GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

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!

1: The moon is unique in our star system, this proves nothing.

2: The angular velocity of the Moon remains constant and the amount that the Moon speeds up and slows down is small and thus effect actually causes the Moon to change orientation enough that it can be seen with a telescope.

3: The Moon is attracted to the Sun, the (round) Earth is in free fall around the Sun and so is the Moon and that means that the Earth and the Moon are weightless relative to each other, but they also attract each other and that causes the Moon to orbit the Earth.

Where did you get the absurd notion that the Moon is transparent some times?  That does not happen, and I should know considering how much I have looked at the Moon with my telescope.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

According to another recent thread , we can add the History Channel to the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY. Quote-"It's all lies !"-Unquote

Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/

Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/

Your first link is to ENaG by lay preacher Samuel Rowbotham. It's already been proven numerous times on these forums that Mr Rowbotham was totally unqualified in the sciences in order to write this stuff with any serious intent—other than to make easy money of course!  And his 150-year-old "research" is now universally laughed out of court.  Sorry.

And as for your second link;  what can one say?  I can only think that 'The Wild Heretic' site was set up as one of these spoof sites that claim to be legitimate, credible sources of information and dialogue, but are in actuality nothing more than a sort of extended, cyberspace version of a  21st-century Monty Python script.  Nobody with even a partially functioning brain (excluding sceptimatic, Saros, and cikljamas of course) could truly believe the outlandish drivel that's posted—apparently straight-faced—on that site as factual.

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

I take full responsibility for everything I post here. By all means, point out when you think something is wrong, but please be specific and explain in as much detail as you can why you think it's wrong.

Whether you think something is truthful or not isn't my problem; you seem to have some pretty odd ideas about that.

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.!

The Sun's apparent motion wrt the stars is west to east but its diurnal motion is east to west. This introduces ambiguity into what you mean by "speeds up" because these relative motions are opposites. When the Sun "speeds up" wrt the stars (moves more rapidly eastward), the apparent solar day lengthens and the Sun appears to move more slowly across the daytime sky and culminates a bit later each day than it would otherwise. When it "speeds up" in its diurnal motion across the sky, the apparent solar day is closer to the length of the sidereal day because it's moving eastward more slowly and it culminates a bit earlier in the day than it would otherwise.

You say "between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up)". Using sokarul's table, from late July until early November the apparent solar day is shorter than the mean solar day (by as much as 21.3 seconds, in late September). From this, you apparently mean that the Sun "speeds up" when it's moving across the sky fastest (and moving eastward slowest).

Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down),

Again, according to sokarul's table, in late December the apparent solar day is longest (by 29.9 seconds longer than the mean on the 22nd), and gets shorter until late March (18.1 seconds shorter than mean on the 26th).

This is consistent with your convention above - "slowing down" must mean the solar day is longer (sun moves more slowly across the sky because it's moving eastward more rapidly, over most of that period).

Now that this is established it may be possible to unravel what you're trying to say.

and what is the consequence of that: THE APPARENT TIME SHOULD BE AHEAD THE MEAN TIME IN THAT VERY PERIOD,

Apparent solar time and mean solar time are about the same at the beginning of January. The apparent solar day is longer than the mean solar day until Feb 11. Because of this, apparent time will not be ahead of mean time by Feb 6; the real sun is "running slow" compared to the mean sun, so its noon is a few minutes after the mean sun's noon. Your interpretation is wrong.

BUT IT IS NOT, THE MEAN TIME IS AHEAD OF APPARENT TIME BY ABOUT 14 MINUTES NEAR FEBRUARY 6.!

And this is what we see, as expected.

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

Indeed. The charts are right, so there's no problem. That is all you need to pay attention to.

I corrected errors that i made in first diagram here:

You changed the charts, but they're still wrong.

But argument is still valid...

Unfortunately, no, it's not...

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

Wait! We're changing topics to the Moon? Why?? You have even more massive problems with your diagram above than there were before. In the July position, the red dot is facing the Sun and labeled "Noon"; so far so good. At October, the red dot is facing directly away from the Sun and labeled "6 PM"; what? At January, it's again facing the Sun, but labeled "Midnight"; . At April, it's again directly away from the Sun but labeled "6 AM". What the hell is any of this supposed to mean? The lower diagram is even more bollixed up and makes no sense whatsoever, with completely nonsensical marks all over it. What's the green triangle supposed to represent?

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°.

OK. So?

2.[/b]  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?

It doesn't slow down or speed up on its axis. The difference in rotational velocity and orbital velocity at different points cause libration. This is well known - look it up.

Nothing to see here, folks.

3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon!

Citation needed.

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?

Because, maybe, just maybe, your assertion above is wrong?

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

Citation needed. [I think you may have given one in response to a similar request; you put up so much pap I'm falling behind.]

It would be mystifying if it were actually true.

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.

Do you have any evidence that "they" aren't "actually trying to figure out the real state of things"? Failure to arrive at the same conclusion as you is not evidence. Have you even considered "actually trying to figure out the real state of things" yourself? There is certainly no evidence of that since you keep postulating things that simply do not match (actually deviate wildly from) reality.

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.

Maybe it's not even considered because there is no evidence supporting the idea that the Sun is a disc, but plenty supporting that it's (approximately) spherical.

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.

It's moving away from us very slowly. The torque applied to the Moon's tidal bulge by the Earth's gravity is enough to keep it locked. Whether or not you "buy" this is irrelevant.

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?

Well, there's also libration, which you pointed out should happen in an argument above. There is also the shapes of craters that look more elliptical near the limbs of the moon in accordance with it being spherical (and become more or less eccentric, as expected, in the presence of libration).

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!

That's one. How many is "too many"? What are the others?

Quote from: cikljamas on January 19, 2015, 03:17:13 AM

Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/

Your first link is to ENaG by lay preacher Samuel Rowbotham. It's already been proven numerous times on these forums that Mr Rowbotham was totally unqualified in the sciences in order to write this stuff with any serious intent—other than to make easy money of course!  And his 150-year-old "research" is now universally laughed out of court.  Sorry.

And as for your second link;  what can one say?  I can only think that 'The Wild Heretic' site was set up as one of these spoof sites that claim to be legitimate, credible sources of information and dialogue, but are in actuality nothing more than a sort of extended, cyberspace version of a  21st-century Monty Python script.  Nobody with even a partially functioning brain (excluding sceptimatic, Saros, and cikljamas of course) could truly believe the outlandish drivel that's posted—apparently straight-faced—on that site as factual.

But ausGeoff, Dr Rowbotham cites the observations of the renowned astronomers Mr Criswich and Mr Dunkin! A search of the historical records of the Royal Astronomical Society will quickly show that... oh. They're not mentioned. Surely some mistake? What - no mention of T.W. Burr Esq.? For shame! Conspiracy, I tell you!

And as for that second link... I've been ordered not to post it, so you'll have to just have the Imagined Facepalm for that one. An optical illusion that controls the tides and which radar signals can be bounced off, that's very likely isn't it.

Tell me CKllama, if Mr Criswich had observed a pink elephant tapdancing on the moon, and Rowbotham had written that down, would you believe it automatically?

The moon is not transparent. It has never been transparent. There are no observations revealing it to be transparent beyond this handful of anecdotal lies and mis-observations.

Just for the sake of correctness...there is a final version of my diagram:



24 * 360 = 8640

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

While i was studying this issue, i have noticed that in the background of "the exactly 1 annual rotation per year" phenomena there are two HC wrong presumptions (without any foundation in reality):

1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Potato's axis!
2. Constant period of the Potato's rotation!

There is no scientific explanation whatsoever, for any of the two (above) utterly science-fictional assumptions!

However, this ("exactly 1 annual rotation per year") is an issue of a minor significance!

What is utterly important is "The Equation of Time" utter HC flaw!

As for this very important and decisive question, all i can say is this:

Alpha2Omega is shamelessly lying, and same goes for anyone who would ever try to disprove such OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE fact according which "The Equation of Time issue" presents the utter HC flaw. There is no honest and fair person who would ever dare to deny this 100% straight and plain truth!

ONCE MORE AND THE LAST TIME:

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

Quote

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?

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!!!

Pay attention to what happens between August and October (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): 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.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!

Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): 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.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!

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

Amen!

Transparent Moon : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm
Is the Moon an optical illusion : http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/

The part of the first page you linked that describes the alleged transparency of the Moon has a distinct lack of citations, just because an unqualified scientist claims something doesn't mean that that's true.  The guy is lying according to flat earther standards, so quit citing his works.

...

Quote

QUOTE FROM: CIKLJAMAS

Quote

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?

Quote

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

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!!!

Pay attention to what happens between September and November (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): 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.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!

Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): 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.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!

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

Amen!

Already disproved.

Quote from: cikljamas on January 18, 2015, 12:54:14 PM

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

...

And here is roughly what your picture should look like to my knowledge.

Just for the sake of correctness...there is a final version of my diagram:

Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.

In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean? With the assumption that each month is half as long as they really are (since the hypothetical year is half as long), if you move each dot to the bottom, as they are in the top drawing, and carry the annotations down (after correcting "AM" and "PM"), it will be right, too. Both diagrams would show the Earth's orientation after an integer number of sidereal days - you can tell it's sidereal, not solar, days because the earth's orientation (Prime Meridian toward the bottom of the page in all cases) is the same. The difference, which I asked for but you neglected to add, would be the number of days between each position (91 for the top, 45 for the bottom). Making those changes and adding this information should make it more clear.

24 * 360 = 8640

Hours per year (approximately)?

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it? If so, those numbers are wrong and the answers are meaningless. They should be 23,9333 (using comma as the decimal separator), and 23,8667, respectively, since the first is 23 + 56/60 hours and the second is 23 + 52/60 hours.

In that case the two results would be 361.002 and 362.01 rotations, respectively. Note that these are almost exactly one and two rotations greater than the 360 postulated. The first is the extra sidereal day in one year and the second is the two extra sidereal days in two years. As it has to be. They aren't exactly one apart because you should use 359 and 358 24-hour days for the two examples, respectively, representing one 359-day year (exactly 4 minutes between sidereal and 24-hour mean solar) and two 179-day years (exactly 8 minutes ...).

While i was studying this issue, i have noticed that in the background of "the exactly 1 annual rotation per year" phenomena there are two HC wrong presumptions (without any foundation in reality):

Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?

1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Potato's axis!
2. Constant period of the Potato's rotation!

There is no scientific explanation whatsoever, for any of the two (above) utterly science-fictional assumptions!

If you get down into the weeds of very high-precision measurements, like microsecond-level variations in the daily rotation period and similar lengthening due to tidal braking, the slow precession of the axis over a 26,000-year period and the faster (but considerably smaller) nutation of the Earth's axis, you'd be right. These effects can simply be dismissed as less than insignificant in this conversation, though.

Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?

However, this ("exactly 1 annual rotation per year") is an issue of a minor significance!

I dunno. It seems to be a major stumbling block for you. Look at your second diagram above - it's a completely confused mess after the simple hypothetical change from one degree per day to two degrees per day around the orbit. Concentrate on that, first. It's much more important than the minor, and not exactly obvious, EoT phenomenon that you also struggle with. EoT variations average out to exactly zero out over a period of one year, so they really aren't a consideration at all here.

What is utterly important is "The Equation of Time" utter HC flaw!

As for this very important and decisive question, all i can say is this:

Alpha2Omega is shamelessly lying, and same goes for anyone who would ever try to disprove such OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE fact according which "The Equation of Time issue" presents the utter HC flaw. There is no honest and fair person who would ever dare to deny this 100% straight and plain truth!

You keep saying this. Are you trying to convince yourself?

ONCE MORE AND THE LAST TIME:

I sure hope so! The answers have already been given - you even quote them! They haven't changed. Please read the reply this time. Please!!

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.

    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)

That one's easy.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652244#msg1652244
1998 solar day length from wikipedia
December 22         24 hours + 29.9 seconds
June 19                 24 hours + 13.1 seconds

According to this (and many, many other sources), solar days are longer by almost 17s around perihelion compared to around aphelion. Why did you think otherwise? Do you have any data to back up your assertion that days are shortest near the December solstice?

NB: [footnotes don't work correctly if there are following nested quotes] Solar days are longest near the solstices and shorter near the equinoxes. The variation due to the eccentricity of the orbit is smaller. That's why the solar day is longest near the December solstice (also close to perihelion), and also long near the June solstice, but not as long since it's near aphelion.

Quote

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?

Yep, same answer as before. Got any citations for that, like lengths of solar days at various times of year? Typing in all caps doesn't make your statement more correct. Data that supports it does.

<more confused reality>

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"!

Adding graffiti to an already-correct graph "proves" something?

Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link <link> , 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?

You said a "very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link". If it's "similar", that means it's also completely wrong. Those things you link to have too many errors and misconceptions to deal with on an internet forum without making a career out of it.

<Another temper tantrum in all caps, including calling me a liar.>

Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?

Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?

Explain how we see the sunrise and set from different places at different times.  Plus measured distances. Politely please.

Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?

There is not much, barley there.  Really hard to see with the motion.  But you can see it in stills, for example:
http://www.theblueroom.me.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32075
you have to hold up a piece of paper or straight edge to really see it.  Not much I admit.  I also see a great big sun.

Cikljamas presents:

<youtube promo and link>

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

<more off-color remarks>

Are you abandoning the topic below with unanswered questions in favor of some (presumably) goofy youtube video and gratuitous insults? Do you care to address the questions (conveniently highlighted for you) below, or are you tired of this subject, realize your argument has no merit, and want to change the subject?

Quote from: cikljamas on January 19, 2015, 03:21:49 PM

Just for the sake of correctness...there is a final version of my diagram:

<image>

Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.

In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean? With the assumption that each month is half as long as they really are (since the hypothetical year is half as long), if you move each dot to the bottom, as they are in the top drawing, and carry the annotations down (after correcting "AM" and "PM"), it will be right, too. Both diagrams would show the Earth's orientation after an integer number of sidereal days - you can tell it's sidereal, not solar, days because the earth's orientation (Prime Meridian toward the bottom of the page in all cases) is the same. The difference, which I asked for but you neglected to add, would be the number of days between each position (91 for the top, 45 for the bottom). Making those changes and adding this information should make it more clear.

Quote

24 * 360 = 8640

Hours per year (approximately)?

Quote

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it? If so, those numbers are wrong and the answers are meaningless. They should be 23,9333 (using comma as the decimal separator), and 23,8667, respectively, since the first is 23 + 56/60 hours and the second is 23 + 52/60 hours.

In that case the two results would be 361.002 and 362.01 rotations, respectively. Note that these are almost exactly one and two rotations greater than the 360 postulated. The first is the extra sidereal day in one year and the second is the two extra sidereal days in two years. As it has to be. They aren't exactly one apart because you should use 359 and 358 24-hour days for the two examples, respectively, representing one 359-day year (exactly 4 minutes between sidereal and 24-hour mean solar) and two 179-day years (exactly 8 minutes ...).

Quote

While i was studying this issue, i have noticed that in the background of "the exactly 1 annual rotation per year" phenomena there are two HC wrong presumptions (without any foundation in reality):

Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?

Quote

1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Potato's axis!
2. Constant period of the Potato's rotation!

There is no scientific explanation whatsoever, for any of the two (above) utterly science-fictional assumptions!

If you get down into the weeds of very high-precision measurements, like microsecond-level variations in the daily rotation period and similar lengthening due to tidal braking, the slow precession of the axis over a 26,000-year period and the faster (but considerably smaller) nutation of the Earth's axis, you'd be right. These effects can simply be dismissed as less than insignificant in this conversation, though.

Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?

Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?

Is these sorts of of low resolution YouTube videos really the best "evidence" you can produce to support your claim of a flat earth?  Seriously?  Can you be 100% certain that this one's not been digitally manipulated?  And why have they been captured with a potato instead of a digital camera?

And you're apparently happy to ignore the thousands of the European Space Agency videos, and the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research videos in favour of this dross?  Not good enough.

Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?

Is your head so flat that a round Earth can't fit in it?  There is a name for a flat earther who is open minded and unbiased, they are called round earthers.  In this thread you have demonstrated an almost complete lack of knowledge about the theory that you are calling a lie and now that I think about it I have never encountered a flat earther who has even a high school level understanding of physics and math.

I doubt the motive is financial.  The cost of orchestrating and maintaining this grand lie would far exceed any tax revenue diverted to space organizations.  The government has a history of grossly exceeding budget for even the simplest of projects (it can be argued of course that these cost overruns for mundane stuff is intentional and diverted to subsidize such a conspiracy).

I prefer to think that the grand round earth conspiracy is benevolent.  Perhaps we are being protected.  What is really out there may be too frightening or difficult to understand, and the dissemination of such knowledge would cause widespread panic and a deterioration of civilized society.

Will somebody please address my conspiracy theory theory?  I think "for our own good" is more logical and believable than the typical assertions of money or power.

Quote from: cikljamas on January 20, 2015, 04:10:16 PM

Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

I got a question for an honorable round-earther who reads these words: Does your round ass smells like a flower? I mean, are you still a round earther just because you can't pull your nose out of your round ass which smells so good?

Is your head so flat that a round Earth can't fit in it?  There is a name for a flat earther who is open minded and unbiased, they are called round earthers.  In this thread you have demonstrated an almost complete lack of knowledge about the theory that you are calling a lie and now that I think about it I have never encountered a flat earther who has even a high school level understanding of physics and math.

Gee Mike you learn quick. I wonder if his ass smells like a donkey.

He is right about one thing though...

I do have a nice round ass.

Please everyone, stop making personal attacks and posting low content in the upper fora.  Take it to CN or AR if you feel the need to play these games.  Thanks.

1.

Quote

24 * 360 = 8640

Hours per year (approximately)?

Yes! Just one little hint for you here: 30 days * 12 months = 360 degrees

2.     

Quote

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
    8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?

Yes!

3.

Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?

The Sun makes 365 trips per year above the Earth! How come that you still don't get it?

4.

Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?

Potato's spin, Potato's orientation or rate, these are nothing else, but ludicrous assumptions for which no one has ever presented any evidence!

However, there is a whole bunch of absolutely compelling evidences to the contrary, one of which is this video of mine:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I have made it as an answer to this particular question of yours, did you even watch it?

5.

Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.
In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean?

To this latter question of yours, i will answer after you answer to two next questions:

1. How you can deny that "The equation of time" case is absolute proof against the validity of HC theory (although it is just one among many such proofs)?

Here, once more:

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

Quote

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 (August - November) 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"!





Pay attention to what happens between August and October (the Sun rapidly speeds up), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): 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.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!

Also, pay attention to what happens between January and February (the Sun rapidly slows down), and what is the consequence of that (if we suppose that the Earth is orbiting the sun instead of vice versa): 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.! THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUN MOVES ABOVE THE EARTH, INSTEAD OF VICE VERSA!

See new diagram:


2. After watching this video..." class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> do you have to say?

1.

Quote

Quote

24 * 360 = 8640

Hours per year (approximately)?

Yes! Just one little hint for you here: 30 days * 12 months = 360 degrees

No, it doesn't. The units don't work.

Days * months gives day-months, which has dimension time².

Did you perhaps mean 30 days/month * 12 months = 360 days?

or

1°/day * 30 days/month * 12 months = 360°?

You never answered the question, though. Does 24 * 360 = 8640 represent the approximate number of hours in a year?

2.     

Quote

Quote

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
    8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?

Yes!

In that case, they're simply wrong, making your answers wrong. 23h 56m is not 23.56 hours. The number of rotations calculated above have no meaning.

3.

Quote

Before we go any further here, are you denying that the Sun makes exactly one trip around the ecliptic in exactly one year? If you are denying this, then what does "one year" mean?

The Sun makes 365 trips per year above the Earth! How come that you still don't get it?

That's not what I asked. I asked if you knew how many trips around the ecliptic the Sun makes in one year, not how many transits. If you don't understand the difference, that may be the reason you are having trouble with this concept.
 

4.

Quote

Ignoring those, do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?

Potato's spin, Potato's orientation or rate, these are nothing else, but ludicrous assumptions for which no one has ever presented any evidence!

However, there is whole bunch of absolutely compelling evidences to the contrary, one of which is this video of mine:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I have made it as an answer to this particular question of yours, did you even watch it?

No. You should know my attitude about links to videos with no supporting description - it's been repeated often enough. Can you summarize what the video purports to show or at least explain what you're trying to say in it? [I watched it while composing this - this could easily have been presented as text with a few illustrations. It doesn't address the question at hand "do you have any evidence that the Earth's spin - orientation or rate - is changing significantly, or even at all?" at all. See below.]

5.

Quote

Other than "AM" and "PM" being swapped in the top diagram, that's about right.
In the the lower diagram what does "within 24 hours frame of reference" mean?

To this latter question of yours, i will answer after you answer to two next questions:

1. How you can deny that "The equation of time" case is absolute proof against the validity of HC theory (although it is just one among many such proofs)?

How can I deny that? Because it's nothing of the sort, that's how.

Because the Equation of Time accurately describes the variation in the length of the apparent solar day and explains why this happens because of the slightly elliptical orbit (verified by slight changes in the apparent size of the Sun at different times of year), obliquity of the ecliptic (verified by the Sun's apparent path against the background stars), and constant rate of spin (only in the last few decades did better time standards than the rotation of the Earth, i.e. atomic clocks, become available).

Before wasting more time arguing about EoT, which you don't understand, and doesn't even factor in here, anyway, you might want to grasp the much more basic idea that the Sun makes one circuit of the ecliptic in a year. Since that's what defines a year, it doesn't get more basic than that.

Here, once more:

<repeat of incorrect assertions about EoT>

2. After watching this video..." class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> do you have to say?

Against my better judgement, I watched (or skimmed through) that piece of junk.

1) I hope you didn't spend too long putting that thing together.
2) There's nothing there that's improved by being a video. You could have presented a few frames and, we've seen the geodetic images before, anyway.
3) The quality of the high-altitude footage is terrible, but still shows the curvature of the Earth.
4) It's really boring. I just let it get ahead, then sped through it. That way it didn't take ten minutes to see.

Very poor effort; zero stars (on a scale of zero to four stars). Lame soundtrack (I turned the sound off), unnecessarily long (by about 9:30), unclear what some of the points were.

This is a great example why I don't like to watch these videos. They're invariably a complete waste of time.

Quote

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
  8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?

Quote

Yes!

In that case, they're simply wrong, making your answers wrong. 23h 56m is not 23.56 hours. The number of rotations calculated above have no meaning.

Well, 23h 56m is not 23,56 hours, but my calculation gives true result, don't you see?

Look how we can get practically the same result:

365 * 24 = 8760

8760 / 23,92 (which represents 23h,56min) = 366,2 rotations
8760 / 23,85 (which represents 23h,52min) = 367,2 rotations

Regarding everything else, all i can say is this:

I really pity you.

You have no courage to go deeper in details in EoT matter, because you know that if we put this question under scrutiny and examined it closely, there would be no place for hiding from this inevitable truth, that is: HC is one big piece of shit!

This diagram explains everything:



There is no way to deny it! NO WAY!

And you know it, that is why you are so miserable and desperate, isn't it?

You say that in round Earth theory the sun would be going on some absurd path that makes no sense, how did you come to the conclusion that the sun would move like a drunk mouse in the sky in round Earth theory?

Quote

Quote

8640 / 23,56 = 366,7 rotations
  8640 / 23,52 = 367,3 rotations

What do "23.56" and "23,52" represent here? From context, I'd guess you meant 23h 56m and 23h 52m, respectively. Is that it?

Quote

Yes!

In that case, they're simply wrong, making your answers wrong. 23h 56m is not 23.56 hours. The number of rotations calculated above have no meaning.

Well, 23h 56m is not 23,56 hours, but my calculation gives true result, don't you see?

No. By dividing one (slightly too small) wrong number by another (slightly too small) wrong number you came up with an answer that was kinda sorta close to the actual answer, but is still meaningless.

Look how we can get practically the same result:

365 * 24 = 8760

8760 / 23,92 (which represents 23h,56min) = 366,2 rotations
8760 / 23,85 (which represents 23h,52min) = 367,2 rotations

So now, using 365 days instead of 360 and numbers for the period of rotation that are more accurate, you come up with similar numbers. OK. So?

23:56 is 23.9333 hours; 23:52 is 23.867 hours. Using these give 366.02 and 367.04 for the sidereal days in one and two years, respectively. Very close to exactly one extra sidereal day per year, as expected. They're not exactly one rotation per year because the scenarios are approximate. 

Regarding everything else, all i can say is this:

I really pity you.

No need. I'm doing fine. Thanks, though!

You have no courage to go deeper in details in EoT matter, because you know that if we put this question under scrutiny and examined it closely, there would be no place for hiding from this inevitable truth, that is: HC is one big piece of shit!

"Courage?" "no place for hiding..." Dude... get a grip.

This diagram explains everything:

It explains pretty well that you are thoroughly confused about what the graph means.

Let's look at that graph and all the stuff you've added to it, along with some additional information from the USNO.

First of all, there is no standard for the sign of the values; the minutes represented by the graph can be mean solar time minus apparent solar time, or apparent solar time minus mean solar time. The time scale (Minutes of Time) on the left of your marked-up image is apparent solar time minus mean solar time. That is, negative numbers are when the apparent sun is behind the mean sun.

Here's a similar graph with the same sign convention:



Here is another, on the same horizontal scale, showing the rate of change of the EoT, or difference in the length of the apparent solar day and mean solar day (this is the slope of the graph above).



(Both images courtesy USNO Astronomical Applications department)

The second graph is the one you really want to use for your analysis; it's much more straightforward for what you're trying to show. In it, the Y-axis numbers (minutes/day) are negative when the true sun is moving across the sky slower than the mean sun. It's slowest (the most negative number) in late December and fastest (barely) near the September equinox. It crosses zero (apparent day = mean day) in mid-February, mid-May, late July, and early November; these are your "turning points", where the EoT is flat, on the marked-up plot. When the red curve is sloping downward, the apparent days are getting longer; when the red curve is sloping upward, the apparent days are getting shorter.

So let's look at what's going on:

The apparent sun is at its slowest in late December and speeds up through the end of March (red curve slopes upward). This corresponds with movement away from perihelion of the orbit and the equinox - both of which will make the apparent sun move eastward against the stars at maximum clip, causing the apparent sun to move most slowly on its daily westward path. After late December, the sun's pace across the daytime sky is picking up, but since it's already much slower than the mean sun, it falls further behind (but by a little less each day); this is the down-sloping blue line on the USNO EoT plot. By mid-February, the apparent sun's rate across the sky matches the mean sun, so it's no longer falling further behind (your "turning point"). After this, the apparent sun is now catching up with the mean sun. The apparent sun's rate across the sky continues to accelerate until a bit after the March equinox, when it starts to slow down a bit. Since the apparent sun has been moving faster than the mean sun since mid February, it overtakes it in mid-April (EoT = 0) and starts getting a little ahead since the apparent sun is still faster than the mean sun (EoT is positive). Around mid-May, the apparent sun's rate has dropped to match the mean sun's rate again, and the EoT flattens out and starts to drop. Etc.

All of this has been measured countless times and matches earth's known elliptical orbit and obliquity.

There is no problem between this and conventional heliocentric theory. Your not understanding it is not a problem with the heliocentric theory.

There is no way to deny it! NO WAY!

I've never denied that you seemed bewildered by the EoT. The question is: do you still deny it?

And you know it, that is why you are so miserable and desperate, isn't it?

Thanks for the laugh.

Quote

This diagram explains everything:

It explains pretty well that you are thoroughly confused about what the graph means.

Let's look at that graph and all the stuff you've added to it, along with some additional information from the USNO.

First of all, there is no standard for the sign of the values; the minutes represented by the graph can be mean solar time minus apparent solar time, or apparent solar time minus mean solar time. The time scale (Minutes of Time) on the left of your marked-up image is apparent solar time minus mean solar time. That is, negative numbers are when the apparent sun is behind the mean sun.

In that case, their graphs are correct (which has much more sense, of course), but the concept is still wrong, since what their graphs depict is in accordance with FET, not with RET.

Do i have to explain it once more?

Just watch my diagram.

If their main line (which represents the apparent sun) is in accordance with my blue sprayed line (in the meaning of how i have interpreted it), then their line only shows HOW IT IS, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE, ACCORDING TO FET, NOT ACCORDING TO RET!!!

THE VERY CONCEPT IS WRONG, AND THE CONCEPT IS WRONG BECAUSE IT MUST BE WRONG, AND IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE THE SUN IS IN MOTION ABOVE THE EARTH, NOT VICE VERSA!!!

Don't pretend you are stupid, since we all know that you are not. You are just a shill, ain't you?

...
Here's a similar graph with the same sign convention:



Here is another, on the same horizontal scale, showing the rate of change of the EoT, or difference in the length of the apparent solar day and mean solar day (this is the slope of the graph above).



(Both images courtesy USNO Astronomical Applications department)
...

Here let me quote it for you again. This is how it is in the RET.  What is so hard for you to understand? No matter what you say, these pictures are what is in reality. Just have a think about it.

Here is my picture again where I edited yours. See how my markings match the red diamonds. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 21, 2015, 01:49:21 PM

Quote

This diagram explains everything:

It explains pretty well that you are thoroughly confused about what the graph means.

Let's look at that graph and all the stuff you've added to it, along with some additional information from the USNO.

First of all, there is no standard for the sign of the values; the minutes represented by the graph can be mean solar time minus apparent solar time, or apparent solar time minus mean solar time. The time scale (Minutes of Time) on the left of your marked-up image is apparent solar time minus mean solar time. That is, negative numbers are when the apparent sun is behind the mean sun.

In that case, their graphs are correct (which has much more sense, of course), but the concept is still wrong, since what their graphs depict is in accordance with FET, not with RET.

Which FET is that? I've never seen a comprehensive one, probably because none exist. What would cause the Sun to speed up and slow down in such a way?

Do i have to explain it once more?

Coherently explaining it even once would be a start.

Just watch my diagram.

If their main line (which represents the apparent sun) is in accordance with my blue sprayed line (in the meaning of how i have interpreted it), then their line only shows HOW IT IS, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE, ACCORDING TO FET, NOT ACCORDING TO RET!!!

The blue sprayed line is wrong. According to your description (sun moving slower) it should be inverted and overlay the blue dotted line on the original graph.

Can we see a model, or at least a diagram, or something, illustrating the FET this accords with? It should explicitly show why the Sun would behave this way. The equivalent heliocentric illustration shows the elliptical orbit and axial tilt in their respective orientations.

THE VERY CONCEPT IS WRONG, AND THE CONCEPT IS WRONG BECAUSE IT MUST BE WRONG, AND IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE THE SUN IS IN MOTION ABOVE THE EARTH, NOT VICE VERSA!!!

Do you feel better now?

You think it's wrong because you simply do not understand it. This affects everything exactly nada.

Don't pretend you are stupid, since we all know that you are not. You are just a shill, ain't you?

Shill for what? What could I possibly gain by believing the Earth circles the Sun in a slightly-elliptical orbit while rotating on its axis which is tilted with respect to the orbital plane? Other than being able to understand and predict what can be seen in the sky, and put that knowledge to use, that is? Am I being paid just to take that position? I wish!!

QUESTION : At approximately what altitude we can see that earth is spherical?

A FEW DIFFERENT ANSWERS :

1. Ground level if you look in the right places. The classic example is the way distant ships appear to sink as they cross the horizon. No need for any maths.

2. If you actually want to see the curvature of the Earth it depends what threshold to want to apply as 'noticeable'. Decide on how much curvature is noticeable and determine the how much horizon needs to be in view to see that much curvature. One equation for the horizon distance is S = 1.42sqrt(H) where S is the distance in miles and H is the height in feet. From there you can get your answer with a bit of simple geometry.

3. Presuming that you mean with the naked eye, you only need to be a few kilometres in the air for it to be obvious. If you have ever been in an aeroplane on a clear day, the curvature of the Earth is easily visible. It can even be detected at sea in calm weather.

4. You would never see that at any altitude. The earth is flat.

5. You could see the curvature of the earth every day while travelling on Concorde....

6. Perhaps it is a fantasy. I swear that on the two times I flew the Condorde I could see the curvature. In any event, the experiences are sealed in my brain. What great memories!!

7. The curvature of the Earth was visible on my Concorde flight, along with the darnkess of the sky. It wasn't black but very dark blue. I have not been able to see either features on a normal flight up to 40k

8. My father used to travel on Concorde. When asked about seeing the curvature of the Earth, he thought it was pretty imperceptable, albeit beginning to become noticable, and probably due more to the power of suggestion or camera distortion than anything else. He thought, apparently, you have to go up in the likes of U2 aircraft (70,000 feet) before one really has a spectacular view of the Earth's curvature, although of course the view from Concorde certainly was unique and spectacular. I only flew it once when a child.

9. From a friend who was a military pilot, and from sources such as the many books I have read on the SR-71 and U-2 it can be said that this doesn't appear until you get up to 55K-60K feet........The highest I have been is 41K on a 777 and I couldn't see anything but a flat horizon.

10. I am an airline pilot, and the highest I have been is 41000'. Can't say that I have noticed any curvature. Not that I have been specifically looking for it either though. I would also guess that one would have to be at least 20 miles up to notice a curve without any instruments.

The first direct visual detection of the curvature of the horizon has been widely attributed to Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer on 27 May 1931. They reported seeing it from a hydrogen-filled balloon at an elevation of 15 787m (51 783 ft) over Germany and Austria. On 11 November 1935, Albert W.Stevens and Orville A. Anderson became the first people to photograph the curvature. They were flying in the helium-filled Explorer II balloon during a record-breaking flight to an altitude of 22 066m (72; 395 ft) over South Dakota. Other claims have been made as to being the first to see the curvature of the Earth, but they seem to have come long after visual curvature had been established.


Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers revealed that few if any could detect curvature below about 50; 000 ft. High-altitude physicist and experienced sky observer David Gutierrez reported that as his B-57 ascends, the curvature of the horizon does not become readily sensible until about 50 000 ft and that at 60 000 ft the curvature is obvious. Having talked to many other high fliers (SR-71, U2, etc.), Gutierrez confirms that his sense of the curvature is the same as theirs. Passengers on the Concorde (60; 000 ft) routinely marveled at the curvature of the Earth. Gutierrez believes that if the field of view (FOV) is wide enough, it might be possible to detect curvature from lower altitudes. The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35; 000 ft, they cannot see the curvature.



http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/



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.

Just one snapshot from my video:



So, 110 000 ft is almost twice as high as 60 000 ft, and we still can't see any curvature of the Earth?

How come?

Well, this question we need to ask a true scientist, and AusGeoff is a true scientist without a slightest doubt:

 

 

Quote

Cikljamas presents:

    Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

    There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

   
Is these sorts of of low resolution YouTube videos really the best "evidence" you can produce to support your claim of a flat earth?  Seriously?  Can you be 100% certain that this one's not been digitally manipulated?  And why have they been captured with a potato instead of a digital camera?

And you're apparently happy to ignore the thousands of the European Space Agency videos, and the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research videos in favour of this dross?  Not good enough.

Aren't you satisfied with an answer (above) of a true scientist?