GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

1. Alpha, let's get back to the beginning of our "Solar Eclipse" argument:

According to current HC theory :

-- The Sun is stationary (for all practical purposes in our case)
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)

Now, the question:

In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?

Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?

If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!

Our Sun is simply our reference point. Instead of the Sun we could also use some particular star (only there is no star which perfectly matches the size of the Moon).

So, i put this question once more: WHICH KIND OF MOTION IS DECISIVE, WHICH KIND OF MOTION MAKES THE DIFFERENCE???

A) ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH
B) ALLEGED ORBITAL MOTION (AROUND THE EARTH) OF THE MOON

If we are at the Equator, then the right answer is A, do you agree?
If we are at the North Pole, then the right answer is B, do you agree?

Rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator = 1666 km/h
Rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole = 0 km/h

The question is this: If we are at the North Pole, how come that the Moon is able to travel (apparently) in a direction East - West, at all?

2. Now, let's see something else, look at this picture:



If the Earth rotated between 5am-7am and between 5pm-7pm you would move BACK (5pm-7pm) and FORWARD (5am-7am) with respect to the Sun, and between 11am-1pm, and between 11pm-1am you would move LATERALLY with respect to the Sun, that is to say, you would move LEFT TO RIGHT (11pm-1am), and RIGHT TO LEFT (11am-1pm).

The degrees of Sun's displacement in these periods would be drastically different if the Earth rotated!!!

3. One question on ZIGZAG argument:

Let's suppose that you are astronomer-observer at some observatory which is placed at the edge of Arctic circle, and you observe Midnight-Sun or Noon-Moon.

If the Earth rotated you would have to slightly adjust (every few minutes or so) spatial orientation of your telescope from RIGHT TO LEFT (between 6am-6pm), and from LEFT TO RIGHT (between 6pm-6am). Right?

But it doesn't happen in reality!!!

In reality you adjust spatial orientation of your telescope ALWAYS (24 hours during one Polar Day or one Polar Night) in the SAME direction! Right?

So, what do you have to say in your defense?

Would you dare to put your hand on the Bible and say that HC theory is anything more than a bunch of disgusting lies?

Watch this video  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (PLEASE), and then try to answer sincerely to my question (PLEASE)!

Ok. Time to go back to basics and educate you cikl.

For our purposes we can assume that the sun is a stationary object, and that all positions of the moon and the sun are from a fixed observer on the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.

To describe the apparent motion of the sun and the moon we have three different factors at work:

1) The rotation of the earth - 360 degrees in 24 hours (ish) giving 15 degrees motion per hour. This will effect both the Sun and Moon and thus both will move 15 degrees to the right across the sky.

2) Orbit of the Earth-Moon system around the sun - 360 degrees in 365.25 days giving 0.986 degrees per day and 0.04 degrees per hour. This will only affect the apparent position of the sun and it will be a movement to the left across the sky, as the earth is orbiting anticlockwise around the sun.

3) Orbit of the moon around the earth - 360 degrees in 27 days giving 13.33 degrees per day and 0.555 degrees per hour. This motion will be to the left across the sky as the moon is orbiting anticlockwise around the earth.

Net results:

Sun apparent motion = +15^o right and +0.04 ^o left = 14.96^o right per hour

Moon apparent motion = +15^o right and +0.555 ^o left = 14.44 ^o right per hour

Apparent motion relative between Sun and Moon = 14.96 - 14.44 = 0.52 degrees per hour.

An eclipse duration is time for the moon disk to cross the sun entirely, which is twice the apparent disk diameter which is 2 x 0.5^o = 1 degree. Therefore an eclipse should last around two hours.

Simple.

Cikljamas, please read this post:

Cikljamas, here is an animation that I made of an eclipse:


The white circle is the Sun and the grey circle is the Moon.  Note how they are both moving left to right yet the Moon goes across the Sun right to left.  The reason that the Moon appears to move slower in the sky then the Sun is because the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates, so it's orbital velocity is subtracted from it's apparent velocity.

Yet another one of your "proofs" debunked.

I have disproven the zig zag argument a long time ago and I don't really understand your second argument which is no doubt based on your bad spacial reasoning.

Thanks Mike, for the info. It makes sense what you are saying.

1. Alpha, let's get back to the beginning of our "Solar Eclipse" argument:

Does this mean you are satisfied with the explanation of how you were confusing rotation with parallax in your experiments with the nearby dot covering the more distant object? I presume so.

I commend you for actually setting up experiments and urge you to understand what your experiments are telling you. This forum serves the purpose a peer review would in the academic world, where your setup, data, and interpretation of the data are all subjected to review, and criticism if warranted, by others familiar with the topic.

Thanks, Mainframes, for that very clear explanation of the differing rates of apparent motion. Maybe if cikljamas hears it from someone other than me he'll get it.

I was going to refer to cikljamas to mikeman7918's animation for the answer to the first question in 1., but he beat me to it (short answer: it always emerges from the west (right, in the situation described) side of the Moon - the animation should make that clear). Thanks for putting that together. What software do you use for those animations? I think you've already said once, but it's easier to ask than figure out the appropriate search terms.

You guys already covered these well:

According to current HC theory :

-- The Sun is stationary (for all practical purposes in our case)
-- The Moon is traveling in a direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT) Why RIGHT to LEFT? Because we observe the Moon from northern "hemisphere" (Polaris is behind our backs).
-- The Earth allegedly turns in the same direction West - East (RIGHT to LEFT)

Now, the question:

In which direction (on which side of the Moon (RIGHT or LEFT)) we should expect first appearance of the portion of the Sun after eclipse is finished?

Shouldn't we expect that the first portion of the Sun-light (after eclipse is finished) begin to appear from the left side of the Moon (more precisely : from our LEFT side)?

If the rotation of the Earth (angular velocity) is more decisive (and it must be) than the alleged motion of the Moon (West - East) (RIGHT to LEFT), then we should expect that the first appearance of the Sun occurs from our LEFT side!

Our Sun is simply our reference point. Instead of the Sun we could also use some particular star (only there is no star which perfectly matches the size of the Moon).

So, i put this question once more: WHICH KIND OF MOTION IS DECISIVE, WHICH KIND OF MOTION MAKES THE DIFFERENCE???

A) ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH
B) ALLEGED ORBITAL MOTION (AROUND THE EARTH) OF THE MOON

If we are at the Equator, then the right answer is A, do you agree?
If we are at the North Pole, then the right answer is B, do you agree?

No. It's rotation of the Earth that dominates in both cases, by a factor of about 30; see Mainframes' analysis. Being at the equator instead of the pole introduces a small amount of parallax that is smaller than the orbital motion of the Moon, and utterly swamped by earth's rotation.

Rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator = 1666 km/h
Rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole = 0 km/h

The question is this: If we are at the North Pole, how come that the Moon is able to travel (apparently) in a direction East - West, at all?

Because at the pole you're still rotating, that's why. There is no parallax, but parallax ≠ rotation.

2. Now, let's see something else, look at this picture:



If the Earth rotated between 5am-7am and between 5pm-7pm you would move BACK (5pm-7pm) and FORWARD (5am-7am) with respect to the Sun, and between 11am-1pm, and between 11pm-1am you would move LATERALLY with respect to the Sun, that is to say, you would move LEFT TO RIGHT (11pm-1am), and RIGHT TO LEFT (11am-1pm).

By maybe a couple thousand km, tops. The Sun is about 150 thousand thousand km distant. This means the parallax you're describing is truly minuscule. This parallax is several orders of magnitude smaller than the 15°/hr rotation.

The degrees of Sun's displacement in these periods would be drastically different if the Earth rotated!!!

No, it would be imperceptible for anything but the most careful measurements, and maybe not even then.

3. One question on ZIGZAG argument:

Let's suppose that you are astronomer-observer at some observatory which is placed at the edge of Arctic circle, and you observe Midnight-Sun or Noon-Moon.

If the Earth rotated you would have to slightly adjust (every few minutes or so) spatial orientation of your telescope from RIGHT TO LEFT (between 6am-6pm), and from LEFT TO RIGHT (between 6pm-6am). Right?

No. The telescope would need to track in a smooth clockwise direction the whole time. Why do you think you would have to change direction if the Earth is smoothly rotating?

But it doesn't happen in reality!!!

In reality you adjust spatial orientation of your telescope ALWAYS (24 hours during one Polar Day or one Polar Night) in the SAME direction! Right?

Darn tootin'! Nor is this bizarre notion that the Sun should reverse direction expected anywhere outside your imagination.

So, what do you have to say in your defense?

You're wrong, for the reasons stated above.

Is that clear enough?

Would you dare to put your hand on the Bible and say that HC theory is anything more than a bunch of disgusting lies?

Sure. There's always the vanishingly small chance the the HC theory is wrong, but I have no trouble defending it because it's the only workable theory we have, and it works marvelously well. My conscience is clear.

Watch this video  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (PLEASE), and then try to answer sincerely to my question (PLEASE)!

Please describe what the video is about, who made it. If it presents any new information or ideas, what are they? If there are no new new information or ideas, why should I watch it?  I suspect it's a complete waste of time; only after I'm convinced it's worthwhile will I even consider watching it.

Thanks Mike, for the info. It makes sense what you are saying.

My advice would be to ignore all arguments made by cikljamas, they are all so easy to debunk because they are based off of flawed spacial reasoning and he also ignores all proof that he is wrong (which there is a lot of).

Ok I watched his video, its a Mark Sargent film that's talking about the astronauts gone wild film.  Something about how the astronauts wouldn't swear on the bible and that they knew about the flat Earth.  He supposes the reason they wouldn't swear on a bible is because they knew God was watching and that made it more real for them.  I am at about 7:45 in the Astronauts Gone Wild video right now and I have already seen the reason why none of them would give the guy their time.  Mark Sargent says not to go watch the hour long film, and let him describe it for you.  So that means I HAVE to go watch it because he is known for twisting the truth. 
When you gain an interview under false pretenses, then tell a man he is lying to his face, tell him you know he did not do something that the rest of the world thinks he did, what kind of reaction would you think you would get.  They talk about a fist fight, but dude got in Buzz Aldrin's face and called him a coward and a liar after he had already been told to leave the property during the interview where he had accused Aldrin of lying.  Hell I think Buzz showed extreme restraint, then the old man knocked the shit out of him when he called him a coward. 
Ill watch the rest of the film.  But it looks to me already that it is a guy who is using really terrible journalism tricks to get interviews then trying to get the astronauts off guard by upsetting them and calling them out.  He seems to be trying to illicit a negative response from them so he can make that  part of his proof they were lying.  Pretty terrible film so far.  I already want to beat this dudes ass.  You really don't call a former soldier a coward and a liar, the worst kind of human being who should be ashamed of himself, to his face.

So you are shown to be wrong, therefore you throw a titty baby fit?  Grow up dude. 
BTW 
ZIG ZAG IS THE STUPIDEST IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD

Mike, I like you. You're a good guy.

Ok I watched his video, its a Mark Sargent film that's talking about the astronauts gone wild film. 
...
I am at about 7:45 in the Astronauts Gone Wild video right now and I have already seen the reason why none of them would give the guy their time.  Mark Sargent says not to go watch the hour long film, and let him describe it for you.  So that means I HAVE to go watch it because he is known for twisting the truth.
...
Ill watch the rest of the film. 

Thanks for taking one for the team.

<Big words and colorful language.>

Not a very compelling argument. Sorry.

You might want to take a break from this stuff for a while.

WOW, what a great little video!     Seems like a dagger through one of the main arguments of round earth theory.

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

LOL... there's just so much wrong with this video and the guy's "explanation" of what we're actually seeing, it's hard to know where to start.

He doesn't understand what a mirage is (which is irrelevant to the issue anyway).
He confuses a limited depth of field or out-of-focus with a mirage!
He "shifts" his false horizon up and/or down arbitrarily and independently of his ship.
He shifts his observation point (the camera) up and down arbitrarily and independently of his false horizon line.
The relativity of his setup's sizes, elevations and distances are way out.
He can't use a digital camera correctly—he's relying on auto everything which doesn't work on tabletop models.
None of his images actually show the lower part of his ships disappearing totally as they do on the ocean.
If he'd used a slightly convex table-top, he would've observed almost similar (and inconclusive) visual effects.

—Although I'm not in the least surprised that earth is a stage thought that the video was "great".

THIS PLACE IS DISGRACE OF HUMAN RACE!!!

It will be fine once you leave.....

Quote from: cikljamas on March 27, 2015, 10:20:12 AM

THIS PLACE IS DISGRACE OF HUMAN RACE!!!

It will be fine once you leave.....

Agreed.

'This place' being a Flat Earth website, the man has a point.

Ok I watched the whole thing.  Lovely ambush journalism portrayed here.  This dude basically either cornered the astronauts on the street, at public events, or lied to obtain private interviews from some of them.  He also did get 3 or 4 of them to swear on the bible.  He starts off asking normal questions for the most part in the private interviews, then slowly works in the stuff that will annoy them.  After he gets them upset, he then shoves a bible in their face and while constantly asking them to swear on the bible he tells them he knows for a fact they didn't go to the moon.  It is clear that all he wanted was the negative responses that he received.  If this is the great proof of a conspiracy by Nasa then, there is no conspiracy at all.  Only asshats with a camera. 
I wish Buzz would have continued beating this guys ass for much longer.  He absolutely deserved more than he got.  You get into a man's face and say those things about him in an ambush and expect to get away with it?   Seriously uncalled for. 
Feel free to watch this garbage if you wish.
Here is a link
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Have just watched this hilarious video myself—even with my patience drawn wafer thin many times LOL.

Bart Winfield Sibrel is, to put it mildly, worth less than the sludge in my septic tank.  In the now infamous interview, when Buzz Aldrin refused to be goaded by him, Sibrel called him "a coward, and a liar, and a thief".  If anybody had the temerity to say that to my face in a public place, then in all likelihood, I'd react in exactly the way Aldrin did.  As it turned out, Sibrel was merely trying to manufacture a law suit in order to make big dollars, which typifies his scumbag tactics.

It's of interest that later, in 2009, Sibrel, who works as a Nashville taxicab driver, was charged with vandalism when he jumped up and down on the hood of a car owned by a woman with whom he was having a parking dispute.  Court documents show he was arrested after the driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted.  The arresting officer wrote, "A few moments later the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked."  Sibrel "then walked up to the victim's car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times."  The report says he caused about US$1,400 worth of damage, after which Sibrel pleaded guilty to vandalism and was placed on probation.

Sibrel was fired from his job as a cameraman (not an investigative reporter as he claims) for a Nashville, Tennessee television station after being arrested for trespassing on Neil Armstrong's property after Armstrong refused to grant him an interview.

Sibrel also claims on his web site that his video contains "never-seen" secret NASA Apollo videotape showing a clip of the Apollo 11 crew faking some footage in the Apollo module.  After seeing the film those of you of a certain age, like me, may come to the conclusion that you've seen it before.  You have... it was all taped footage from the Apollo 11 CM Westinghouse three-color camera telecasts that were broadcast live on NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC and every other decent network on the planet more than 40 years ago!

The times and dates of those broadcasts have long been a matter of public record and the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11). The video was so blurry and fuzzy that Houston had to prompt the characteristically un-talkative Apollo 11 commander, Neil Armstrong to describe what he was pointing the camera at so that NASA could correlate what he was shooting with what he was describing on later tape playbacks.  Colour TV cameras small enough to fit inside tiny spacecraft cabins were brand new and balky technology in 1969.  Global communications networks could not even synchronize the audio and video signals coming back to Houston from receiving antennas at Honeysuckle Creek in Australia and Goldstone in California.

Each and every one of the qualifications, accreditations, and claims made by Sibrel on his web site HERE are nothing more than a farrago of lies, fabrications, and misrepresentations.

For further evidence debunking and destroying Sibrel's reputation and credentials, refer to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site HERE.

I admire that CIK doesn't bow the knee.

Well yes that can be an admirable trait, but the problem is when someone is wrong, and shown many different ways why the idea that someone is trying to propose is wrong, that they just ignore that completely and then just go into a silly fit or spew insults.  We aren't saying everything he thinks is wrong, just a couple of his suppositions are incorrect.  He is trying to figure things out and that's a good thing.  Never just take anyone's word for anything.  You do need to give the people respect who did the work previously to figure something out though.  You don't just dismiss them and expect to be taken seriously.  Scientist spend years going through schools, then years gathering evidence to support their original idea.  They have to go through the gauntlet of debates to get their theories recognized, why should we just stand by and let someone shortcut to just saying this is what it actually is without any evidence, testing, or verification done. 
I normally do try to look what people say here and try not to make assumptions before I can figure out what they are proposing.  If it is blatantly wrong, i will say so.  If it is something I do not understand, I will ask for clarification.  cik really doesn't like questions at all for clarification, he will copy paste the same thing over, sometimes putting things in bold fonts, all while insulting your intelligence.  This is a tool of a weak mind, and I hate to say it that way because it sounds like an insult.  It isn't really meant to be, just a wake up call for them to stop assuming and think about what responses they are getting.

'This place' being a Flat Earth website, the man has a point.

I'd like to think he means the internet as a whole.

Quote from: neimoka on March 27, 2015, 11:45:33 AM

'This place' being a Flat Earth website, the man has a point.

I'd like to think he means the internet as a whole.

No, the world as a whole.

I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?

There are strange things done under the Midnight Sun, by the men that follow fool's gold? The Arctic trails have their secret tales, that would make your myths run cold.
The northern lights have seen queer sights, but the strangest they ever did see, was the night I stood on the 85th, and the Midnight Sun I could see!

I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?
Sounds like a problem!

That's simple: Earth has a 23.5 degree axial tilt:



As the Earth orbits the Sun it's axis always points in the exact same direction, this causes seasons and it's why the midnight sun can only bee seen around the time of an equinox:


Cikljamas has mentioned on many occasions that he hates the idea of Earth having an axial tilt because the round earthers use it to explain things so well, but the reason it explains so much is because it's what's actually happening.  Also, unlike the aether (and most of FET), it's well understood and it can be used to make predictions.

Cikljamas' claims are hilariously easy to debunk, and he evidently never reads responses to his posts because he always insists that he has proved FET long after his claims have been thoroughly debunked.

Quote from: earth is a stage on March 27, 2015, 07:54:53 PM

I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?
Sounds like a problem!

That's simple: Earth has a 23.5 degree axial tilt:



As the Earth orbits the Sun it's axis always points in the exact same direction, this causes seasons and it's why the midnight sun can only bee seen around the time of an equinox:


Cikljamas has mentioned on many occasions that he hates the idea of Earth having an axial tilt because the round earthers use it to explain things so well, but the reason it explains so much is because it's what's actually happening.  Also, unlike the aether (and most of FET), it's well understood and it can be used to make predictions.

Cikljamas' claims are hilariously easy to debunk, and he evidently never reads responses to his posts because he always insists that he has proved FET long after his claims have been thoroughly debunked.

The same can be said of at least one other flat earther : iWitness.

I am sure CIK, has debated with you about the The Midnight Sun. Why is it possible to see the Midnight Sun, outside of the poles? I have read it can be seen at 65 parallel. How would that be possible?

There are strange things done under the Midnight Sun, by the men that follow fool's gold? The Arctic trails have their secret tales, that would make your myths run cold.
The northern lights have seen queer sights, but the strangest they ever did see, was the night I stood on the 85th, and the Midnight Sun I could see!

Well the Arctic circle starts at 66 degrees and that's where you can see it and up to 90 degrees.  The latitude lines start at 0 at the equator and increase to 90 at the poles.

Thanks guys. Take the poetry in good stride. I don't consider you to be fool's. I need to think about this tilt proposition.  Now, why would Polaris always be straight up, if the earth tilts?

No I liked it. 

Thanks guys. Take the poetry in good stride. I don't consider you to be fool's. I need to think about this tilt proposition.  Now, why would Polaris always be straight up, if the earth tilts?

Polaris happens to be near the direction of the axis of earth's rotation. It's only straight up when you're near the north pole. At the equator Polaris stays near - slightly above or slightly below - the horizon.

Now, why would Polaris always be straight up, if the earth tilts?

Because Polaris is where Earth's axis points to.