GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

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

So you just spent the last 14 pages and weeks trying your hardest to mathematically prove the earth is flat when you have no model of your own other than your own guesswork with a confirmation bias. Brilliant x2!

"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...

Please explain how the sun is a source of heat and light and its position as seen from all locations at all times of day works with your theory.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 07, 2014, 12:54:41 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on December 07, 2014, 05:07:08 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 06, 2014, 07:15:56 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on December 06, 2014, 02:30:49 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.

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 ausGoeff to watch, but, fortunately, not me>

Ohboyohboy!!! I was hoping someone would post something like this!

If we accept the above description of what the observer at A sees, let's examine what an observer at B, observing the same sun at the same time from a different place would see.



The illustration has been modified to show the perspective view of the Sun for an observer at point B. From B, the Sun is directly overhead at observer's VI p.m.

At local noon (XII) for observer A, the sun is at position C, directly overhead (90°, according to the drawing). For observer B, it's at c', about 40° up (he's six hours behind, remember - shouldn't that be closer to sunrise, at zero degrees). At observer A's VI p.m. the Sun is directly over the observer at B. This is how we know B is six hours behind A. Recognizing that drawings like this are schematic and can have inaccuracies without really invalidating their basic point, they still have to reflect certain basics to demonstrate their points. The point here is that, from point A, the Sun appears to move  more or less uniformly from C to d to e (C to d is slightly greater than d to e in the same amount of time, but, whatever), meanwhile, from point B, the Sun's apparent motion from c' to d' is clearly less than from d' to e'. e' to f' is far greater than the apparent movement from e to f even though the Sun has moved the same distance from E to F for both. Is this a realistic representation for what we see in real life? No, it isn't.

Further, this still doesn't explain sunsets. The proposition that refraction will lower the apparent sun from f to g is incorrect. Atmospheric refraction makes objects appear higher than they actually are, not lower. Even geometrically, the Sun will never reach the horizon for either viewer unless it could travel infinitely far to the right, but if it could do that, it would be exactly on the horizon for both A and B. But noon for these guys is six hours apart, so shouldn't sunset also be six hours apart? It just doesn't work. Sorry.

cikljamas still won't to cite where this pap comes from, but the writing sounds like Mr. Rowbotham. This diagram disagrees with his "Fig. 64", but I guess consistency is considered a bad thing if you're a "free thinker".

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

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

Thanks for your diagram.  It also proves that it could never be night-time (or completely dark) anywhere on the planet.  Let's see the flat earthers explain away dusk and then total darkness.  If they can that is LOL.

Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

1. Gravitation:

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.”
 
The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times) because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to  gravity which  holds  them  down. They had believed that the  sacrifice is  a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity. That is, the gravitational constant looses as maximum as  0.35% at the Equator where the rigid Earth experiences the highest rotational speed (1670  km/hr). And at the poles, the gravitational constant retains its maximum value where the rotational speed is zero. In their sacrifice, the difference between the maximum gravitational constant g0 and the altered gravitational constant g due to Earth’s rotation, g0 - g is given by:



Here, R is the radius of the latitudinal circle which varies from the maximal value at the equator 6378 km to zero at the poles, and T is the period of rotation equals to 24 hours. At the Equator, g0 - g is equal to 0.034  m/s^2. The maximum loss of the gravitational constant is 0.35  % (0.034/9., at the equator. We shall not recall the  objection  of the good fellows, because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.  The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would
become for the real-change of air pressure  in the  atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the  air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth.  Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge  dynamic pressure.

In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.  The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space.   In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer  layer  than at the surface of  the Earth.   Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers.  These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life. 



The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness. READ MORE : http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html

2. Revolution of The Earth around the Sun:

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

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 the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to the following words :

" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."

To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.

CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE ABOUT THE EQUATION OF TIME ISSUE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435

Long exposure photos of the stars : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641992#msg1641992

3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis:

A) If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?

Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.

If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.

How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???

B) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?

C) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html

D) Observing the sun directly from the north pole the apparent motion of the sun would be straight line for days, and a camera should have to be slightly adjusted every few hours to cancel out scarcelly perceptible effect due to Earth's alleged rotation which speed is practically zero at North Pole.

E) "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! 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! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762

F) If the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036

Download it " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> , turn repeat on, watch and think...

You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:

FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

4. Earth's tilt issue:

If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

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

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

Get it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t

5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis:

If one takes a small tube and points it at Polaris in the northern hemisphere, fixing it to that point, the star remains visible throughout the entire year. This visibility within a small CPVC tube shows that the earth does not travel in a wide circuit around the sun. If this was the case, the star would not always be visible to the naked eye through the tube. If all those stars in time lapse video change position with the supposed rotation of earth, then there should be an even larger deviation in position over the course of one solar orbit. This fact; however, never receives recognition.

Do not say that the polestar stands in a far away position which is why one can see it always. Even though the stars stand all far away, the supposed rotation of the earth still creates moving stars in the sky. If one should see all the stars move during 24 hours, the entire year with a larger orbital circle should do the same thing with the polestar. It does not occur, so the earth possesses geocentricity and planar characteristics...

The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!

Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.

6. Geocentricity without FET:

If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528

CONCLUSION:

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


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."

7. Experiments and examples : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045

So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62246.msg1637548#msg1637548

"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...

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Hello cikljamas, I have read your post about the pillars of FET, and if those are the pillars, I can be sure that it's wrong.  Now watch as I crush those pillars using basic elementary school physics,

1. Gravitation

Physics doesn't have to be what you expected it to be to be true, magnetism can't be explained either.  Also, you claim that gravity is caused by higher air pressure at higher altitudes, but have you been at high altitudes lately?  The air up there is really low pressure.  Is low pressure at high altitudes a conspiracy too?  The layers of the atmosphere that you mentioned make sense on a rotating Earth and Earth's path around the sun is needed to explain seasons and the Earth not crashing into the sun.

2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun

How do you expect that an experiment on Earth would prove that Earth moves?  Even stellar parallax (which has been observed by the way) could also be explained by the Stars moving back and fourth.  All motion is relative, not absolute, so in order to measure velocity you need a frame of reference.  If you use a moving car as your frame of reference, the Earth is moving and the car is stationary.  The experiment that you spoke of actually didn't work because of general relativity, which has already been proven mathematically.

3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis

Different rotational speeds at different longitudes are different when measured in miles per hour, but they are all the same when measured in revolutions per minute.  Earth only rotates half the speed of the hour hand on a clock, which isn't that fast.  Earth's atmosphere also does get effected by the rotation like the Coriallis effect that drives hurricanes and the winds surrounding the poles.

4. Earth's tilt

All effects of our distance to the sun changing like Earth's eliptical orbit and the hemispheres tilting towards and away from the sun are neglegable because of the sun's incredible distance and the normal cause for seasons is so drastic that you don't even notice the other effects.  How the seasons are caused is not because of the changing distance from the sun but the changing angle of the sun relative to the ground.  When the sun hits at a shalower angle, less of it's energy hits the same amount of land as in the summer, so everything is cooler in the winter then in the summer.  This also explains why it is hot at the equator and cold at the poles.

5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis

Have you ever played with a gyroscope?  They are a (quite fun) way to prove that rotating objects are stable and their axis always tends to point in the same direction.  By the way, the fact that some constellations are only visable at certain times of the year from a certain hemisphere is proof of the Earth's orbit around the sun.  The Earth travels in a 93,000,000 mile radius circle around the sun, and that's only 8 light minutes, and in comparison, the closest stars are many light years away.  Stellar parallax has been measured, but it's so tiny that it's imperceptible.

I don't need to go on because this information makes your whole point not valid.

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Yes scepti, it did make me think.  That thinking has led me to the conclusion that flat earthers don't know what they are talking about and are therefore not qualified to call that stuff wrong and propose a whole new model for the universe.  For goodness sake, do some research.

Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.

...

I've truncated your post so that we could highlight anything new that you might have brought up since all you did was rehash the same arguments that were already sufficiently dealt with. I had hoped that you would defend your poor explanation for a sunset but you neither dealt with Jet Fissions diagram, my trigonometry, or Alpha2Omega's dissection of your model. So....

Extend all arguments.

Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.

As soon as he is losing the argument he just spams the thread with copy pasta.

Quote from: sokarul on December 09, 2014, 02:38:27 PM

Protip for cikljamas, your incorrect information and "evidence" will not magically become correct if you post it 30 times.

As soon as he is losing the argument he just spams the thread with copy pasta.

Don't insult us. It didn't take 14 pages for us to get to "as soon as he is losing the argument".

We've already beaten this subject to death. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Even if you think and wish with all your might.

I can't believe how fast you forget things. You even refer back to the discussions.

By the way, have you figured out how sunsets work in your world yet? An even remotely plausible explanation would be a start.

Can' believe how fast you forget things, let me refresh your memory:

<same crap he's been shown to be wrong for months>

[This ended up in the wrong thread for some reason. Probably user error. Reposting here and will remove the old one.]

In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.  The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space.   In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer  layer  than at the surface of  the Earth.   Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers.  These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life. 

Nice pointless copypasta.  Regarding that dome picture, you do realize it shows the opposite of your statement right?

Speaking of copypasta. Does anyone recall sandokhan ?  LOL

Ha!  How can one forget those posts?  His posts put cikljamas to shame.  Seemed to take minute just to scroll through some of them, let alone actually read.

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...

Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:

...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...

Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:

For example:

First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.

But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.

This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"

Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:

Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!

READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003

Enjoy it!

P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...

To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?

edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 10:58:03 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.

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Why is it that sceptimatic invariably sides with the most ill-informed, scientifically-ignorant members of the flat earth brigade?  Maybe he's looking for someone to father his love child, and further decrease the depth at the shallow end of the gene pool?

I do—grudgingly—have to agree with sceptimatic on one point; the above pages of copypasta from cikljamas certainly will "get people to think".  Firstly, thinking that cikljamas has truly lost the plot or forgotten his medication, and second, thinking that poor old sceptimatic is a sucker for any old second-hand flim-flam.

   

Cikljamas, it is now clear what your problem is. It isn't that you are ignoring the rebuttals but in fact that you jus don't understand them. Your zig zag argument didn't fail because of the Suns size and nobody said that either. The Sun could be any size and it is the massive distance causing an (as I put it several times) "utterly slight" parallax that would have to be detected while contending with the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation. Your copypasta is special because it often isn't plagarism, more often than not, you copypasta your very own arguments from this very thread even though they were already successfully refuted. Then after those decisive refutations you took to our challenge to explain just one simple part of your own model and it could not even explain a sunset.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 09, 2014, 10:13:29 AM

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...

Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:

...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...

Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:

For example:

First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.

But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.

This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"

Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:

Quote

Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!

READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003

Enjoy it!

P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...

To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?

edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:

Quote

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 10:58:03 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.

Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.

There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     

Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.

There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.

Yet more content free blather...

and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.

And that just nails you.  You can't understand science, and are too proud to admit it or make a proper go at understanding it.  The whole thing fills you with dread and reminds you of failed exams.  So you construct a fantasy land of giant ice domes, sauron towers, super glowing carbon crystals, hydrogen clouds and Den Pressure.

You can never be wrong in this constructed fantasy, as you make the rules (usually as you go along).  It's a happy place, where you can live under a giant dome, were the sun (literally) never sets and children greet you respectfully as "Professor Sceptimatic".

Shame it's all a load of bollocks.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 10, 2014, 02:47:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 09, 2014, 10:13:29 AM

cikljamas: very well put. Bravo for putting this stuff out. It's this stuff that will get people to think.

Scepti, what to say, can you believe what they are mumbling after i crushed that garbage of a theory, once and for all? I can't, i mean, i already use to this kind of mumbling and champing at the bit & in the beat, but i still can't believe my eyes when i read such rubbish of an "arguments" that are supposed to refute my irrefutable arguments...

Maybe i should copy paste some more of my own words:

...since my english is far away from my (native) language skills, it is very difficult for me to put in the words (in details), many things that i would like to talk about...Therefore, my expression is very constrained, so i have to be modest regarding my expectations of that kind (to be able to say all that i would want say). It is so much harder to express yourself in foreign language than to understand it...

Of course i understand what you are talking about, i just couldn't afford to myself to go too deep in such details, although i am quite aware of the true nature of their (REs) dishonest and unfair (being contradictory) games which they try to play with me all the time:

For example:

First they insisted that the Sun is so big that because of that "fact", according to them, my ZIGZAG argument should have been discarded.

But, when i had faced them with one of the fatal consequences which their nonsense (that is supposed to be "the fact") inflicts to their own RE theory, then they have nonchalantly refused to chew it, let alone accept it.

This is the consequence which they just can not accept (but they cannot refute it, also): if the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

That is (my language skills) why (after being pissed off) i have to use comunication "shortcuts" like this: "You (FEs) are just a bunch of gangsters and hypocrites!!!"

Now, since they are looking forward to my copypasta (so much), here we go again:

Quote

Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!

These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:

1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...

If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!

EDIT: Guess what? We crushed them ALL!!!

READ MORE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003

Enjoy it!

P.S. If you allow to yourself to think free from bias, then the main obstacle for understanding the reality as it really is, will be removed, and you will become able to pave the way for comprehending a true nature and a true shape of the world in which you live...

To be coward is not an option, don't you think so?

edit: Oh, i forgot to copy paste this:

Quote

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 10:58:03 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.

Yep, I agree with your sentiments.
The issue with many globa Earther's is a weakness of following their model, unconditionally. It gives them no scope at all.
On here; their mission (for a few) is to discard any alternative to the model they are told to stick rigidly to. Basically it's called being a shill.
Others are merely weaklings that follow the masses, because 10 onto 1 is comfort for them.
The truth is a bit different for some though. You see there are some that can see they've been lied to and secretly they are gaining that knowledge. They just don't have the balls to be open about it, even on a forum.
They would rather be patted on the back from the masses than be tag teamed by them.

There's no way in hell that supposedly intelligent people can stick rigidly to the crap that's been put out against the logic of you and others, unless their goal is to keep up the lie or they are literally so naive it's almost pitiful; and the fantasy world is where they feel most comfortable.
It's like the series "the big bang theory" where the boffins do their work but are always at the comic book store, revelling in fantasy.
I think that show is telling us a lot more than people realise if they are prepared to look.

Because everybody knows that the way to keep people indoctrinated is to tell them to question everything and to always be prepared to be wrong.  What makes s good model of the universe is the ability of that model to predict.  If your model is correct, you should be able to make a prediction with your model that's more accurite then the standard model predictions.  Seriously, if you do that then I will become a flat earther.

What makes a good model of the universe is the ability of that model to predict.  If your model is correct, you should be able to make a prediction with your model that's more accurate than the standard model predictions.  Seriously, if you do that then I will become a flat earther.

The flat earth model of the universe is unable to predict any future astrophysical events or phenomena.

As a round earther, I can predict a lunar eclipse at 09:44:01hrs on 30 November 2020, and to be visible from Australia.

I challenge any flat earther to prove this erroneous by providing an alternative flat earth prediction, along with facts and figures.

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.

—Let's see.   

@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     

Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?

@Rottingroom,

We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...

How can you be so funny???

Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...

Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?

Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!

However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!

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!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

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

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

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

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

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."

"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:

Quote from: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 06:51:57 AM

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     

Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?

@Rottingroom,

We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...

How can you be so funny???

Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...

Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?

Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!

However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!

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!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

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

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

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

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

Quote from: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 06:51:57 AM

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."

"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

Please explain how the sun would zig zag in the sky in the round Earth model because that majes no sense.  Also, on the poles during the summer the sun appears to just circle around the sky throughout the day.

You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

We can hope!

Seriously, though, if you're still confused after this, feel free to ask more.

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

Let's make sure we are looking at the same scenario. If we're talking at cross purposes, we will never reach agreement because we're not describing the same experiment.

Here's what I think you're saying; correct me if I'm wrong.

You are standing at a point, say, 500 km from the north pole at the height of northern summer, so the Sun is up 24 hours. You're standing at some longitude, call it L, and facing due south.  It is your local solar noon (LSN) and the Sun is due south of you.

Is this the situation you intended? If not, please describe with enough precision to determine what you mean.

As the afternoon progresses you stand stock still facing south, the sun moves from directly in front of you toward your right. Six hours after your LSN, your friend at the equator, also at longitude L, sees the Sun setting. If you spread your arms straight out, your right arm is pointing directly in the direction of the Sun while you are still facing south. Is this the "turning point" you refer to? What happens next if you remain facing due south is that the Sun continues to move in the same direction, but is now behind you. As long as you continue to face south, the sun will indeed move behind you from your right to your left until it reaches the point, 12 hours later, when it passes from being behind you to being in front of you, and resumes a left to right motion from your point of view.

Is that an accurate description of what you are trying to say? Is this the "zig-zag" motion you're referring to (instead of parallax)?

If that's the case, note that the Sun has not changed it's motion in any way. If you had a friend standing next to you, but facing 90° to the right, he would see the sun start to his left at LSN and move from his left to his right for the next 12 hours even though it's moving from your right to your left behind you for the last six of those 12 hours since you're still facing south. In other words, your "turning points" are six hours apart even though you're standing right next to each other.

If you had a third compatriot with you who was facing directly toward the Sun the whole time, he would see it move continuously from his left toward his right as he slowly turns to follow it all 24 hours.

The Sun didn't change directions at any time; it looks like you're just insisting on using a descriptive system that is confusing.

Is that what's going on?

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

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

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

Before I respond to this, I want to hear what you think the answer is, and why. A description of the direction you're looking will be necessary as part of your answer because it matters.

<eclipses and stuff>

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!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

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

Are we continually turning the entire 24 hours so that we are looking directly toward the sun the entire time?  If so, then no, the sun will not reverse direction in relation to the horizon.  Your diagram is misleading/wrong if this is what you are saying.  As you continue turning to keep the sun in front of you, the horizon would move the same direction the entire day, which means the movement of the sun in relation to the horizon would be the same the entire day.  Get a desktop globe and try it.

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

Other than the sun appearing above and below the horizon, moving up and down, what are we supposed to base it's movement in relation to? 

@ Scepti, allow me to present you one of the strongest argument in favor of RET:

Quote from: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 06:51:57 AM

Blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseam.     

Scepti, aren't you fascinated with the strenght of an above argument?

@Rottingroom,

We have been through all of this several times, and you are just proving once more the trueness of my words concerning your games that you try to play with me all along...

How can you be so funny???

Yes, my ZIGZAG argument is only about that : "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation", but you are the one who try to compromise my argument by bringing up (into discussion) "sizes and distances" issue, only it didn't and it wont help you any way...

Alleged "constantly changing FOV via rotation" is the reason for apparent motion of the sun in one direction, but if you were in arctic circle during the northern summer, how come that you wouldn't be able to see the same apparent motion, only IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION, after you reach the TURNING POINT?

Parallax you say? Yes, ZIGZAG motion really is kind of a parallax, which would be (if the Earth rotated) produced solely due to Earth's rotation, and due to nothing else but rotation. So, it's still all about "the utterly massive apparent motion caused by a constantly changing FOV (360°) via rotation"!

However, such phenomena is unobservable, because it doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the Earth is at rest, that is to say, there isn't any kind of motion of the Earth whatsoever!

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!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762

This is my final and last attempt to help you understand my ZIGZAG argument:

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

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

In which direction would the Sun apparently move?

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

Quote from: ausGeoff on December 10, 2014, 06:51:57 AM

Another prediction of mine?  That no flat earther will respond to my challenge.
—Let's see.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War."

"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

In both models, the sun would appear to move back and fourth if you were a bobblehead.  Could you please be more vague?

You did, in your comment before your last mention, that the sun would zig zag because of size. This was the first time you ever mentioned this so I will forgive. Now onto your repetition of the same zig zag argument. Again, we all agree that the sun would experience parallax. What we disagree about is how much. You insist that it would zig zag a lot because you cannot fathom how much an astronomical unit is. We've been through this. Reread the thread if you have to. The same answers still successfully refute you no matter how many times you repeat it.

How much??? How much is between SUNRISE and SUNSET? Fucking morons...