our questions, seeing as how we've been polite enough to answer yours. These are the types of questions I'm speaking of:


Your model, a nearby small sun and all the stars circling a fixed flat earth, however, fails that first test (explaining what we do see) in several ways:

What makes the Sun appear to rise and set? Why isn't it visible from everywhere on earth all the time?

How do southern circumpolar stars work?

Why does the acceleration of gravity at the surface decrease as you approach the equator and increase as you approach either pole?

Why do Foucault Pendulums precess in opposite directions north and south of the equator?

It predicts at least one obvious phenomenon we don't see:

The distance from sun to observer would change by a factor of three, in six hours, in some situations. How come it the Sun doesn't appear significantly larger at noon than at sunrise and sunset? Why doesn't it appear to change size noticeably as you travel north or south of it?


Radio silence?