GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

This is rubbish. Any moron can take 4 steps in a circle outside whilst looking at the sun and it zig zags.
Now go ahead, give me another laugh tell me it does not.

The key part is in italics.  The rest of us know the sun isn't zigzagging, however the ground directly around you appears to be zigzagging from your perspective while staying orientated toward the sun.

CLK
You do realise that the Earth actually is round?
So its like impossible to prove it is formed in any other way?

I have been thinking about this problem today, and took a plate and held it up to a ceiling light, with the perspective of the light close to the plate. I then slowly spun around with the plate, but kept both the light and plate in view, and could see the light bobbing back and forth, towards the plate. I do admit I didn't see any ZIG ZAG.  I will re-study what cik has to say on the matter. I want to make sure I fully understand this problem. When my back was towards the light, my perspective  caused the light (sun) to move away from the plate. I didn't see the light do any kind of reverse.

1. @ Alpha2Omega,

So, when you have to explain daily stellar parallax then you just use magical word "rotation" (which is not a parallax, but a parallax is (would be if it (Earth's rotation) existed) a consequence of that "magical word" which is indeed a magical word and nothing else, nothing that really exists in reality) instead of word "parallax"!

Changing words explains nothing!

And when you have to explain away lack of Sun's parallax in the sky then your explanation is that the Sun is so far away that we cannot notice it (Sun's parallax).

In that name we are going to repeat the words of truth:

If you can observe (let's say within Arctic circle during one Polar Night) how circumpolar stars make PERFECT circles in the sky (daily parallax), then during one Polar Day you should also be able to observe how the Sun makes PERFECT circle in the sky (it's daily parallax).

How in the world you can justify Parallax of the Stars which happens during the Polar Night, if in the same time you are not willing to admit that the same phenomena should be observable (on the same geometrical basis) while watching the Sun during one Polar Day?

This thing is perfectly clear and beyond any dispute, only totally insane people can keep going with questioning such a simple and obvious concept!

We have put this ZIGZAG (parallax) concept through it's paces, and we proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this concept is 100 % proof against the rotation of the Earth.

As soon as there is no rotation of the Earth everything falls to pieces!

P.S. Have you ever asked yourself this question:

How come that you can see daily parallax of the stars in the sky, but you are not able to see annual stellar parallax in the sky???

On top of that:

One daily parallax (which we CAN observe) allegedly happens within few thousands miles wide circle.

One annual parallax (which we CAN'T observe) allegedly happens within 188 000 000 miles wide circle.

This is my video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This is Rory's video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

2.

@ Earth is a stage, you should see how i demonstrated my ZIGZAG argument in this video:

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

3.

@ Sevenhills,

A) The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10° 30´ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53° 30´ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43°, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360°. Hence if 43° are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360° will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.

Another and a very beautiful and accurate way of ascertaining the earth's circumference is the following:--

The difference of longitude between Heart's Content Station, Newfoundland, and that at Valencia or, in other words, between the extreme points of the Atlantic) Cable--has been ascertained by Mr. Gould, coast surveyor to the United States Government, to be 2 hours, 51 minutes, 56.5 seconds." 1

The sun passes over the earth and returns to the same point in 24 hours. If in 2 hours, 51 minutes, and 56.5 seconds, it passes from the meridian of the Valencia end of the cable to that of its termination at Heart's Content, a distance of 1942 statute miles, how far will it travel in 24 hours? On making the calculation the answer is, 16,265 statute miles. This result is only three miles greater distance than that obtained by the first process.

Again in the Boston Post, for Oct. 30th, 1856, Lieut. Maury gives the following as the correct distances, in geographical miles, across the Atlantic by the various routes (circle sailing).

If we take the distance (given in the above table) between Liverpool and New York as 3360 statute miles, and calculate as in the last case, we find a nearly similar result, making allowance for the detour round the south or north of Ireland.

"The difference of time between London and New York which the use of the electric cable makes a matter of some consequence, has latterly been ascertained afresh. It is 4 hours, 55 minutes, 18.95 seconds." 1

The results of these several methods are so nearly alike that the distance 16,262 statute miles may safely be taken as the approximate circumference of the earth at the latitude of Valencia.

Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places:

Tokio (35 degrees N) - Los Angeles (34 degrees N) = 5471 Mi (8804 km)
Los Angeles - New York (40 degrees N) = 2448 Mi (3940 km)
New York - Istanbul (41 degrees N) = 5009 Mi (8062 km)
Istanbul - Tokio = 5556 Mi (8942 km)

All together (full circumference of the Earth at latitude 34-41 N) = 18484 Mi (29748 km)

B) If the distance from Valencia to the Cape of Good Hope, or to Cape Horn, had ever been actually measured, not calculated, the circumference of the earth at these points could, of course, be readily ascertained. We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false. We must therefore take known distances between places far south of Valencia, where latitude and longitude have also been carefully observed. In the Australian Almanack for 1871, page 126 2, the distance from Auckland (New Zealand), to Sydney, is given as 1315 miles, nautical measure, which is equal to 1534 statute miles. At page 118 of the Australian Almanack for 1859, Captain Stokes, H.M.S. Acheron, communicates the latitude of Auckland as 36° 50´ 05″, S., and longitude 174° 50´ 40″, E.; latitude of Sydney, 33° 51´ 45″, S., and longitude 151° 16´ 15″, E. The difference in longitude, or time distance, is 23° 34´ 25″, calculating as in the case of Valencia to Newfoundland, we find that as 23° 34´ 25″ represents 1534 statute miles, 360° will give 23,400 statute miles as the circumference of the earth at the latitude of Sydney, Auckland, and the Cape of Good Hope. Hence the radius or distance from the centre of the north to the above places is, in round numbers, 3720 statute miles. Calculating in the same way, we find that from Sydney to the Cape of Good Hope is fully 8600 statute miles.

The above calculations receive marked corroboration from the practical experience of mariners. The author has many times been told by captains of vessels navigating the southern region, that from Cape Town to Port Jackson in Australia, the distance is not less than 9000 miles; and from Port Jackson to Cape Horn, 9500 miles; but as many are not willing to give credit to such statements, the following quotation will be useful, and will constitute sufficient evidence of the truth of the foregoing calculations:--

"The Great Britain steamer has arrived, having made one of the best voyages homeward that has yet been effected, viz., 86 days; 72 only of which were employed in steaming; and the remaining 14 days being accounted for by detentions. She left Melbourne on January 6th, and arrived in Simon's Bay on February 10th, or 35 days. She then went round to Cape Town, whence she sailed on the 20th of February; and was afterwards detained for four days at St. Michael's and Vigo. The distance she steamed per log was 14,688 miles; which for the 72 days, gives an average of 204 miles a day."

If we multiply the average rate of sailing by the thirty-five days occupied in running between Melbourne and St. Simon's Bay (near Cape of Good Hope), we find that the distance is 7140 nautical miles, From Melbourne to Sydney is 6 degrees of longitude further east, or about S40 nautical miles. Hence 7140 added to 340 give 7480 nautical miles, equal to 8726 statute miles; which is 126 miles in excess of the distance given at page 94.

The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--

"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers."

A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.

In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--

"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."

From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.

From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles. Should it ever be shown by actual direct measurement to be more than this distance, then the distance from Cape Town to Sydney must be more than 8600 statute miles.

Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places :

Sydney -- Cape Town = 2445 Mi (3935 km) TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO FAR OFF FROM REALITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sydney -- Terra del Fuego (Argentina) = 5924 Mi (9534 km) -- STILL VERY FAR OFF FROM REALITY

Cape Town - Terra del Fuego = 4216 Mi (6785 km) -- Much, much closer to reality!!!!

Ok lets try your merry go round example again.  If you are on the merry go round and there is a light source outside it.  As it spins, lets try to think of the edge of the merry go round.  In the line from you to the light source you have the edge of the merry go round.  As it spins around you experience every point along the edge of the merry go round being between you and the light source after one rotation.   This edge is your horizon.   
Do you agree that this itself happens?

1. @ Alpha2Omega,

So, when you have to explain daily stellar parallax then you just use magical word "rotation" (which is not a parallax, but a parallax is (would be if it (Earth's rotation) existed) a consequence of that "magical word" which is indeed a magical word and nothing else, nothing that really exists in reality) instead of word "parallax"!

Changing words explains nothing!

Yes, and worse, it confuses things, so please stop doing it.

You use the word parallax, which has a specific meaning, when you mean rotation, which has a completely different meaning. This is really confusing you (maybe others, too).

And when you have to explain away lack of Sun's parallax in the sky then your explanation is that the Sun is so far away that we cannot notice it (Sun's parallax).

In that name we are going to repeat the words of truth:

Please try to grasp that repeating incorrect things does not make them true. When you keep doing this it makes you look dumb.

If you can observe (let's say within Arctic circle during one Polar Night) how circumpolar stars make PERFECT circles in the sky (daily parallax rotation), then during one Polar Day you should also be able to observe how the Sun makes PERFECT circle in the sky (it's daily parallax rotation).

I corrected the above for you. After correction, that describes what happens.

Since you're talking about the "perfect circles" circumpolar stars trace through the sky (which, although you don't mention it, are also concentric) you're demonstrating rotationThe [nb]Earth rotating under fixed stars or the stars rotating over a fixed earth would produce the same pattern, but something is rotating; we have to use other tests to determine which model is correct.[/nb]. If any discernible parallax were present in addition to the rotation, the circles wouldn't be perfect. If the stars were nearby and the circles were due only to parallax, they wouldn't be concentric. As it is, there is rotation but no discernible amount of parallax, so they do appear perfectly circular and concentric.

See how easy this becomes if you use the right term. What you describe is rotation, not parallax. They're different. Do you know what parallax is? It seems like you don't.

How in the world you can justify Parallax rotation of the Stars which happens during the Polar Night, if in the same time you are not willing to admit that the same phenomena phenomenon should be observable (on the same geometrical basis) while watching the Sun during one Polar Day?

Your question as originally stated is meaningless. No one I know of claims stellar parallax due to daily rotation can be detected, so the question is moot. As corrected by substituting 'rotation' (which is what we're talking about) for 'parallax' (which is a different phenomenon), no one denies the second phenomenon is observable.

This thing is perfectly clear and beyond any dispute, only totally insane people can keep going with questioning such a simple and obvious concept!

Yet you keep at it... is there a message here?

<more repeated crap as if to prove the above>

2.

<yet more crap>

 

Alpha, it is a lost cause.  He will not ever understand that he has no concept of what things that you can see may or may not prove.  He is much like the ones he likes to parrot.  You have to throw out almost all accepted science and much of your common sense to be that closed minded.  Yet he will post after this about think for yourself, that he thinks that I am an idiot, maybe call me a liar, or that we can't understand his vast intelligence, etc.  So I await the schoolyard kiddie tactics of name calling since I am throwing out that he is silly.

You NASA shills are a lost causes!!!

If the Earth rotated (instead of stars and other heavenly luminaries), then all the stars that make a full circles above us (within the arctic circle) would be "circumpolar" stars, better to say: if the earth rotated all these stars (that make a full circles above us, within the arctic circle (during one polar night)) would be ZIGZAG-parallax-stars.

If the Earth rotated the whole heaven would be full of relatively small circles (parallaxes) of different stars, there would be nothing like what we (an observer within arctic circle) are able to observe in our reality. What an observer within arctic circle is able to see during one polar night?

1. Motionless Polaris
2. Small circles (parallax) that make stars which are placed near Polaris
3. Larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are farther from Polaris
4. Even more larger circles (parallax) that make stars which are even more farther away from Polaris etc...

If the Earth rotated you should forget about Long-Exposure photographs of the stars as we know them from our reality, it would be something quite different than what you can see in these Long Exposure photographs of the stars which circulate on the internet...

ZIGZAG argument is very much applicable argument to the star case, not only to the midnight Sun or to the noon Moon!

Abandon lie!!!

"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?

With a latitude of about 0.5 degrees south or beyond, Polaris never rises.

"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?

Where did he say this?  Have you searched for this yourself to determine if it is a fact?

"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?

Many things singlehandedly destroy all globular arguments!

As for Polaris that can be seen up to 23,5 degrees South, read this :

Which "pole" star are they referring?  And why are you posting a letter to the editor of a newspaper from the 1800's anyway? 
I tell you what, I will write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper about how you lost a bet and couldn't prove the Earth wasn't rotating or tilted and acted like a big baby.  Then we will scan the printed article in and post it as proof that you are wrong... does that make it proof?  I didn't think so.

I doubt these Captains had any need to be dishonest.  Man alive!

Quote from: earth is a stage on March 15, 2015, 03:25:43 PM

"Polaris can be seen... up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude." Eric Dubey
If this is correct, doesn't it singlehandedly destroy all Globular arguments?

Many things singlehandedly destroy all globular arguments!

As for Polaris that can be seen up to 23,5 degrees South, read this :

No, try again.  That article says latitude 23.53, but it does not say 'south'. 

It is however, possible to see both polaris and the southern cross from 23.53 north.

Let's see if this gets my point across:

Stand in one spot and spin around, but other then that don't move.  You will see that everything appears to rotate around 2 points, one below you and one above you.  This is exactly what the stars do in the real world.

The context points to the 23.5 degrees as being south, since the article records "in the event of this being considered as an error"  Thanks Mikeman, I will keep trying to get the perspective.  I was walking around town today with an orange in my hand, directing it at objects in the distance!

The context points to the 23.5 degrees as being south, since the article records "in the event of this being considered as an error" 

So Cpt. Wilkins witnessed it at 23.53 degrees, with no specification as to whether it was north or south.  Cpt. Gillett witnessed it at 12.xx degrees south.  This does not confirm Cpt. Wilkins was at S 23.53.  The writer of the letter is simply taking two different accounts by two different people, one of which does not specify north or south, and trying to use the other to imply both were in southern latitudes.  It seems rather desperate to me.

Can anyone find any other credible source with some proof of people witnessing Polaris from 23.5 degrees south other than an old letter to an editor that mentions of an even older issue of a newspaper with a vague report?

This is Rory's video animation of my ZIGZAG argument : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The Sun is not above the north pole during the midnight Sun thing, it's still way off to the side.  The midnight Sun also happens near the South Pole during the summer months in the southern hemisphere (winter in the northern hemisphere).  How does FET explain this?

Alpha, it is a lost cause.  He will not ever understand that he has no concept of what things that you can see may or may not prove.  He is much like the ones he likes to parrot.  You have to throw out almost all accepted science and much of your common sense to be that closed minded.  Yet he will post after this about think for yourself, that he thinks that I am an idiot, maybe call me a liar, or that we can't understand his vast intelligence, etc.  So I await the schoolyard kiddie tactics of name calling since I am throwing out that he is silly.

Yeah... i know that he may be a lost cause. But even if he's a lost cause and is wrong at every level of actual observation doesn't mean his wrong ideas shouldn't be challenged.

I am learning from him.  Here is a very interesting statement.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

You don't need to kill a horse twice.   I can't validate the statement, but maybe you guys can help validate it?

I am learning from him.  Here is a very interesting statement.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

You don't need to kill a horse twice.   I can't validate the statement, but maybe you guys can help validate it?

I just speant 5 seconds doing a Google search and found this:
http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm

Only under very special circumstances can both object be visible when they are opposite to each other. At this time for example both touch the horizon at the same time. One rises when the other sets. Then comes our atmosphere. Refraction apparently lifts objects a bit higher. The more the closer the object is to the horizon. At the time of sunset the solar disk is lifted about 30arc minutes (about it's own diameter). Also if one observes from a very high mountain the apparent horizon is somewhat lower as we observe a bit around the curvature of the earth.

Now how do you think this would work in FET?

Maybe we should say something here about the Moon-case :

Firstly,



It rotates on it's axis ONES in the SAME time it takes to orbit us once despite it's (Moon's) significantly eccentric orbit! Tell this fairy tale to someone else!!!

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

What is interesting here to notice is that heliocentrists had been used the same paradigm/mechanics (perfectly synchronized rotation of the Moon) even before they decided that the Moon circles around the Earth once per month instead of once per day!!!

They just DRAMATICALLY changed the alleged speed of rotation and orbital speed of the Moon as well as alleged distances between celestial "bodies"!!!

Within first (old) hypothesis the Moon revolves around the Earth daily with the speed of 17,280 km/hour, so it takes 24 hours for Moon to cross 414 720 km. It is obviously much less than 2 386 400 km which is allegedly lenght of the Moon's orbit within today's (new) HC hypothesis.

So, 414 720 / 2 / 3,14 = 60 988 = distance between the Earth and the Moon (old hypothesis)

Mr. Gillespie talks from the OLD (Moon theory - MUCH SMALLER ALLEGED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND MOON) STANDPOINT:

Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' page 89, comes to the rescue and says

" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmosphere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the moon's disc. Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot therefore be inhabited.''

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer









Secondly,

How about the "EOT" problem regarding the Moon?

The speed of the Moon = 0,0041 degrees per second
The speed of the Sun = 0,00000039 degrees per second

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

Thirdly,

During a central eclipse, the Moon's umbra (or antumbra, in the case of an annular eclipse) moves rapidly from west to east across the Earth. The Earth is also rotating from west to east, at about 28 km/min at the Equator, but as the Moon is moving in the same direction as the Earth's spin at about 61 km/min, the umbra almost always appears to move in a roughly west-east direction across a map of the Earth at the speed of the Moon's orbital velocity minus the Earth's rotational velocity.

--3660 km/h (alleged speed of the Moon) - 1660 (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator) = 2000 km/h (the speed of umbra/antumbra)

--3660 km/h - 850 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at Oslo) = 2810 km/h

--3660 km/h - 0 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole) = 3660 km/h

Is this in accordance with reality???

20 March 2015 — Total Solar Eclipse

It's a Total Solar Eclipse in Svalbard (Norway) and the Faroe Islands, and a Partial Solar Eclipse in Europe, northern and eastern Asia and northern and western Africa The eclipse starts at 7:41am UTC. The maximum point (totality) begins at 09:45am UTC and will last for 2 minutes and 47 seconds.

21 August 2017 — Total Solar Eclipse

The total solar eclipse will be visible from most locations in the United States and Canada.

This eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse visible from contiguous United States since 1979. The total phase of the eclipse will be visible from locations spanning from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States. The last time this happened was during the June 8, 1918 total solar eclipse.

Parts of Western Europe and northern and western South America will experience a partial solar eclipse.

The eclipse will begin at 03:47 p.m. (15:47) UTC. The maximum point of the eclipse will take place near Hopkinsville, Kentucky at 06:22 p.m. (18:22) UTC. Totality will last for 2 mins 40 secs.

Fourthly,

The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.

The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.

So, why do we NEVER see the Darkside of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?

Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :



Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :











2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!

Oh, i forgot this :

FLAT EARTH Clues Part 10 - Hiding GOD : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Thank you Mark!!!

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

Maybe we should say something here about the Moon-case :

Firstly,

<repost>

This appears to be a re-post of http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671103#msg1671103

Reported. Can we keep the ongoing discussion of this in the other thread please?

Quote from: cikljamas on March 17, 2015, 07:15:27 AM

Maybe we should say something here about the Moon-case :

Firstly,

<repost>

This appears to be a re-post of http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671103#msg1671103

Reported. Can we keep the ongoing discussion of this in the other thread please?

cikljamas does this frequently.  The vast majority of other forums prohibit cross-posting as it's considered spamming and breaches forum rules.  As it should here.  But then cikljamas is a flat earther after all, and they enjoy a special dispensation from adhering to the rules of this site.

Personally, I don't even bother wasting any time reading through the reams of the same old copypasta he posts here day after day.  I must've seen these silly Moon/Mars images of his a hundred times now LOL.  And his distorted interpretations are still just as much imaginative fairy stories.

Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.

Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this

Quote

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.

Moon landings weren't faked.

Cikljamas - you're right about the faked moon landings, but this

Quote

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

is ridiculous. The apparent speed of the moon is greater because it is much much closer. This is simply common sense. Also, reading your post I feel like I'm watching one of those stupid cartoons they have on Nickolodeon - disjointed images thrown in my face. Not a good way to format your post.

Tell that to the professional astronomer (Alpha2Omega).

Here is his (Alpha2Omega's) opinion on this:

It's not. The Moon moves more slowly across the sky than the Sun does, and the Sun moves across the sky more slowly than the stars. The Moon transits a meridian approximately 50 minutes later each day, so its average transit-transit time is about 24h50m. Recall that the Sun takes exactly 24h on average, and the stars 23h56m. Which is slowest? This is exactly as cikljamas expects, but, for some reason, doesn't realize actually happens; maybe if he spent more time looking at real data instead of tracking down ludicrous ideas posited by charlatans he wouldn't make mistakes like this. We can hope - probably in vain. It certainly would save all of us time. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63047.msg1671243#msg1671243

Here is the truth:

According to one anonymous source:

The Sun makes a complete transit around the Earth in ~24.25 hours, or 360
degrees in 87,300 seconds (.0041 degrees/sec).

The Moon makes complete transit around the Earth in ~29 days or 360 degrees in 2,531,700 seconds (.00000039 degrees/sec).

According to my own calculation:

The speed of the Moon:

29 (synodic period) * 86400 = 2505600
360 / 2505600 = 0,0001436 degrees / sec

27,3 (sidereal period) * 86400 = 2358720
360 / 235870 = 0,001526 degrees / sec

The speed of the Sun:

360 / 86400 = 0,004166 degrees / sec

It is true that the Moon moves fastest against the background sky (GHA) but it is also true that because of the Moon's alleged orbital motion in a direction W - E and because of the rotation of the Earth (in the same direction) the algebraic addition of both movements should result in slower local motion (LHA) than that of the Sun or stars.

It is easier to see the motion of the Moon than of the Sun for two reasons -- it is much faster and you can see stars when the Moon is near them, but NOT when the Sun is near them. However, it is possible, by measuring the right ascension and declination of the Sun, to see that it does follow almost exactly the same path as the Moon, but much more slowly. Source : http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

Secondly,

As the Moon approaches perigee its angular speed among the stars will appear to increase by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its lesser distance, and half being due to an actual increase in speed; and as it approaches apogee, its angular speed among the stars will appear to decrease by about 12% of its average speed, half of that change being due to its greater distance, and half being due to an actual decrease in speed. Since 12% of 13.2 degrees per day is 1.6 degrees per day, the daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6 degrees per day near apogee to as much as 14.8 degrees per day near perigee.

So, why do we NEVER see the Farther/Another side of the Moon if it rotates on ax like NASA says?

If I remember correctly from school, angular velocity (measured in degrees) is not the same as linear velocity (in metres per second). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity