GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

Alpha2Omega, i know that you are a really good astronomer, that is why i have to think twice before i say: "it is 100 % true" regarding some particular heliocentric catch...

This is my reasoning: If the rotational period of the Earth were roughly 23 h 52 min, instead of 23 h 56 min 4 sec, i suppose that we could still keep our 24 hours convention (for one solar day), and the difference would be consisted in the amount of time that we would have to wait for the alignment between the Sun and the specific meridian on the Earth. That time would be roughly 8 min, instead of 3 min 56 sec...

What would be the consequence of this "8 min." longlasting alignment?

Wouldn't it (the consequence) be "a two degree sidereal shift per day"?

If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720

If no, why?

Why the second multiplication by two, above? You might not have noticed, but by doubling the delta between the sidereal day and mean solar day while keeping the solar day the same length, you must halve the year.

Your example of an 8-minute delta between sidereal and mean solar days is exactly 1/180 of a 24-hour day, a pretty convenient number to work with. We're keeping our current definition of the second, and the mean solar day is 86,400 seconds (24 hours exactly). That means that the earth's spin has sped up just a little, completing one rotation with respect to the stars in 1432 minutes (23h 52m) instead of the actual 1436.067 minutes (23h 56m 04s). If we start with the Sun at the meridian at some location, this means that the Earth has to rotate another 8 minutes after the completion of one rotation wrt the stars to bring the Sun back to the meridian. Is that the intended scenario?

The amount the Earth has to progress in its orbit to require 8 more minutes to "catch up with" the Sun after exactly 23h 52m is 1/180 of the way around it, or 2°. This says that the orbital period - thus the year - will be exactly 180 sidereal days long. The number of solar days will be

180 sidereal day * ((1432 min/sidereal day) / (1440 min/solar day))
 = 180 * (1432 min) / (1440 min/solar day)
 = 180 * (1432 / 1440) solar day
 = 180 * (0.99444) solar day
 = 179.000 solar day

Exactly one less. The year being an exact number of days is a consequence of the ratio of sidereal to solar days being reducible to two exact integers 179/180.

As a reality check, lets run this using actual numbers for the year and sidereal day:

366.2422 sidereal day * ((1436.0681755 min/sidereal day) / (1440 min/solar day))
 = 366.2422 * (1436.0681755 min) / (1440 min/solar day))
 = 366.2422 * (1436.0681755 / 1440) solar day
 = 366.2422 * 0.9972695663 solar day
 = 365.24219996 solar day

Exactly one day less, to the precision used.

The number of solar days per year will always be exactly one different than sidereal days per year, no matter how long the year, or how fast the rotation (neglecting precession and similar confounding factors). Always.

I'll get to the rest of it later.

[Edit] Remove unneeded qualification to 2°.

Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.

Why the second multiplication by two, above? You might not have noticed, but by doubling the delta between the sidereal day and mean solar day while keeping the solar day the same length, you must halve the year.

The amount the Earth has to progress in its orbit to require 8 more minutes to "catch up with" the Sun after exactly 23h 52m is 1/180 of the way around it, or 2°. This says that the orbital period - thus the year - will be exactly 180 sidereal days long. The number of solar days will be...

If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720

Translation: 2 degrees * 180 days = 360 degrees ; 360 degrees * 2 halves of the year = 720 degrees (per year).

Interesting conversation:

- How come that untill this very day, there isn't ONE SINGLE reliable, compelling (other than cartoon like) picture of the Earth from the edge of Space?

- It is clear why. I think only a very naive person might continue to insist they have been to space and took a photo of  Earth looking like a ball. Even if they flew somewhere high above the surface, the fact remains that the pictures are fake and to this day there is no real photo of the Earth from space. Not to mention that the photo doesn't even match their own description of Earth, namely, it should look like an oblate spheroid not like a perfect sphere, but never mind let the shills believe it is a real photo....and NASA has been to the Moon, the ISS is real, the Earth is a ball etc etc...
I am not sure how unreasonable a person has to be to believe that NASA travels routinely in space but has no pictures of Earth from space and the only one was taken in 1972?!!? There is no need to argue with such people as they are either incapable of critical thinking or complete shills.

- You could also make the argument that using real props serves to appease and fool the many low level military/NASA dupes by actually giving them something physical and tangible to work on, which they do everyday for their entire careers. Perhaps they think they're "working on a space project" and may have actually had hand in testing/designing/producing something (for argument's sake) from Engineers, Project Managers, Designers, Construction, Mathameticians, etc. There are a lot of people that work at NASA. My guess is that the majority of them have real jobs and are doing real things at those jobs everyday. They may just think they're working on a spacecraft but have no idea that it's just a prop. If they can see and interact with what they think is a technological marvel that will fly into outer space, they will never question it because it's right there in front of them and they are fully invested! Theoretically, it all makes sense based on what they think they know, so it should work on paper. They're essentially trapped in a prison of their own minds.

There's no need for CGI, all the pieces are in place. They set it up as a drill and training exercise. This is called "military spending". They tell everyone that they don't film the real re-entries (those are top secret) and use the footage from the "drill" so as to not give away any military secrets, wink wink, nudge, nudge, sign on the line and keep your mouth shut. Do it for your country. Those involved in the operation believe that the "real" landing will actually happen at a later date and they don't question it for a second ... why should they? They are invested in the lie with their lives and their false reality depends on it, entirely.

If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?

Of course not, the mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives and turn their reality on its head. Most people can't handle that sort of thing."

- Apparently all nasa has done is developed zero-emission, lithium batteries used in electric powered cars 50 f5's and still only one invention!?

- Tom Jones - Fly Me To The Moon - 1969 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

- Stop the video at 1.25 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

- Nixon calls the moon : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

- Watch out, heliocentrists behind the wheel : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You complain that NASA has taken no pictures of the Earth from space but then routinely dismiss every picture that you are shown of Earth from space taken by NASA, ESA and all the other different agencies. The is also live video feed from the ISS.

And just a small point but the Earth is an oblate spheroid with the radius varying from 6,353km to 6,384km. That is a difference of 31km in over 6000. That's a very small difference and very difficult to pick up by eye in any images, and thus Earth looks more like a sphere.

- How come that untill this very day, there isn't ONE SINGLE reliable, compelling (other than cartoon like) picture of the Earth from the edge of Space?

- It is clear why. [I dont know how to use google!]

Fixed your statement there.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/

cikljamas doesn't accept that man-made satellites exist, and ergo no images of the earth taken from space are credible.  This is an image captured by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's weather satellite...




And this is an image captured on the ground shortly thereafter...


I'd ask cikljamas how he'd reconcile these two images;  one from an orbiting satellite, and one on the earth's surface which were taken within minutes of each other.  Put simply, how can it be that images from space match those on the ground?

I'd ask cikljamas how he'd reconcile these two images;  one from an orbiting satellite, and one on the earth's surface which were taken within minutes of each other.  Put simply, how can it be that images from space match those on the ground?

Because Africa is in on the conspiracy, obviously.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 15, 2015, 09:08:59 PM

Why the second multiplication by two, above? You might not have noticed, but by doubling the delta between the sidereal day and mean solar day while keeping the solar day the same length, you must halve the year.

The amount the Earth has to progress in its orbit to require 8 more minutes to "catch up with" the Sun after exactly 23h 52m is 1/180 of the way around it, or 2°. This says that the orbital period - thus the year - will be exactly 180 sidereal days long. The number of solar days will be...

Quote

If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720

Translation: 2 degrees * 180 days = 360 degrees ; 360 degrees * 2 halves of the year = 720 degrees (per year).

180 (actually 179) days is a full year under your scenario. The Sun appears to move 2° along the ecliptic in a day, completing a full circuit (which is the definition of a year) in 180 sidereal days. The second multiplication is unnecessary and, thus, incorrect.

Interesting conversation:

- How come that untill this very day, there isn't ONE SINGLE reliable, compelling (other than cartoon like) picture of the Earth from the edge of Space?

Oh, good grief! Ignore much?

- It is clear why. I think only a very naive person might continue to insist they have been to space and took a photo of  Earth looking like a ball. Even if they flew somewhere high above the surface, the fact remains that the pictures are fake and to this day there is no real photo of the Earth from space. Not to mention that the photo doesn't even match their own description of Earth, namely, it should look like an oblate spheroid not like a perfect sphere, but never mind let the shills believe it is a real photo....and NASA has been to the Moon, the ISS is real, the Earth is a ball etc etc...

Before making statements like this, you might want to familiarize yourself with just how eccentric the ellipsoid is. Doing so would make you appear far less ignorant. As already noted, it's quite small. As an exercise, why don't you calculate the number of pixels needed to make the difference between major and minor axes of an ellipse with the same eccentricity as the WGS84 or similar ellipsoid at least two pixels? Two pixels would be about the minimum to reliably tell they're different with careful measurement.

I am not sure how unreasonable a person has to be to believe that NASA travels routinely in space but has no pictures of Earth from space and the only one was taken in 1972?!!? There is no need to argue with such people as they are either incapable of critical thinking or complete shills.

Do they have any or do they not? Hello, critical thinking?

- You could also make the argument that using real props serves to appease and fool the many low level military/NASA dupes by actually giving them something physical and tangible to work on, which they do everyday for their entire careers. Perhaps they think they're "working on a space project" and may have actually had hand in testing/designing/producing something (for argument's sake) from Engineers, Project Managers, Designers, Construction, Mathameticians, etc. There are a lot of people that work at NASA. My guess is that the majority of them have real jobs and are doing real things at those jobs everyday. They may just think they're working on a spacecraft but have no idea that it's just a prop. If they can see and interact with what they think is a technological marvel that will fly into outer space, they will never question it because it's right there in front of them and they are fully invested! Theoretically, it all makes sense based on what they think they know, so it should work on paper. They're essentially trapped in a prison of their own minds.

You could try to make the argument if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Among other things, "unofficial" observations and monitoring of Apollo (and SkyLab, Mir, ISS, etc.) has been discussed at great length here and elsewhere.

Unless you have some actual evidence that this is the case, all you're doing is engaging in idle speculation. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't base any important decisions on any conclusions from it. Just who is trapped in his own mind, and who has abundant evidence to support their beliefs?

There's no need for CGI, all the pieces are in place. They set it up as a drill and training exercise. This is called "military spending". They tell everyone that they don't film the real re-entries (those are top secret) and use the footage from the "drill" so as to not give away any military secrets, wink wink, nudge, nudge, sign on the line and keep your mouth shut. Do it for your country. Those involved in the operation believe that the "real" landing will actually happen at a later date and they don't question it for a second ... why should they? They are invested in the lie with their lives and their false reality depends on it, entirely.

If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?

Of course not, the mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives and turn their reality on its head. Most people can't handle that sort of thing."

"The mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives"?

*Blink*

Are you out of your freaking mind?

- Apparently all nasa has done is developed zero-emission, lithium batteries used in electric powered cars 50 f5's and still only one invention!?

Amazing. Thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter. It will be given all the consideration it deserves.

<apparently irrelevant links>

Alpha2Omega, in 23 hours and 52 min (roughly) the potato makes one sidereal turn on it's axis, then we wait 8 minutes for alignment between the potato and the sun, then we say "24 hours has passed" which means that the potato has just finished one day journey in it's orbit around the sun, crossing the same length/distance which it supposedly crosses over every single day in our copernican reality (no more, no less, since the orbital speed stays the same, and 24 hours is still 24 hours, no more, no less). But is there any difference between our hypothetical 23h,52min. - long-lasting sidereal turn and one 23h,56min.4sec. - long-lasting sidereal turn which is of course also hypothetical? There is the difference, the potato has shifted 1 degree more with respect to the stars in our hypothetical scenario, in the same amount of time , that is the difference. That difference we have to add every day of the year, and voila, instead of just one annual rotation, we will get two annual sidereal rotations of the potato.

If there is any flaw in this, i hope that you will be able to point to it!

As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry  (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!

As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry  (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!

This is why AusGeoff says that FE'ers don't understand basic camera functions. How can you deny something you're obviously extremely ignorant about?

First of all, the notion that camera's don't work in micro gravity is plain stupid. Throw a camera into the air whith a two second timer. The camera falling is the exact same effect in micro gravity, since all  orbiting bodies are falling. It will take the picture just fine- there is in fact an entire genre of photography based on this.

Second of all, even if the Earth was blindingly bright from space, it wouldn't be as bright as the sun.and if you didn't know, that's why you lower the exposure, which by the way, allows you to take pictures of the sun. All cameras can do this. All you need is a narrow aperture, and high shutter speed. How can you be so willfully ignorant?

And as for the atmosphere around earth... What are you even? The atmosphere is incredibly thin. You do see in pictures, but thinly just as expected. Why would you expect it to be so thick?

Alpha2Omega, in 23 hours and 52 min (roughly) the potato makes one sidereal turn on it's axis, then we wait 8 minutes for alignment between the potato and the sun, then we say "24 hours has passed" which means that the potato has just finished one day journey in it's orbit around the sun, crossing the same length/distance which it supposedly crosses over every single day in our copernican reality (no more, no less, since the orbital speed stays the same, and 24 hours is still 24 hours, no more, no less). But is there any difference between our hypothetical 23h,52min. - long-lasting sidereal turn and one 23h,56min.4sec. - long-lasting sidereal turn which is of course also hypothetical? There is the difference, the potato has shifted 1 degree more with respect to the stars in our hypothetical scenario, in the same amount of time , that is the difference. That difference we have to add every day of the year, and voila, instead of just one annual rotation, we will get two annual sidereal rotations of the potato.
If there is any flaw in this, i hope that you will be able to point to it!

Dude, take a potato and put a dot on it.  Take the lamp shade off of a lamp.  Now, point the dot of the potato at something in the room, the further away the better.  Now move the potato around the lamp keeping the dot facing the same direction.  In this case, the potato is not rotating.  How many 'days' were experience by the dot on the potato?  By day, I mean a cycle of light-dark-light or dark-light-dark, depending on if there was light from the lamp on the dot on the potato to begin with.  You get one day for free by virtue of being in orbit.  Depending on the direction of the orbit, you have to add or subtract one day.

As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry  (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")

Utter BS.  If you toss a camera in the air, at the top of the arc it is weightless.  You can set the timer and with practice you can get the camera to take the picture at the top of the arc.   

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

Utter BS.  It is the same light on the moon as we have here on earth.  On a bright sunny day take a picture with a camera with ISO set to 100, F16, 1/100 sec shutter speed.  It will be well exposed, I promise.  With the same settings take a picture of the full moon.  Hmm, the moon is actually pretty gray but is well exposed -- oh, most people over expose the moon because the want to see stars!  The attenuation of visible light due to the atmosphere is not a factor.

More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!

Haha?, but you can see the atmosphere in images take from space.  Much easier to see than the bulging of the earth at the equator.

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry  (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")

Oh dear.  Even more ignorance of photography.  Will it ever end LOL?  Most, (but not all) of today's prosumer cameras don't have mechanical "shutters".  They utilise interline transfer sensors.  Google it.

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

And again LOL.  Think filters.  RGB, IR, UV, polarising, ND, GND etc.

If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato?

You've actually unwittingly answered your own question.  "Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater...". 

Can a mod lock this? This has super-derailed. To the point of idiocy on both ends, nobody noticing this.

Alpha2Omega, in 23 hours and 52 min (roughly) the potato makes one sidereal turn on it's axis, then we wait 8 minutes for alignment between the potato and the sun, then we say "24 hours has passed" which means that the potato has just finished one day journey in it's orbit around the sun, crossing the same length/distance which it supposedly crosses over every single day in our copernican reality (no more, no less, since the orbital speed stays the same, and 24 hours is still 24 hours, no more, no less).

Hold it! Your initial scenario postulates a 24-hour solar day and 23h 52m sidereal day. This means the orbit has changed. Period.

But is there any difference between our hypothetical 23h,52min. - long-lasting sidereal turn and one 23h,56min.4sec. - long-lasting sidereal turn which is of course also hypothetical?

The 23h 56m 04.1s (approximately) sidereal day is not hypothetical. It has been carefully measured for centuries now, and you can do so yourself if you have an accurate clock and a telescope, with a reticule, that can be held accurately fixed for a full day (something like a surveyor's transit could do nicely).

To answer your question, yes, there is a difference: 4 minutes, 4 seconds. To have this situation, two things must happen: the Earth's rotation must speed up by about ¹/₄% (4 minutes per day out of 1436), and the angular velocity of earth in its orbit about the sun must approximately double in order to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day.

There is the difference, the potato has shifted 1 degree more with respect to the stars in our hypothetical scenario, in the same amount of time , that is the difference. That difference we have to add every day of the year, and voila, instead of just one annual rotation, we will get two annual sidereal rotations of the potato.

If there is any flaw in this, i hope that you will be able to point to it!

Your error is that earth has shifted 1 additional degree with respect to the Sun, not the stars, in the same amount of time. Since it has to move around the sun at twice the angular rate (approximately), the year is about half as long. It hasn't shifted wrt the stars in that day in any meaningful way at all.

As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry  (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")

Can you give the context for that quote? I googled it, and see that exact quote in a couple instances, both from the same person in defense of flat-earth ideas, without any additional context. If you have the original source, can you link to it or, if it's in printed form, legibly photograph or scan the paragraph that quote occurs in? I have difficulty believing it because:

1) Mechanical camera shutters aren't gravity driven - they are spring or electrically operated.
2) Old-school mechanical cameras would work in any orientation; they didn't care if they were rightside-up, upside-down, sideways, or pointing straight up or straight down, or anywhere in between. If they were sensitive to gravity, this would be a problem.

Just because you read something about cameras that's attributed to a professional photographer - even if the photographer actually did say it - doesn't automatically mean it's true.

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

Not if you correctly expose the photo. Excluding the Sun from the field will go a long way toward eliminating lens flares. Even if you get some, they need not be fatal to the photo - sometimes they can be artistic.

More thinks on the NASA pictures. If their pics were a true pics why is there nothing but black space around the potato? The atmosphere would of had a glow. hahah the potato must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pics!

Have you actually looked at any photos from space? I suggest you do so before claiming to know what they show and don't show.

Quote from: sokarul on January 15, 2015, 03:36:22 PM

Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.

The video uploader's professionalism is laughable isn't it.

Quote from: cikljamas on January 16, 2015, 01:25:52 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 15, 2015, 03:36:22 PM

Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.

The video uploader's professionalism is laughable isn't it.

Seeing him just makes me think of my favorite animated gif of him of all time.

The video uploader's professionalism is laughable isn't it.

I can't deny it. 

the angular velocity of earth in its orbit about the sun must approximately double in order to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day.

The differences/oscillations within "the equation of time" would be greater, because there would be a larger gap between the mean solar day and sidereal day, but i really don't see why the angular velocity of earth should have to be doubled to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day?

Wasn't my proposition that orbital speed stays the same? Wasn't it clear from the beginning that orbital speed stays the same? We just have to speed up rotational speed, and 4 additional minutes of waiting for an alignment (between the potato and the sun) settles the whole matter, and adds one additional annual rotation of the potato. Why do you now suddenly bring in to discussion a new parameter?

P.S. Thanks for the correction:

Your error is that earth has shifted 1 additional degree with respect to the Sun, not the stars

This is not an error, it was just a lapsus linguae... 

@ Misero, does my thread give you a hard time? Does your name mean Miserable Misery?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 16, 2015, 12:44:52 PM

the angular velocity of earth in its orbit about the sun must approximately double in order to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day.

The differences/oscillations within "the equation of time" would be greater, because there would be a larger gap between the mean solar day and sidereal day, but i really don't see why the angular velocity of earth should have to be doubled to maintain the constant length of the mean solar day?

It's because you have to increase the change in position of the Sun over a day if you shorten the sidereal day but maintain the solar day. If you leave the orbit the same but sped up the Earth's rotation, then the solar day would also shorten. The length of the mean solar day is a consequence of two things: 1) the rate of rotation of the Earth wrt the stars and 2) the length of the year. These combined give us the length of the solar day (exactly one fewer per year than sidereal days). If we know any two, we can calculate the third. We can't just assign arbitrary values to all three and expect it to work - that would be like saying X + Y = Z and being disappointed when picking X = 8, Y = 6 and just declaring that Z = 42 doesn't work.
 

Wasn't my proposition that orbital speed stays the same? Wasn't it clear from the beginning that orbital speed stays the same? We just have to speed up rotational speed, and 4 additional minutes of waiting for an alignment (between the potato and the sun) settles the whole matter, and adds one additional annual rotation of the potato. Why do you now suddenly bring in to discussion a new parameter?

Why would you expect the sun to take an additional 4 minutes to transit after speeding up earth's rotation? It would do that only if the earth traveled further around its orbit. You can't just declare it. You can pick any two (length of sidereal day, length of solar day, or length of year), and the third is a consequence of the values you picked for the others. X + Y = Z; pick any two and you can determine the third, but you can't demand the third be something (unless you make a lucky guess) if your formula holds.

I don't think you originally specified a constant year and don't have the time to check. If you did say that, I just missed it; at any rate, you can't just pick random values for all three.

P.S. Thanks for the correction:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 16, 2015, 12:44:52 PM

Your error is that earth has shifted 1 additional degree with respect to the Sun, not the stars

This is not an error, it was just a lapsus linguae... 

No problem, it happens... it did seem like part of what was confusing you, though.

As for the alleged photographs (of the potato) from space, this will do:

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera." Steve McCurry  (the quote is taken from his book "Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs")

Ha!  Another joke from Cikljamas.

Alpha2Omega, you are fishing in murky waters, and the mud which causes these waters to be murky is "The Equation of time" problem. At the end of the day, we shall have to come back to that issue (again) which will reveal once more the ultimate flaw in heliocentric theory, which i already have proved here:

Shall we observe this illustration once more:



When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.

When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!

A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!

This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!

Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?

Concerning your request for a citation the best i can do right now is this: http://www.energeticforum.com/263172-post251.html

When you open above link just scroll down a little bit, and you will see a screenshot of the page that you are looking for...

P.S. I didn't call you a liar, not even in nice terms, i just appeal to you to find enough courage to admit the obvious truth. However, this is not an easy task, whatever someone could think of it, so there is no irony in my words...

Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637115#msg1637115

Now, in order to render this "annual rotation" problem clearer, we should assume that Potato's orbital speed is a constant, and that Potato's orbit is a perfect circle.

Would you claim that even under such circumstances/conditions, the changes in Potato's rotational speed wouldn't cause any differences regarding the number of annual Potatos rotations per year?

Alpha2Omega, you are fishing in murky waters, and the mud which causes these waters to be murky is "The Equation of time" problem. At the end of the day, we shall have to come back to that issue (again) which will reveal once more the ultimate flaw in heliocentric theory, which i already have proved here:

Proved? When?

Please link to the post where you think you proved this so we don't have to go back through months of posts to find it. Just quoting it with no link back doesn't allow everyone to easily to look at the follow-up postings - or is that your intent? There are several ways you can do this; if you don't know how, please ask.

Now, in order to render this "annual rotation" problem clearer, we should assume that Potato's orbital speed is a constant, and that Potato's orbit is a perfect circle.

The equation of time really doesn't matter if you work with the mean solar day over the period of exactly one year.

Assuming a perfectly circular orbit flattens the dashed green line in your spray-painted illustration and eliminates your perceived need for a mirror image of it, since they'd be the same (constant zero minutes), leaving only the red dash-dot tilted-axis component. Keeping the actual axial tilt, but with the half-length orbit that's required by your hypothetical 8-minute difference in the previous example, I think the red dash-dot component would be same as before, except the period, of course, would be halved. I'd need to do some calculations to see whether the amplitude would change, however, and I don't have the time or inclination (no pun intended) for that, at least not right now. At any rate, if we consider the period of exactly one year or integer multiple of same, the varying length of the solar day averages out exactly to the mean solar day, and the equation of time doesn't matter, whether it's due to tilt, eccentricity, or both. Why would it?

Would you claim that even under such circumstances/conditions, the changes in Potato's rotational speed wouldn't cause any differences regarding the number of annual Potatos rotations per year?

Of course it would. Why wouldn't changing the planet's rotational speed change the number of days in a year, whether the orbit was a perfect circle or an ellipse? Regardless of the number of days in the year, the number of sidereal days will always be exactly one different from the number of solar days because the Sun appears to make exactly one trip around the ecliptic in that time. One period of rotation spread over the number of days in the year will tell you the difference between the length of the sidereal and mean solar days.

Oh, yes... you're still wrong about the Equation of Time disproving the heliocentric model. It's part of the supporting evidence. See the follow-on to the post you quoted.

Please, HELP US!!!!!!
Hi! My name is Alexander Laguta from Ukraine. I’m married and my wife is 7 months pregnant. Pregnancy flows as heavy as lead, she’s constantly in hospitals. In connection with heavy position in Ukraine  the wage is paid not constant and small. The incomes earned by me is not enough almost anything. The health of my unborn baby and my wife is dependent on expensive drugs. In this connection, I have to ask you for help. Help who what can. Even  1$ the sent by you will help to correct our position. Thank you for earlier, I and my wife for understanding, for your support and for your help! 
My email: laguta1313@mail.ru. You can send money to the card.
Here is the card number: 5168 7572 8245 0511

Obvious scammer is obvious. Hope mods don't handle this like they handle most other issues.

If we take the stars (a clock) as a frame of reference, then one year ends up after 6 month in our hypothetical "2 degrees per day" HC version.

But that's not the point of my claim, according which Potato's rotational period is very good ARTIFICALLY synchronized within current HC version!

The point is that if we shortened Potato's rotational period for about 4 additional minutes, that is to say, for 1 additional degree per day, then although "Star-clock" year would end up after 6 months, in the same period of time, Potato would finish just one half of it's hypothetical HC orbital journey around the sun.

See the diagram below:




 

QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS

Quote

WIKI QUOTE :The apparent sun is the true sun as seen by an observer on Earth. Apparent solar time or true solar time is based on the apparent motion of the actual Sun. It is based on the apparent solar day, the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian.

    The question is this:

    If the Earth's orbital speed is greater at a Perihelion (Northern Winter) how come that the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian becomes shorter and shorter (20 sec per day) instead of being longer and longer when compared with an Aphelion (Northern Summer)

 

QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA Are you sure that's right? I think you have it backward and apparent solar days will be longest near the southern solstice, where the perihelion of the orbit (earth moves faster, which lengthens the apparent solar days) nearly coincides with a solstice (which also lengthen the apparent solar days).

YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?

   

QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun at a speed of just 10 km per hour, how long  would be the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian in this case?

    In this case this interval would depend almost solely on the Earth's rotational period which would completely overpower an effects of the Earth's orbital motion.

    Now imagine that the Earth travels in it's orbit around the Sun 100 000 km per hour (alleged Earth's orbital speed is even greater than that). Have you imagined this picture and accompanying geometrical implications?

    Now, in which of the two above cases we should have to wait longer for the arrival of the Sun to the local meridian?

QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA The latter. See the previous answer. Getting the previous assertion wrong has made you think there's a discrepancy where none actually exists.

YES, THE LATTER!!!

QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.

When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!

A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!

This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!

Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?

QUOTE FROM: ALPHA2OMEGA No, you still have it backwards. When the Earth speeds up in its orbit, the apparent solar day lengthens, i.e. the Sun appears to slow down relative to the mean sun. This happens because the Earth has moved a greater distance in a similar time (it's moving faster, remember?), so it needs more rotation (which takes longer since the rate of rotation is a constant, remember?) to bring the Sun back to the same meridian a day later. This is simple geometry - sketch it out if you need to.

NO, THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY SHOULD LENGTHENING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN REALITY, QUITE CONTRARY HAPPENS IN REALITY!!!

QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies. If you can live with them i can live with them too. You disappointed me a lot! Following  vigorous testimony of the great german writer fit so well with your integrity:

"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."

Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (HC is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.

Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, i win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!!!

Important lesson about a great importance of telling the truth all the time (no matter what):

http://www.energeticforum.com/265263-post549.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/265264-post550.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/265267-post553.html

KNOWLEDGE IS THE BEGINNING: http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/ (How come that you cannot find this video on youtube???)

YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?

1998 solar day length from wikipdia

Length of apparent solar day (1998)
[7] Date                 Duration in mean solar time
February 11         24 hours
March 26                 24 hours − 18.1 seconds
May 14                 24 hours
June 19                 24 hours + 13.1 seconds
July 26                 24 hours
September 16         24 hours − 21.3 seconds
November 3         24 hours
December 22         24 hours + 29.9 seconds

Looks like it lengthens to me. Perhaps spend less time typing in caps and more time researching.

Sokarul, i suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?

If we take the stars (a clock) as a frame of reference, then one year ends up after 6 month in our hypothetical "2 degrees per day" HC version.

Using the stars as a clock yields the sidereal day [from Latin sidereus (from sidus, sider- ‘star’) + -al]. Using the position of the Sun wrt the stars yields the calendar. If the Earth were to move in its orbit at 2° per day it would complete one revolution (one full orbit) in 180 days. How could it do otherwise?

Forcing the sidereal day to be 23h 52m (1432 minutes) while keeping the solar day at 24h 00m (1440 minutes) means the Earth has completed 1432/1440 of a rotation wrt the mean Sun after exactly one sidereal day. This reduces to 179/180 of a rotation, which means it needs to rotate another 1/180 of a full rotation (2°) before the mean Sun returns to the same meridian, which means earth advanced that far (2°) along in its orbit in one shortened sidereal day. This shortened year is a consequence of increasing the ratio of mean solar day : sidereal day. There's no way around it.

But that's not the point of my claim, according which Potato's rotational period is very good ARTIFICALLY synchronized within current HC version!

Earth's rotational period is not synchronized in any way with the length of the year. It happens to be what it is, and it's actually slowing down. Because it's slowing down, both the mean solar and sidereal days are getting longer but the length of the year is not changing.

The point is that if we shortened Potato's rotational period for about 4 additional minutes, that is to say, for 1 additional degree per day, then although "Star-clock" year would end up after 6 months, in the same period of time, Potato would finish just one half of it's hypothetical HC orbital journey around the sun.

You're confusing yourself. What do you mean "'Star-clock' would end up after 6 months"? This hypothetical earth would complete a full hypothetical HC
orbital journey around the Sun in those 180 days. It's traveling 2° per day, remember? it would take 360°/(2°/day) = 180 days to make a full orbit. This isn't complicated.

See the diagram below:

In the top part of the diagram, why is the dot representing London at the bottom of the circle at three of the stations (July, October, and January) but at the top for the fourth (April)? The red dot appears to show the position of the Prime Meridian at 6h sidereal time in each instance except April; at the April position, it shows the PM at 18h sidereal time. Your illustration above is not consistent. If you make the correction, the drawing will show the orientation of earth at 1200 (noon), 0600 (6 AM), 0000 (midnight), and 1800 (6 PM) GMT in early July, October, January, and April, respectively.

The bottom part of the diagram is even more confused.

First, fix the upper diagram by moving the red dot from the top to the bottom of the circle at the April position to make it consistent with the rest, and add "90 days" (close enough approximation) [these are sidereal days] next to each "90°" annotation. Next, change the lower diagram diagram so that the red dot is at the bottom at all four positions, replacing the four "180°" annotations with "90°" (because each is 1/4 of the way around the orbit) and add "45 days" by each of these because it takes 45 days to go 90° at 2° per day. The names of the months are a problem because there are no longer twelve 30-day (approx) months in the year. To make this easier, let's say there are still 12 months, each 15 days long (make poor ol' February 14 days to get 179 solar days in the year).

 

Quote

QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS

Quote

WIKI QUOTE :The apparent sun is the true sun as seen by an observer on Earth. Apparent solar time or true solar time is based on the apparent motion of the actual Sun. It is based on the apparent solar day, the interval between two successive returns of the Sun to the local meridian.

Instead of re-hashing the whole Equation of Time again, first understand the above before adding more complexity. If we're dealing with the numbers of days in full years, the mean solar day (average length of the apparent solar day over the period of one year) gives exactly the same result and is much simpler than factoring in the EoT. It only changes the length of the apparent solar day by a few seconds, so is insignificant - and only a nuisance - at this level of comprehension.

Sokarul just gave you the answer to the direction of the EoT, but it really doesn't matter here anyway.

Sokarul, i suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?

Quote from: cikljamas

YES, I AM SURE! NO, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD! YES, WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SHOULD BE LENGTHENING THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY (IN REALITY THE APPARENT SOLAR DAY IS BEING SHORTENED WHEN EARTH MOVES FASTER) , DON'T YOU KNOW THAT, OR YOU JUST PRETEND ALL ALONG?

1998 solar day length from wikipdia

Length of apparent solar day (1998)
[7] Date                 Duration in mean solar time
February 11         24 hours
March 26                 24 hours − 18.1 seconds
May 14                 24 hours
June 19                 24 hours + 13.1 seconds
July 26                 24 hours
September 16 24 hours − 21.3 seconds
November 3         24 hours
December 22         24 hours + 29.9 seconds

Looks like it lengthens to me. Perhaps spend less time typing in caps and more time researching.

It looks like his info matches the original chart. Your markings are in error.

Sokarul, i suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?

If you don't like reality, feel free to continue living in your own little world.

Added: See the red diamonds in your picture? See how they start to get closer to each after oct. 1 and then further apart after nov.1st? That is the speed of the sun. See how it doesn't match what you added to the picture?
So, cikljamas I suggest you to study this carefully, before you again try to be smart, O.K.?

Alpha2Omega, you have no courage to say the truth, that is why guys like Sokarul stays in delusion, and this is your responsibility!

Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!

Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!

That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!

I corrected errors that i made in first diagram here:



But argument is still valid...

Let's see some facts about the alleged synchronization of the alleged "rotation" of the Moon:

1. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the plane of the ecliptic, and not to the Earth's equatorial plane. The lunar orbit plane is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5.1°, whereas the Moon's spin axis is inclined by only 1.5°.

2.  Synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon's orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it moves around the Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon's rotational velocity:

When the Moon is at it's perigee, it's rotation is slower than it's orbital motion.

Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion. How does the Moon know when she has to slow down or to speed up rotation on its axis? It must be due to some very smart software?

3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon! So, how come the moon is locked by the Earth's gravitational force, instead to be locked upon the influence of the Sun's gravitational force?

The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all. How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very ridiculous!

The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying.

It is indeed quite mystifying, because it never happens. This is just an untrue statement.

I chopped out the rest of your rambling from the quote because all the rest of us who know a little bit about gravity would find it exasperating how you are trying to argue with a concept you don't understand even slightly.

Alpha2Omega, you have no courage to say the truth, that is why guys like Sokarul stays in delusion, and this is your responsibility!

What?

Sokarul, pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE BEHIND THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS BEHIND THE APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 16 MINUTES NEAR NOVEMBER 3.!

Look at our picture, the sun starts to slow down somewhere around September 16th. It is not speeding up all the way to November. I want you to acknowledged that you understand this.

Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD, BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!

The apparent time is behind at that interval according to what I posted. The apparent solar time isn't just based on the speed of the sun. You know that right? I want you to say you understand.

That's all that you need to pay attention to!!! That is crucial!!!

You need to know what you are trying to talk about. Have a think about it.

...
The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all.

The moon is never seen to be transparent. If the moon was not a sphere, how would people see the same thing when there are people who are seeing the moon rise, while people are watching it set.
 

How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very ridiculous!

We can see the sun rotate, where are you getting your information? Stop making stuff up.