Is this how to "prove" something?
This is how to PROVE something:ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST:A) Crushing the pillars of a Heliocentric theory:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003B) ZIGZAG ARGUMENT: 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#msg1643762This 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: rottingroom on December 10, 2014, 10:50:21 AM
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...
C) POLARIS ARGUMENT:A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.
Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???
Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...
I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!
Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?- From a pen of one another author:For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
D) NO ORBITAL MOTION WHATSOEVER:
Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.E) THE SHAPES OF "CONSTELLATIONS" DON'T CHANGE OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1646824#msg1646824
F) GRAVITATION = GREAT ABSURDITY: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.[/quote]
Happy Holidays to you, too!
Why i am not surprised with cognition that you don't celebrate Christmas as such?
Happy Holidays to you (from the bottom of my heart), too!
No hard feelings on my part, nor I hope on yours.
As for the proofs, they speak for themselves!