GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

  • 1592 Replies
  • 596295 Views
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #240 on: December 06, 2014, 08:18:56 AM »
Here it is again to jog your memory.

Quote
Observe the following image:



In this image a sun ray is depicted touching the tops and bottoms of each earth as each earth is represented to get further and further away from the sun. Notice what happens to those sun rays as earth gets further away. The angle (represented by an orange arc to the left of each earth) gets smaller and smaller.

So how small is this angle (in the above image we are talking about the difference in rays between 2 spots that are the entire earth diameter from each other) when the sun is 93 million miles from the earth?

Well let's take a look at this image to get some sense of the scale:



This image utilizes black space to give a sense of the scale but instead of using 100's of rows of black space, it just shows how much a moon unit is (distance from earth to moon) and then mentions that you 395 moon units to get to the sun.

With the information we have, let's determine what the difference in angle is between two sun rays (depicted by orange lines) that are an earths diameter apart:



Let 2Θ be the angle difference between two rays an earths diameter apart. 2Θ will need to be divided by 2 because we need a right angle to do the trig so we have cut earth in half to get a right angle.

Earths radius = diameter of earth / 2 = 3959 miles
Earth to sun distance = 93,000,000 miles

Use this calculator: http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp

Θ = angle showing difference in rays between top of earth and center of earth = 0.002439°
2Θ = angle showing difference in rays between of earth and bottom = 0.004878°

So between the top of earth and the bottom of earth there is a .004878° difference in the angle of sun rays. That's about 1/200 of a degree and that's utilizing the whole expanse of the earth!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 08:24:05 AM by rottingroom »

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #241 on: December 06, 2014, 08:33:24 AM »
CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.

My "reasoning" (within a quotes) ? Well, let's see whose "reasoning" should be put within a quotes:

Yeah, that was an unnecessary "dig". Apologies. I see you did get the meaning, though.

Quote
Split the (UNTILTED) globe into two halves through any meridional line, direct a source of light directly towards the tropic of capricorn (or the tropic of cancer), and watch the curve of a meridional line that separates day and night.

Now, answer me, if this curve of a meridional line that separates day and night isn't and cannot be placed more than 1 hour (AT BEST) from the meridional line which separates globe into two halves (180 degrees), how then we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 N (London)?

If the Earth were round, at the best case scenario, London could have 14 hours of daylight, although this is too generous proposition, but not 16,5 hours of daylight!!!

So if the Sun hung around one half of the globe 14 hours, how much time would left for the Sun to travell around other half (180 degree) of a globe?

Just 10 hours?

Well, that's just not enough time, don't you think so?

Watch this:



Blue line separates globe into two halves

Green line follows the curve that separates day and night

In the first example (above) a source of light hasn't been directed correctly (directly) towards the tropic of capricorn, so that we had to corrected this in the second example (below)...

Thank you for the clear explanation and figures.

The error you make is that the light source is way too close to make this a valid model. It looks to be about 2 globe diameters from the center of the globe instead of the more realistic 11,000. Because of this, significantly less than half the globe is illuminated. rottingroom's illustration shows why.

Quote

Quote
Had he had the slightest doubt as to the earth's rotundity, and therefore as to the true bearing of the sun at midnight, he would have been able to decide it by a very simple experiment; it is evident that in the daytime the sun would move across the firmament from his right hand to his left, and, keeping himself in the same position, he would see it in the night moving from his left to his right.
Quote
What do you mean here? Do you mean if he was still facing north, the Sun (behind him) would move from his left to right? OK, but if that's the case he couldn't see it because it's behind his back. If he turns around to face the sun, as you describe below, it continues to circle right to left.
I've noticed that you seem completely baffled by some of the simplest things

Often it's because of unclear and inconsistent writing. Is my interpretation above correct, or did you mean something else? If the latter, what?

Well, doesn't an english your native tongue, how come that you ask of me to interpret Rowbotham's words to you? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Because Rowbotham obfuscates what he's saying to fool uneducated people - that is, he makes it as difficult to understand as he can get away with.The highlighted part of the quoted passage, especially the underlined part, is unclear. You're the one presenting the argument here, so what is it that you think he means?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #242 on: December 06, 2014, 10:20:33 AM »
Do you want to claim that Sun's rays can illuminate more than a half of the Earth at once, whether the Earth is tilted or not?

Regarding parallel rays of the Sun, if i were you, i wouldn't call on that stupid argument : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639427#msg1639427

"RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

HOWEVER, SAME SCENARIO, LET'S CALL IT "FET - ZIGZAG - ANTARCTIC SCENARIO" (described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe") IS A NECESSITY ON THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND!

So, why there is nowhere to be seen such a video record (ANTARCTIC MIDNIHGT SUN VIDEO)???

Rowbotham actually describes ANTARCTIC ZIGZAG SCENARIO! Describing this scenario Rowbotham corroborates the trueness of my ZIGZAG argument, that is to say, on the round Earth we should witness to this scenario at the Arctic as well as at the Antarctic, only at the Antarctic the Sun's path would be directed in the opposite direction!

On the Flat Earth ZIGZAG scenario would be impossible at the Arctic, but it would be necessary scenario at the Antarctic!

A reminder (ZIGZAG scenario) : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762

Flat Earth and the suns perspective, an artist perspective : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #243 on: December 06, 2014, 10:29:57 AM »
Parallel rays explain why half the earth is lit up. We are not claiming that more than half of it is lit up and if the earth wasn't tilted then a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth except for precisely the north and south pole but because it is tilted a location like London spends more time on the day time side than its night time side during the summer because the arc that it travels during this time of year is a longer length on that day time side than the night time side.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #244 on: December 06, 2014, 10:41:48 AM »
 cikljamas said:
Quote
       CONCLUSION:

        IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

Alpha2Omega said :
Quote
I don't see how that follows, but it's moot anyway.

Parallel rays explain why half the earth is lit up. We are not claiming that more than half of it is lit up and if the earth wasn't tilted then a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth except for precisely the north and south pole but because it is tilted a location like London spends more time on the day time side than its night time side during the summer because the arc that it travels during this time of year is a longer length on that day time side than the night time side.

So, Alpha2Omega, do you see now, how it follows?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 10:43:28 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #245 on: December 06, 2014, 10:59:34 AM »
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #246 on: December 06, 2014, 01:00:33 PM »
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #247 on: December 06, 2014, 01:34:32 PM »
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?

Turtles all the way down.

?

Saros

  • 403
  • +0/-0
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #248 on: December 06, 2014, 02:22:38 PM »
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.

Was it done by science though? Have they really used all parts of the model in real proportions to test it? I don't think so. What Cikljamas is saying is valid and meaningful and obviously you're helpless to deny it.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #249 on: December 06, 2014, 02:30:49 PM »
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?

Turtles all the way down.

I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this i would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed?

Now, let's see this wonderful example of human stupidity/ignorance:

Quote
No  scientific  evidence  can  show  that something is logically impossible, since logical impossibility is concerned only with self-contradictory  statements  (like  «he's  a married  bachelor») rather than with nature (like «DNA is usually a double helix»). For example, geocentrism isn't logically impossible—it's just wrong. No scientific theory has ever had to, or ever could, rule out rival explanations by showing them to be  logically  impossible, and neither must  intelligent design. Scientific theories succeed simply by explaining the data better than rival theories.

My answer to the above stupidity is as follows:

1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.

2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.

3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!

4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!

5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!

6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!

7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.

8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!

9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!

It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #250 on: December 06, 2014, 02:40:19 PM »
If you want to make an argument against RET or HC then the model that you demonstrate needs to contain all the parts of the model. Not just the parts that convenience your counter-claim. I hope you understand this.

Was it done by science though? Have they really used all parts of the model in real proportions to test it? I don't think so. What Cikljamas is saying is valid and meaningful and obviously you're helpless to deny it.

There are tons of interactive models available that you can use to see for yourself. Cikljamas didn't make a good point at all. He had the sun coming from a tiny little light shining on an earth 100's of time larger than the light and then put the source of that light many 1000's of times closer to the earth than the model states.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 04:28:10 PM by rottingroom »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #251 on: December 06, 2014, 02:57:58 PM »
I don't know what to say to you cikljamas. You insist that no proof exists for rotation or revolution and all the experiments seem to show the exact opposite of your interpretation. It doesn't matter how much you cover your eyes and ears.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 07:45:12 PM by rottingroom »

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #252 on: December 06, 2014, 07:15:56 PM »
Why would it necessarily mean the earth is flat? There are many other possibilities. Besides, you've not proven that there isn't a tilt anyway.

Could you specify at least one such possibility?

Turtles all the way down.

I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this i would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed?
I don't agree the Pole Star is fixed. It traces a small circle about 1.5° in diameter in the sky every 24 hours. It's close to our axis of rotation, but not exactly on it. Even if it happened to be exactly on it, that would be only a coincidence, and would slowly (on human terms) drift away due to precession. It's useful as a guide toward true north, but not good enough to align a telescope mount to for even moderately sensitive uses like amateur deep-space astrophotography.
Quote
Now, let's see this wonderful example of human stupidity/ignorance:

Quote
No  scientific  evidence  can  show  that something is logically impossible, since logical impossibility is concerned only with self-contradictory  statements  (like  «he's  a married  bachelor») rather than with nature (like «DNA is usually a double helix»). For example, geocentrism isn't logically impossible—it's just wrong. No scientific theory has ever had to, or ever could, rule out rival explanations by showing them to be  logically  impossible, and neither must  intelligent design. Scientific theories succeed simply by explaining the data better than rival theories.
Science can't prove a model to be correct; we've been over this before. Science can, however, demonstrate flaws with models which show them to be unsound by showing how they cannot represent known conditions. For instance: a relatively small sun orbiting in a circle around the center of a disc-shaped earth a few thousand miles above the disc. This is not a viable model for the solar system. Why? Because it doesn't even roughly represent what we actually see day in and day out. This model will not have sunrises or sunsets which we do see, and would cause a change of the apparent size and appearance of the Sun through the day that we don't see. It fails to explain simple, routine observations at even the grossest scale

A spherical earth spinning once per day in a slightly elliptical orbit around a large, distant sun once per year explains most of what we routinely observe to high accuracy. Most of the rest of the finer details are addressed by the presence of an atmosphere (we know it's there), slight variation from a true sphere (very small errors), etc.

If you've actually got a workable model, please show us.

Quote
My answer to the above stupidity is as follows:

1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.

2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.

3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!

Remember what we already discussed about proving things? So where's your model? I challenge you to prove it's true, or even have it explain what we already see. Surprise us.

Quote
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
Nope. There is enough evidence for revolution and rotation to accept it as given. This premise is reliable enough that it is simply accepted as fact; it it weren't reliable, it would be heavily questioned, but reliance on this premise never fails. Failure to 'prove' the Earth is rotating (this isn't possible, anyway) certainly does not mean that it isn't rotating.
Quote
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
"Very serious scientific experiments" are designed to test theories and gather data. If the experiments produce results contrary to the theory, they cast doubt on it; too much of this and the theory will be replaced with one that better explains the observations. If they produce results in accordance to the theory, the theory is still not "proved", only supported.
Quote
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
This is a tautology. If there's no rotation, there's no axis of rotation. If there's no axis of rotation, there can be no tilted axis of rotation. Duh!
Quote
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
This does not necessarily follow. Since we're heavily invested in 'ifs', what if there's a non-rotating planet that has a sun circling in a plane that doesn't pass through the center of the planet? It's spherical, but has different lengths of day at different places. This also begs the question: if the planet isn't rotating, what is the meaning of 'latitude', anyway? Latitude (on our rotating earth) is the complement of angular distance from the axis of rotation. No axis, latitude has no meaning.
Quote
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
Restating the false assertion above doesn't make it true.
Quote
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
Nope. You've outlined a bunch of hypothetical situations, many of which are demonstrably false. The ones that depend on the falsified ones are also false. How many times does the word 'if' appear in your statements above?
Quote
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
It's a scientific fact that points on a rotating body are being accelerated, which causes a force to be exerted on their masses. What are the accelerations associated with 1) the rotation of the Earth about its axis, 2) the revolution of the Earth about the Sun, and 3) the revolution of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy? If you can calculate these (they can be calculated, but I'm not at all sure you know how to), then express the forces due to these accelerations exerted on, say, a cube of the common mineral quartz (density = 2.71 gm/cm3) 1 cm on a side at the surface of the Earth on the equator. What is the net force between adjacent 1-cm cubes due to these accelerations (this is what will try to tear them apart)? If you don't know what these numbers are, or what they mean, then why the Hell are you asserting that the Earth should "rent to smithereens"? You're simply throwing impressive-sounding numbers out without a clue what they mean and how they apply.
Quote
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #253 on: December 06, 2014, 07:50:50 PM »
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?

Quote
and your explanation is wrong!
No, your explanation is wrong, and your diagram is wrong too. 

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #254 on: December 07, 2014, 05:07:08 AM »
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?

1. For that latitude, the Sun is too high in the sky!

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

2. On the other hand, had this video been shot so far away from South Pole, then we would have to be(en) able to see at least so much degrees of oscillations (Up & Down) of the Sun's path in the sky as we can see it in Arctic midnight Sun videos...

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

3. As long as the Sun is in the frame there are no Up & Down oscillations, whatsoever!

4. Had this video been taken so far away from South Pole why they have named it "South Pole Time Lapse"?

5. Don't you know that there is no "South Pole" whatsoever?

6. If you missed this video before, you can click it now, FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION VIDEO, you can find it in this post of mine : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239


" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.

You must have missed this:

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".

Estimates of the number of people present range from between 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra, both of whom were present on that day.

The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917, 19 August, and 13 September. The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."

Marchi reports that, "[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but none to our knowledge has directly denied the visible prodigy of the sun."

Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi's several books on the matter.

    "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."Avelino de Almeida, writing for O Século
    O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.

    "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat."Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.

    "...The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds... The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands... people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.

    "The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible."Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.

    "As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.

    "I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment." — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.

    "On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda..." — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.

According to De Marchi, "Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses."



The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima October 13, 1917 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Fatima. Excellent clip : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
   Medjugorje - Milagre do Sol | Medjugorje Brasil : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
         Medjugorje - Miracle of the Sun - May 2010 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Dancing Sun Miracle - Divine Mercy Hills, Philippines : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> MUST SEE!!!
      The Sun is not a Nuclear furnace raging at millions of degrees. It is Electric and Cold! : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #255 on: December 07, 2014, 05:38:14 AM »
It's really not a difficult question. How does the sun rise (top first) or set (bottom first) and behind the horizon in a flat earth model? Why do you keep avoiding this very basic question?

Just imagine you live in a world where everyone thinks the earth is flat and you are walking on a beach with your 5 year old son and he asks, "dad, why does the sun go down?" What do you say to him? Would you talk to him about anecdotes from witness' who reported seeing a zigging and zagging sun at Fatima in 1917 or would you just explain simply, how this works?

For instance, I would say, "because the earth is turning (remember, talking to a 5 year old) the sun looks like it goes up and down, but from where we can see the sun we are simply turning toward the sun in the morning and turning away from it at night."
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 02:55:38 PM by rottingroom »

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #256 on: December 07, 2014, 12:54:41 PM »
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.

You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #257 on: December 07, 2014, 12:57:49 PM »
So, have we got to the bottom of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY yet?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #258 on: December 07, 2014, 07:48:57 PM »
@ 29Silhouette, that video is a hoax,
why do you think so?

1. For that latitude, the Sun is too high in the sky!

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

2. On the other hand, had this video been shot so far away from South Pole, then we would have to be(en) able to see at least so much degrees of oscillations (Up & Down) of the Sun's path in the sky as we can see it in Arctic midnight Sun videos...

Compare it with Arctic midnight Sun videos...

3. As long as the Sun is in the frame there are no Up & Down oscillations, whatsoever!

4. Had this video been taken so far away from South Pole why they have named it "South Pole Time Lapse"?

5. Don't you know that there is no "South Pole" whatsoever?

6. If you missed this video before, you can click it now, FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION VIDEO, you can find it in this post of mine : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1640239#msg1640239

1.  It's the south pole.  Shot during summer at that location, the sun would be above the horizon the entire day, just like north pole videos shot in the summer there.

2.  It was shot at AASTO, a few hundred meters from the geographic south pole.  The video/timelapse only shows a small section of it's path.

3.  Lens flare makes it too hard to tell one way or the other.

4.  Where do you think it was taken from?

5.  Why?  Because you said so?  Even something as simple as long-exposure photography says otherwise.

6.  A video pointing to your own post on energeticforums and a couple sites using explanations the producer of the video says are just too confusing.  Well done.  A lack of understanding about something doesn't constitute proof for others.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #259 on: December 07, 2014, 08:11:57 PM »
So, have we got to the bottom of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY yet?
Yes we are getting to the bottom of it. You will never believe it unless you research it yourself. Conspiracy is truly massive You probably won't believe , even if you check into it.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #260 on: December 08, 2014, 06:25:22 AM »

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling". [...]
   

For an unequivocal debunking of the The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima myth, see THIS site.

"There are many factors that prevent us drawing the simple conclusion that a divinely-inspired miracle took place.  Firstly, there were many representatives of the press present at the Cova, both journalists and photographers. There are many photographs of the crowd witnessing the vision; but in spite of the presence of cameras there is no photograph of the event that is even vaguely authentic.

What were the photographers doing?  How could anyone miss a scoop like that?  Secondly, it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle.  Thirdly, the accounts of the miracle, of the 'dance of the sun,' are simply not consistent... these contradictions must raise some doubts as to the objective nature of what was seen." (Pg. 78-79, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure, Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985)."




One photographer didn’t see much when he was so interested in photographing the people!
This photograph plainly shows some people were looking at the sun during the "miracle".
Others were completely disinterested because nothing was happening.



 

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #261 on: December 08, 2014, 09:07:25 AM »
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.



If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article  on  “Perspective, true and false", and  note especially  rule  5 (see below) there  given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining  the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena  something like what  is there depicted. A represents the position of the  observer, C the sun’s position at  X I I . noon, and the line  C  F  the  “elevation” of about  one-fourth of its daily  path. At  1-30  p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle  A  B  an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At  III.  p.m. the sun arrives at E,  making the angle e  A  B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At  VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its  rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at  the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner. 

The Rules of a True perspective:

(1).  All  parallel  lines,  like  those  of  a  railway,  seem  to approach,  and  finally  to meet  in  the  distance.

(2).  Straight  lines above  the eye of  the  spectator  appear  to descend  to  the  eye-line.

(3).  The  horizontal,  or  eye-line,  is  a  straight  line on  a  level with  the  eye,  at  whatever  elevation  the  spectator may  be.

(4).  Lines,  or  objects,  below  the  eye-line,  remaining  at  the same  level,  seem  to  rise  as  they  recede,  until  they vanish  in  the  eye-line.

(5).  Similarly,  lines  or  objects  above  the  height  of  the spectator,  and  maintaining  a  constant  altitude, appear  to descend until  they  are  lost  in  the  eye-line.

(6).  Objects,  or  lines,  do  not  all  vanish  at  the  same  point in  the  horizontal  line,  but  the  nearer  they  are  to that  line  the  sooner  they  vanish in  it,  because of  the smaller  angle  they  make  with  it.

(7).  The  distant  horizon  being  always  on  a  level  with  the eye,  whatever  be  the  altitude  of  the  observer,  it seems  to  rise,  or  to  fall,  with  the  observer  ;  but  he never  has  occasion  to  depress  his  vision  to  look downwards  towards  it,  nor  upwards!



In the previous chapter, it was  shewn how, by perspective alone,  the  sun  appears  to  descend  almost  to  the  horizon, although  remaining  that  day  at  its  average  altitude  of between  two  and  three  thousand miles.  In  above diagram  we made  no  allowance  for  refraction,  which  would  have  still further  reduced  each  of  the  angles,  and  especially  the  lower ones.  Diagram  23  supphes  the  omission,  and  illustrates how  the  sun  descends  to  and  disappears  on  the  distant horizon. Light  is  a  very  subtle  force,  and  one  of  the  most  easily refracted  from  the  rectilinear  ;  but  like  all  other  forces,  it takes  the  line  of  least  resistance,  whether  in  a  curve  or  in  a line  practically  straight. Its  undulations  falling  from  above  on  to  the  atmosphere are  refracted,  or reflected,  more  and  more  according  to  the angle  at  which  they  strike,  and  the  density  of  the  media through which  they  pass.  We  need  not  here  enter  into the unsettled  question  of  the  density  of  the  luminiferous  ether, especially  as  optical  density  is  not  always  the  same  as physical  density.

A  straight  rod,  when  dipped  into  water,  appears  suddenly bent  to  an  outsider  above  that  element  ;  but  in  judging  the refraction  of  the  sun’s  rays  we  need  to  remember  that  we are inside  the refracting element  and one which has a varying density. Hence  those  rays  of  the  sun  which  strike  the  atmosphere very  obliquely,  as  from  F  to  g,  instead  of  proceeding  in  a straight  line  to  the  earth’s  surface  below  h,  take  the  line  of least  resistance  and  proceed  towards  the  spectator  at  A. Now  an  observer  always  sees  an  object  in  the  direction  of the  rays  entering  the  eye  ;  therefore  the  observer  at  A  will see  the  sun’s  image  in  the  direction  of  the  line  A  h f,  setting The  sun’s  rays  can  be  entirely  cut  off  from  a  spectator  at the  sea-level,  as  at  A,  while  its  reflected  light  can  still  be seen  by  observers  in  higher  altitudes,  from  a  high  balloon or  from  the  top  of  a mountain.  There  is  an  angle  of  total reflection  where  the  light,  being  reflected  upwards  off  the denser  atmosphere,  does  not  penetrate  to  the  surface  of  the earth,  as along the lines F k n. 

A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the  smooth  surface  of  a  lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish  far below,  and leap upwards again and again before  sinking  by  its  own  weight.'  And as the sun’s  lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total  reflection  it is  naturally  first  cut  off.

@ ausGeoff, something for you : In short about the Miracles of the Sun : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #262 on: December 08, 2014, 10:58:03 AM »
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Declare without evidence all you want. It shows you're not interested in Truth. You're seeking affirmation of a theory that doesn't meet the "eye test". How do sunrises and sunsets work in your model again? I must have missed that.
You must have missed this:

<religious stuff and reports of people seeing things after staring at the sun for a while>

I didn't see anything in there about sunrise of sunset in a flat-earth model. Any ideas about that? Other than something like "God makes the Sun rise and set", I mean, because that's not particularly useful since it can't be tested and makes no useful predictions like where on the horizon and what time the Sun will set on a given day.



If the sun keeps at the same general height in its journey over the plane earth, why does it appear to go down and set? The student should again read the article  on  “Perspective, true and false", and  note especially  rule  5 (see below) there  given. A balloon sailing away high above an observer appears to descend as it recedes,although retaining  the same altitude. Referring to the above Fig., an observer sitting inside a greenhouse, or conservatory, with a curved glass window, will see phenomena  something like what  is there depicted. A represents the position of the  observer, C the sun’s position at  X I I . noon, and the line  C  F  the  “elevation” of about  one-fourth of its daily  path. At  1-30  p.m. the sun arrives at D, making the angle  A  B  an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At  III.  p.m. the sun arrives at E,  making the angle e  A  B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At  VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its  rays drops to about 22°, and sometimes to only 18°.Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at  the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner. 

The Rules of a True perspective:

(1).  All  parallel  lines,  like  those  of  a  railway,  seem  to approach,  and  finally  to meet  in  the  distance.

(2).  Straight  lines above  the eye of  the  spectator  appear  to descend  to  the  eye-line.

(3).  The  horizontal,  or  eye-line,  is  a  straight  line on  a  level with  the  eye,  at  whatever  elevation  the  spectator may  be.

(4).  Lines,  or  objects,  below  the  eye-line,  remaining  at  the same  level,  seem  to  rise  as  they  recede,  until  they vanish  in  the  eye-line.

(5).  Similarly,  lines  or  objects  above  the  height  of  the spectator,  and  maintaining  a  constant  altitude, appear  to descend until  they  are  lost  in  the  eye-line.

(6).  Objects,  or  lines,  do  not  all  vanish  at  the  same  point in  the  horizontal  line,  but  the  nearer  they  are  to that  line  the  sooner  they  vanish in  it,  because of  the smaller  angle  they  make  with  it.

(7).  The  distant  horizon  being  always  on  a  level  with  the eye,  whatever  be  the  altitude  of  the  observer,  it seems  to  rise,  or  to  fall,  with  the  observer  ;  but  he never  has  occasion  to  depress  his  vision  to  look downwards  towards  it,  nor  upwards!



In the previous chapter, it was  shewn how, by perspective alone,  the  sun  appears  to  descend  almost  to  the  horizon, although  remaining  that  day  at  its  average  altitude  of between  two  and  three  thousand miles.  In  above diagram  we made  no  allowance  for  refraction,  which  would  have  still further  reduced  each  of  the  angles,  and  especially  the  lower ones.  Diagram  23  supphes  the  omission,  and  illustrates how  the  sun  descends  to  and  disappears  on  the  distant horizon. Light  is  a  very  subtle  force,  and  one  of  the  most  easily refracted  from  the  rectilinear  ;  but  like  all  other  forces,  it takes  the  line  of  least  resistance,  whether  in  a  curve  or  in  a line  practically  straight. Its  undulations  falling  from  above  on  to  the  atmosphere are  refracted,  or reflected,  more  and  more  according  to  the angle  at  which  they  strike,  and  the  density  of  the  media through which  they  pass.  We  need  not  here  enter  into the unsettled  question  of  the  density  of  the  luminiferous  ether, especially  as  optical  density  is  not  always  the  same  as physical  density.

A  straight  rod,  when  dipped  into  water,  appears  suddenly bent  to  an  outsider  above  that  element  ;  but  in  judging  the refraction  of  the  sun’s  rays  we  need  to  remember  that  we are inside  the refracting element  and one which has a varying density. Hence  those  rays  of  the  sun  which  strike  the  atmosphere very  obliquely,  as  from  F  to  g,  instead  of  proceeding  in  a straight  line  to  the  earth’s  surface  below  h,  take  the  line  of least  resistance  and  proceed  towards  the  spectator  at  A. Now  an  observer  always  sees  an  object  in  the  direction  of the  rays  entering  the  eye  ;  therefore  the  observer  at  A  will see  the  sun’s  image  in  the  direction  of  the  line  A  h f,  setting The  sun’s  rays  can  be  entirely  cut  off  from  a  spectator  at the  sea-level,  as  at  A,  while  its  reflected  light  can  still  be seen  by  observers  in  higher  altitudes,  from  a  high  balloon or  from  the  top  of  a mountain.  There  is  an  angle  of  total reflection  where  the  light,  being  reflected  upwards  off  the denser  atmosphere,  does  not  penetrate  to  the  surface  of  the earth,  as along the lines F k n. 

A flat stone thrown obliquely on to the  smooth  surface  of  a  lake, may strike the water unseen by a fish  far below,  and leap upwards again and again before  sinking  by  its  own  weight.'  And as the sun’s  lower limb is the first to arrive at the angle of total  reflection  it is  naturally  first  cut  off.

@ ausGeoff, something for you : In short about the Miracles of the Sun : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #263 on: December 08, 2014, 11:51:42 AM »
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 11:54:31 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #264 on: December 08, 2014, 12:07:46 PM »
You do know that things seem to get smaller as they get further away right?

The sun is not a ordinary thing, you should have realized this important fact by now, haven't you?

On top of that:

Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law of gravitation is ; but he himself confessed it was a  “great  absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the  whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

This “absurd” law, or “mysterious power which no man can explain,”  the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “all men are ignorant,”  amounts  therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

But after so many years of  “research” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system.  By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than  by practical experiments?

"Parallax,”  the founder of the Zetetic Society adopted this method, and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of  investigation, we  are tempted  to  ask  "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ?”

If  I  wanted  to ascertain the dimensions of the  floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling? Such observations might  acquaint me  with  the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but  they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor.

Since the theories of Astronomical  “science” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly  expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their  eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them.  These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance.

No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it  has been logically refuted.

The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these "lights.”

All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should we someday find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way we believed,  no Zetetic would be so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane!

Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the “plane earth”  truth , someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level.

The newtonian law of gravity was come up with by observing the motion of the planets and then doing a lot of math.  The law has been proven time and time again by predicting the motion of planets and moons with incredible accuracy.  I am a major space enthuseist and I like to get out my telescope to view planets every once in a while, and they are always exactly where my astronomy app predicts that they will be days before.

Do you not think that the ocean is convex?  Try going to a beach and trying to spot another continent.  The FET explenation for this is that the apparently large waves cover the apparently small terrain, but you are actually taller then the waves and even if there are waves that are tall enough to cover the next continent, you should totally be able to see it from the lifeguard tower.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • +0/-0
  • NASA shill
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #265 on: December 08, 2014, 12:52:20 PM »
As requested:

I recently created an accurate Flat Earth model, using numbers you can check yourself.

http://imgur.com/a/39EgX

The sun never even gets close to the horizon, no matter how far away from it you are. The funny thing is, is that you can't change your model for the sun to be closer, or else its shape woul be greatly distorted (not that it already is in the current FE model).

One other thing you have to take out of this, is that even if the sun got near the horizon in the FE model; it would look like a very flat oval. And of course it doesn't.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #266 on: December 08, 2014, 01:24:07 PM »
Here is an example using some trigonometry with a theoretical location B being 1,000,000 miles away from another location A. Location B would be experiencing a noon sun while Location A is experiencing a sunset. Simple trig showed that even in that extreme case the sun could not meet the horizon. It would still be .17° above the horizon. This is an extreme example to show you how preposterous it is for a sunset to happen on a FE. Even if the Earth is millions of miles in diameter, the sun still never quite reaches the horizon.



Let's try it with a more realistic scenario and put location B on the Tropic of Cancer, which as we know, is the farthest north that a noon sun can be directly overhead and then make location A be the north pole making this scenario a maximum case using the flat earth monopole model. The sun in this case is about 44-45° above the horizon.



Given the above, and knowing that from the north pole the sun is nowhere near 45° above the horizon, it's safe to say the FET is wrong. There is no combination of positive numbers that you could put into the formula above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon unless the sun's height above the earth's surface is zero.

Basically, yes, perspective does mean that the sun goes down in the sky as it gets further from you but there are several unavoidable caveats. The first of which is as I have mentioned, the sun keeps going down but the closer it gets to the horizon the less it goes down. There is no combination of positive numbers for opposite and adjacent sides in the tangent function above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon. Secondly, things do appear smaller as a function of distance. Your implication that it is special is nonsense especially when there is a model that doesn't require magical size properties. Finally, if you do happen to subscribe to the idea that the sun is a flat disk, which I don't think you do, then the sun would appear as a circle only when it is directly above. At all other times it would be an ellipse and this effect would become more dramatics the further away the sun is.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 01:32:34 PM by rottingroom »

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #267 on: December 08, 2014, 01:30:58 PM »
Here is an example using some trigonometry with a theoretical location B being 1,000,000 miles away from another location A. Location B would be experiencing a noon sun while Location A is experiencing a sunset. Simple trig showed that even in that extreme case the sun could not meet the horizon. It would still be .17° above the horizon. This is an extreme example to show you how preposterous it is for a sunset to happen on a FE. Even if the Earth is millions of mikes in diameter, the sun still never quite reaches the horizon.



Let's try it with a more realistic scenario and put location B on the Tropic of Cancer, which as we know, is the farthest north that a noon sun can be directly overhead and then make location A be the north pole making this scenario a maximum case using the flat earth monopole model. The sun in this case is about 44-45° above the horizon.



Given the above, and knowing that from the north pole the sun is nowhere near 45° above the horizon, it's safe to say the FET is wrong. There is no combination of positive numbers that you could put into the formula above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon unless the sun's height above the earth's surface is zero.

Basically, yes, perspective does mean that the sun goes down in the sky as it gets further from you but there are several unavoidable caveats. The first of which is as I have mentioned, the sun keeps going down but the closer it gets to the horizon the less it goes down. There is no combination of positive numbers for opposite and adjacent sides in the tangent function above that will ever allow the sun to meet the horizon. Secondly, things do appear smaller as a function of distance. Your implication that it is special is nonsense especially when there is a model that doesn't require magical size properties. Finally, if you do happen to subscribe to the idea that the sun is a flat disk, which I don't think you do, then the sun would appear as a circle only when it is directly above. At all other times it would be an ellipse and this effect would become more dramatics the further away the sun is.
It's funny how mathematical explenations like this only come from round earthers, which should say something about the flat earthers and their lack of overall reasoning skills.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #268 on: December 08, 2014, 01:34:31 PM »

"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...

I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.

It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."


I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • +0/-0
  • NASA shill
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #269 on: December 08, 2014, 01:42:17 PM »

"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...

I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.

It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."


I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...

Are you now telling us that you no longer believe that the sun is a 32 mile "spotlight" which circles the earth 3000 miles in altitude? Are these projections the new FE stance on the sun?

So you have been cornered with empirical evidence against your original position, and now you change it. Brilliant.

You didn't even respond to rottingroom or my post on sunsets from an hour ago.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.