GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

Quote from: simplyfascinated on April 04, 2015, 12:04:47 PM

I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that you're a Theist who is defending a motionless earth based on the Bible, perhaps, and accusing such scientists as Newton of being "godless"? Yet you also seem to be a lover of science. That is why I feel I must at least introduce you to creation.com. You will see there that the Bible clearly speaks of a round earth, not a flat one, and Newton was a very devout Christian. Here is a link that recently addresses geocentrism, but there are many good resources of this type, if you look around and do some searches. http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism

Happy Easter! =)

This guy thinks he can debunk authenticity of the Bible by proving that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat. Although he is not aware that he failed to debunk credibility of the Bible, he is right about that the biblical cosmology is in accordance with the Flat Earth theory: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Happy Easter!

Disagree, but oh well. =)

Cikljamas, that's a strange definition of "proof" you have as it does not seem to involve experiments, evidence, or even logic.

I don't know why he thinks the sun needs "two speeds"  , but actually in flat earth theory is does need to change speed, as it has an inner and outer circular path, but a day remains 24 hours.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 04, 2015, 04:26:14 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on April 04, 2015, 12:04:47 PM

I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that you're a Theist who is defending a motionless earth based on the Bible, perhaps, and accusing such scientists as Newton of being "godless"? Yet you also seem to be a lover of science. That is why I feel I must at least introduce you to creation.com. You will see there that the Bible clearly speaks of a round earth, not a flat one, and Newton was a very devout Christian. Here is a link that recently addresses geocentrism, but there are many good resources of this type, if you look around and do some searches. http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism

Happy Easter! =)

This guy thinks he can debunk authenticity of the Bible by proving that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat. Although he is not aware that he failed to debunk credibility of the Bible, he is right about that the biblical cosmology is in accordance with the Flat Earth theory: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Happy Easter!

Disagree, but oh well. =)

They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called " years of discretion," they would at once have rejected. This astronomic method of instilling error into young minds, recalls to my remembrance Pope's apt lines respecting vice -

"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen
But, grown at length familiar with its face.
We first abhor—then pity—then embrace."

The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.

" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."

Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.

The Earth, being thus " stretched upon the waters," has, of course, waters under it; so we read that the Israelites were commanded as follows " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the Earth" Exod. xx. 4.;

and again—"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or on the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the Earth "— Deut. v. 8.

No waters could possibly exist under a revolving Planet—but waters do exist under the Earth—therefore the Earth is not a revolving Planet.

In Isaiah xl. 22 God is poetically described as sitting upon or over (pt) " the circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word there used for circle is hhoog, a circle or circumference, not a globe, and the Greek word used to translate it in the same passage in the Septuagint is guros, a circle, not sphaira, a sphere. The fact is that no word for " globe " or " sphere " occurs in the Bible from beginning to end.

Again, in Proverbs viii. 27, we read, be-hhegoo hhoog ol peni tehoom, " when He set a circle upon the face of the deep," referring to the impassable ice barriers of the great Southern Circumference. This is corroborated by Job xxvi. 10 — "He hath described a circumference upon the face of the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness " or, as Dr. Young translates it — " a limit hath He placed on the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness." The word here used for "boundary" or "limit" is hhoog, the same as described as " circle " or " circumference," as previously noted.

Before leaving this subject of the Circumference, there is one other passage in the Authorised Version of the Bible to which I would like to refer, as it has been made a pretext for believing the theory of the Earth whirling round the Sun. It is as follows — " He stretcheth out- the North over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing " Job xxvi. 7.

The Hebrew is neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh, the proper translation of which is — " He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings." I am much surprised that not only the translators of the Authorised and Revised Versions, but such a distinguished scholar as the late Dr. Robert Young, could have made such a strange mistake, as to say that God " hangeth the Earth upon nothing," which is neither a proper rendering nor common sense ; besides which it distinctly contradicts the Word of God which, in so many other places, declares that the Earth rests upon Foundations. There must be a support for any thing that hangs, and our Modem Astronomers were not long in taking advantage of the above mistranslation by saying that, as it was impossible for such a heavy mass as the Earth to stand by itself, the passage must mean that it whirls round the Sun by the force of Gravitation...

...It is, therefore, evident from the above examination, that the real meaning of belimeh in Job xxvi. 7 is that God supports the Earth upon fastenings, or, in other words, upon "foundations," the truth of which will be fully confirmed in the following Section, in which it will be seen that the Earth is not only stretched out upon the waters which have an impassable circumference, but that it has Immovable Foundations, therefore IT CANNOT BE A PLANET.

Another one is this:

How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?

As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl.  FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer.  Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?

I think "simplyfascinated", does believe the Bible. I thought he was just trying to give a fellow believer reasons for round earth theory.

They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called " years of discretion," they would at once have rejected. This astronomic method of instilling error into young minds, recalls to my remembrance Pope's apt lines respecting vice -

"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen
But, grown at length familiar with its face.
We first abhor—then pity—then embrace."

The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anointed Psa. ii. 2—and will be swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor" —Dan. ii. 35. Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. (WHICH MEANS 250 YEARS BEFORE OUR TIME - CIKLJAMAS' OBSERVATION) He faithfully remarked as follows "Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.

" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will. And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."

Hear the Word of God : " I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth out the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish " Isa. xliv. 24, 25.

The Earth, being thus " stretched upon the waters," has, of course, waters under it; so we read that the Israelites were commanded as follows " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the Earth" Exod. xx. 4.;

and again—"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or on the Earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the Earth "— Deut. v. 8.

No waters could possibly exist under a revolving Planet—but waters do exist under the Earth—therefore the Earth is not a revolving Planet.

In Isaiah xl. 22 God is poetically described as sitting upon or over (pt) " the circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word there used for circle is hhoog, a circle or circumference, not a globe, and the Greek word used to translate it in the same passage in the Septuagint is guros, a circle, not sphaira, a sphere. The fact is that no word for " globe " or " sphere " occurs in the Bible from beginning to end.

Again, in Proverbs viii. 27, we read, be-hhegoo hhoog ol peni tehoom, " when He set a circle upon the face of the deep," referring to the impassable ice barriers of the great Southern Circumference. This is corroborated by Job xxvi. 10 — "He hath described a circumference upon the face of the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness " or, as Dr. Young translates it — " a limit hath He placed on the waters, unto the boundary of light with darkness." The word here used for "boundary" or "limit" is hhoog, the same as described as " circle " or " circumference," as previously noted.

Before leaving this subject of the Circumference, there is one other passage in the Authorised Version of the Bible to which I would like to refer, as it has been made a pretext for believing the theory of the Earth whirling round the Sun. It is as follows — " He stretcheth out- the North over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing " Job xxvi. 7.

The Hebrew is neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh, the proper translation of which is — " He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings." I am much surprised that not only the translators of the Authorised and Revised Versions, but such a distinguished scholar as the late Dr. Robert Young, could have made such a strange mistake, as to say that God " hangeth the Earth upon nothing," which is neither a proper rendering nor common sense ; besides which it distinctly contradicts the Word of God which, in so many other places, declares that the Earth rests upon Foundations. There must be a support for any thing that hangs, and our Modem Astronomers were not long in taking advantage of the above mistranslation by saying that, as it was impossible for such a heavy mass as the Earth to stand by itself, the passage must mean that it whirls round the Sun by the force of Gravitation...

...It is, therefore, evident from the above examination, that the real meaning of belimeh in Job xxvi. 7 is that God supports the Earth upon fastenings, or, in other words, upon "foundations," the truth of which will be fully confirmed in the following Section, in which it will be seen that the Earth is not only stretched out upon the waters which have an impassable circumference, but that it has Immovable Foundations, therefore IT CANNOT BE A PLANET.
[/quote]

Thank you for such a thorough explanation of the basis for your belief in a flat earth. I am at a disadvantage because up until a month ago or so, I didn't even know that flat-earth believers existed. Therefore, I am not as knowledgeable in this area and am still picking things up as I go. I am having to do some research for my response, so bear with me if I take my time.

I was mistaken, it seems, that the Bible speaks of a sphere. You were correct in stating that there was no word in the Hebrew for such a shape. Therefore, either shape could be assumed.

As far as the water argument goes, I was able to find this quote from creation.com:

"We may agree with the idea of the land being set ‘upon’ the sea, but to say that it ‘floats’ upon that sea is not at all indicated in the text. The biblical description accords with an accepted creationist paradigm that postulates the pre-diluvian existence of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11) which produced most of the water of the Genesis Flood. It would be perfectly proper to have described the land as having been ‘spread out’ over this vast subterranean water source. It would also be perfectly proper for what was left of this water source to continue to be referred in the same terms after the Flood when it would still be a source for underground springs (Genesis 49:25, Deuteronomy 33:13)."

In response to your "ice wall" alleged references, I will try to do some more digging. I am intrigued for sure. =)

I'm afraid I didn't understand your last argument. If you were referencing the verse that speaks of earth's foundations "shall not be moved," this is a figure of speech. I quote again, because others have said it better than I can:

"Psalm 96:10 is another critical verse for us to understand. It says:

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge   the peoples with equity.”
Similar statements that “the earth shall not be moved” appear in Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 104:5. Do these verses    not say that the earth does not move? No, they do not, for one very simple reason: the Hebrew word מוֺט (mot) means “to totter, shake, or slip”11 and    is often translated such in other places. The opposite of “shake” can be “unmoving”, as in these    verses, but it can also be accurately translated “unshaken”. Using the same word, Psalm 55:22 and Psalm 112:6    say the righteous will never be moved. Same word, similar context, but obviously this does not mean people are fixed in   place! Yet, if the righteous can move, so can the earth. Following on that theme, Psalm 121 is titled, “The Righteous    shall never be moved.” verse 3 says God will never let your foot be moved, yet a few verses later talks about “coming in” and “going    out”, meaning the feet must be moving and the earlier use of “shall not be moved” must be a metaphoric   or poetic expression for “firm” or “unshaken”. Also, Psalm 16:8 says, “I shall not be moved,”   and most biblioskeptics and geocentrists would not think that the Psalmist was in a strait jacket! Finally, Psalm 125:1    says those who trust in the Lord are like Mt. Zion, which cannot be moved and abides forever. This is perhaps a better place    to use “cannot be moved”, for we are talking about a mountain, but even that will be burned up in the future    (according to most views on eschatology), so the poetic expression is clear."

I'm not sure that this covers what you were talking about or not. "Foundations" is a word that can be explained by both round-earthers and flat-earthers alike. I would argue that even space itself is that "foundation" or "firmament" that is described in Genesis.

Other than the ice wall verses, did I respond to all your arguments? Again, I will look into those references to the best of my ability when I can. =)

Hmm okay, I guess that didn't take long (lol). Here we go:

Most modern translators agree that this "scribing a circle" in relation to the world refers to the horizon of the earth.

NIV: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
NLT: He created the horizon when he separated the waters; he set the boundary between day and night.
GWT: He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.

Loved the article Cikjamas! 
I am curious to know why a stationary earth cannot have a tilt.  I would think a earth without a tilt, cannot be a sphere.  Therefore, it is very simple (if you are correct) Just 3 steps

#1. Stationary earth
#2. No tilt
#3. Flat earth

Happy easter!
interesting short video's mikeman.

I don't get how what you said proves anything.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 04, 2015, 03:08:45 PM

Another one is this:

How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?

As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl.  FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer.  Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?

You should study path that the sun makes in the sky (ANALEMMA) more carefully.

Why does the sun take this strange path? There are two reasons and they are completely independent from each other.

1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun.

WRONG. The Earth is not tilted (the only thing that is tilted is typical HC brainwashed - head. Alleged tilt of the Earth is (an alibi) the way how to disguise the fact that the Sun circles above the Earth in wider and narrower circles.

2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse.

I am not sure about the exact path of the Sun above the Earth, but it is obvious that this explanation (number 2) serves to hide one another truth, that is to say: The Sun circles above the Earth with different velocities at different times of the year. The Sun's speed is higher in winter (tropic of capricorn), and slower in summer (tropic of cancer).

We call these two situations a “fast Sun” and a “slow Sun”. If the y-axis of the analemma was due to the Earth’s axial tilt (a.k.a width of the Sun's orbit above the Earth), then the x-axis comes from the Sun "appearing" fast or slow (a.k.a the Sun's real (not the apparent) speed).

It is simply the sum of these two ("effects") facts that causes the analemma.

You should also distinguish the speed and path of the source of light vs the speed and path of the projection of Sun's light : http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086

Thank you for such a thorough explanation of the basis for your belief in a flat earth. I am at a disadvantage because up until a month ago or so, I didn't even know that flat-earth believers existed. Therefore, I am not as knowledgeable in this area and am still picking things up as I go. I am having to do some research for my response, so bear with me if I take my time.

I was mistaken, it seems, that the Bible speaks of a sphere. You were correct in stating that there was no word in the Hebrew for such a shape. Therefore, either shape could be assumed.

Wrong, there is only one shape that could be assumed : Flat Earth concept (i explained what it means several times)!


“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either."  Thomas Paine, "Age  of Reason".

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”

The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...

Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!

Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.

21th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now.

With the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.

Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.

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 (that the HC theory 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.

THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

The Bishop of Peterborough is another notable  example. He says:

" I have no fear whatever, that the Bible will be found, In the long run, to contain more science than all the theories of philosophers put together."

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 05, 2015, 07:22:11 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 04, 2015, 03:08:45 PM

Another one is this:

How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?

As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl.  FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer.  Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?

You should study path that the sun makes in the sky (ANALEMMA) more carefully.

Why does the sun take this strange path? There are two reasons and they are completely independent from each other.

1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun.

WRONG. The Earth is not tilted (the only thing that is tilted is typical HC brainwashed - head. Alleged tilt of the Earth is (an alibi) the way how to disguise the fact that the Sun circles above the Earth in wider and narrower circles.

Unless you can think of a good reason the Sun will circle above the Earth in wider and narrower circles, at a different rate than the stars circle above the earth in concentric circles (and there can be a different set of concentric circles other stars follow, while the distances between stars never changes), that works no worse than the tilted, spinning Earth, this idea won't get very far.

2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse.

I am not sure about the exact path of the Sun above the Earth, but it is obvious that this explanation (number 2) serves to hide one another truth, that is to say: The Sun circles above the Earth with different velocities at different times of the year. The Sun's speed is higher in winter (tropic of capricorn), and slower in summer (tropic of cancer).

We call these two situations a “fast Sun” and a “slow Sun”. If the y-axis of the analemma was due to the Earth’s axial tilt (a.k.a width of the Sun's orbit above the Earth), then the x-axis comes from the Sun "appearing" fast or slow (a.k.a the Sun's real (not the apparent) speed).

But the "fast sun" (in terms of apparent motion across the sky), a few seconds a day faster than the "slow sun", occurs when the "orbit of the Sun above the Earth" is largest, near the tropic of Capricorn. Why would that be?

It is simply the sum of these two ("effects") facts that causes the analemma.

You should also distinguish the speed and path of the source of light vs the speed and path of the projection of Sun's light : http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html

From the linked post:



Isn't a main appeal of a flat earth that it's simpler than a spherical one? That's one hideously complicated (but probably necessary) model for the behavior of light! I think I'll stick with straight light rays and a spherical surface, thanks!

This is easily the best illustration of the behavior of the paths that "bendy light" rays would have to take to simulate, on a flat earth, the behavior of straight rays of light from a distant source hitting a spherical earth. Is there a mathematical expression that describes the path those rays take? If one is even possible, it's gotta be pretty a uncivilized beast.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086

I'm surprised you'd bring up that train wreck of an argument again. If you read the posts following that one, you'll see how your case justifying the terribly butchered image was taken apart point by point. Thanks for linking instead of quoting the whole thing again here, though!

[Edit] fix typo.

I felt the need to isolate in particular this ludicrous piece of drivel from amongst the plethora of rainbow-coloured and multi-sized fonts that cikljamas chooses in an effort to impart more veracity to his nonsensical ramblings...

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."

A couple of terms caused me to endanger yet another of my ribs;  the date of 1878, and the phrase 'modern astronomy'.

I'm thinking that cikljamas may well have fallen into his very own "delirium of lunatics".

   

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 05, 2015, 07:22:11 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on April 04, 2015, 03:08:45 PM

Another one is this:

How they can explain different speeds of the Sun: "summer" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of cancer) vs "winter" speed (when the Sun travels above the tropic of capricorn) ?

As Weathermax has pointed out already, we are hoping you can explain this yourself Cikl.  FET would require the sun to move overhead roughly twice as fast around the Tropic of Capricorn as it does around the Tropic of Cancer in order to maintain a 24 hour day during the southern summer.  Has anyone observed the sun moving twice as fast in the southern hemisphere?

You should study path that the sun makes in the sky (ANALEMMA) more carefully.

Why does the sun take this strange path? There are two reasons and they are completely independent from each other.

1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun.

WRONG. The Earth is not tilted (the only thing that is tilted is typical HC brainwashed - head. Alleged tilt of the Earth is (an alibi) the way how to disguise the fact that the Sun circles above the Earth in wider and narrower circles.

2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse.

I am not sure about the exact path of the Sun above the Earth, but it is obvious that this explanation (number 2) serves to hide one another truth, that is to say: The Sun circles above the Earth with different velocities at different times of the year. The Sun's speed is higher in winter (tropic of capricorn), and slower in summer (tropic of cancer).

We call these two situations a “fast Sun” and a “slow Sun”. If the y-axis of the analemma was due to the Earth’s axial tilt (a.k.a width of the Sun's orbit above the Earth), then the x-axis comes from the Sun "appearing" fast or slow (a.k.a the Sun's real (not the apparent) speed).

It is simply the sum of these two ("effects") facts that causes the analemma.

You should also distinguish the speed and path of the source of light vs the speed and path of the projection of Sun's light : http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086

Pretty complicated amount of precision bendy light you've got there.  So you say the sun is circling so much faster around Capricorn vs Cancer, and yet a myriad of things are combining to make it look like it's moving the same speed as in the north while also still appearing round plus the same size throughout the day.

What happens as the actual sun gets further and further ahead of the 'observed' sun?

Perhaps you and Rory can make a video of how this works.

Also,
If it's agreed that the sun moves, or Earth rotates, at a speed of 1,038mph at the equator, this gives us a circumference of 24,901 miles for the equator.  Everyone agree?

However, with a surface distance of 6,210 miles from the N. pole to the equator, we get an equator circumference 39,018 miles with a flat Earth.  This means the sun would have to circle (at the equator) at a speed of 1,625mph.  I'm pretty sure we've established 1,038 though.

Sorry, but a spherical Earth is far simpler.

Cikljamas, considering how metaphorical the Bible is and the fact that it's a book of religion and not a book of science you can't automatically assume that everything in it which sounds like cosmology can't all be taken literally.  Please say where in the Bible it says "the hydrogen atom consists of a single proton and a single electron." or "in the last days people will be lied to about the shape of the Earth".

But the "fast sun" (in terms of apparent motion across the sky), a few seconds a day faster than the "slow sun", occurs when the "orbit of the Sun above the Earth" is largest, near the tropic of Capricorn. Why would that be?

I don't know!

The Sun is a complete mystery. How it works? Noone knows. But arrogant scientists reject (by default) "I don't know" as an answer, because it is not an explanation of any kind. If you are scientist you are aware that you have a spoiled, brainwashed auditorium which wants to hear from you scientific explanations, and not an answer like "We just don't know", am i right)?

But is it honest and fair to continue to lie to your brainwashed auditorium just because you have to keep your silly job and to earn your dirty salary?

Wouldn't be much more honest if you just admit that you don't know something that you simply don't know?

The TRUTH about the Sun, The Sun Is Hollow Interdimensional : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Next video lasts less than 2 minutes:

Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Now, just change the name of a video above by replacing the words "theory of Evolution" with the words "Modern fraudulent nuclear-solar theory" and listen what Phillip E. Johnson has to say to you!

You can also replace those words with some other phrases, like:

HC theory
Big Bang theory
Theroy of relativity
Theory of gravitation

etc....

So, i don't know how the Sun works, but i know how the Sun doesn't work.
I don't know what is exact shape of the Earth, but i do know that whatever that shape might turn out to be, it is going to be in accordance with FET concept, and it's not gonna be in accordance with idiotic HC theory!

And in this thread i have presented a whole bunch of proofs for that, one of which is this (whether you like it or not): http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086

Sorry, but a spherical Earth is far simpler.

It certainly doesn't mean it's truer, just because some aspects of a FE theory are not simpler than the same aspects of a HC fraudulent theory. Generally FET theory is much simpler and much, much, much more plausible than totally idiotic HC theory! But even if it were not so, this particular question (which theory is simpler) wouldn't decide (by no means) which theory is right and which of these two theories is not in accordance with reality!

Cikljamas, considering how metaphorical the Bible is and the fact that it's a book of religion and not a book of science you can't automatically assume that everything in it which sounds like cosmology can't all be taken literally.  Please say where in the Bible it says "the hydrogen atom consists of a single proton and a single electron." or "in the last days people will be lied to about the shape of the Earth".

Please say where in the Bible it says : There are smart people, there are less smart people, and there are even less smart people...

Please say where in the Bible it says : There are smart people, there are less smart people, and there are even less smart people...

It doesn't say that, what has this got to do with anything?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 06, 2015, 07:58:44 AM

But the "fast sun" (in terms of apparent motion across the sky), a few seconds a day faster than the "slow sun", occurs when the "orbit of the Sun above the Earth" is largest, near the tropic of Capricorn. Why would that be?

I don't know!

The Sun is a complete mystery. How it works? Noone knows. But arrogant scientists reject (by default) "I don't know" as an answer, because it is not an explanation of any kind.

"I don't know" is clearly the best answer when it's true. Where it is undesirable is when it's used to avoid saying what you don't want to admit knowing.

If you are scientist you are aware that you have a spoiled, brainwashed auditorium which wants to hear from you scientific explanations, and not an answer like "We just don't know", am i right)?

No. "I don't know" is a fine answer to a question when you don't know the answer. Can you lose the pejorative terms like "spoiled" and "brainwashed", please.

But is it honest and fair to continue to lie to your brainwashed auditorium just because you have to keep your silly job and to earn your dirty salary?

Are you saying this is commonly done? Examples? Your problem is that you consider any answer you didn't want to hear to be a lie. It may be comforting for you to believe that, but doesn't make it true or accomplish anything useful.

Wouldn't be much more honest if you just admit that you don't know something that you simply don't know?

Why do you think this is never done?

The TRUTH about the Sun, The Sun Is Hollow Interdimensional : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Next video lasts less than 2 minutes:

Why Don't More Scientists reject the theory of Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

No, thanks. Please summarize here if there's anything new in either of these.

Now, just change the name of a video above by replacing the words "theory of Evolution" with the words "Modern fraudulent nuclear-solar theory" and listen what Phillip E. Johnson has to say to you!

You can also replace those words with some other phrases, like:

HC theory
Big Bang theory
Theroy of relativity
Theory of gravitation

etc....

So, i don't know how the Sun works, but i know how the Sun doesn't work.

So you don't know why the Sun moves in the sky the way it does, and you don't know what it's source of energy is. In other words, you don't know much of anything at all about the Sun, but for some reason you know the model that actually works is wrong. Got it.

I don't know what is exact shape of the Earth, but i do know that whatever that shape might turn out to be, it is going to be in accordance with FET concept, and it's not gonna be in accordance with idiotic HC theory!

So you don't know much of anything at all about the shape of the Earth and have no working hypothesis that fits with common observations, but for some reason you know the model that actually works is wrong. Got it.

And in this thread i have presented a whole bunch of proofs for that, one of which is this (whether you like it or not): http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1653086#msg1653086

In this thread you've presented nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated arm waving that has been shown, time after time, in detail, to be misconception on your part. You keep referring people back to that argument you decisively lost. Why? You're saying right here that you don't know why the analemma works, yet you keep referring back to a post where you claim (unsuccessfully) that its existence disproves the heliocentric solar system.

Alpha,

You can twist my words and misinterpret their meaning as much as you want, but it won't help you, nothing can save your idiotic theory from being put down and crushed into cubes. I did it numerous times (by now) in this thread. Anyone who read this thread from the beginning (to the end) and read it with proper attention and comprehension, cannot fail becoming fully convinced in incomparable superiority of FE theory over RE theory.

All you guys have is your Foucault pendulum argument (which is inexpressible embarrassment for someone who lives in 21 century), and unceasing repetition of question about the unknown mechanics of sunsets and sunrises (which is inexpressible embarrassment, also), and about the exact path of the Sun and other questions regarding many other unknowns about the Sun which is total mystery, as i have emphasized numerous times.

However, some of these questions could be easily solved. For example, the question about the exact differences in velocities of "winter" (fast) sun and "summer" (slow) Sun could be easily answered if it were to be allowed to scientific community to ascertain exact values of these differences and to publish them. 

The same goes for the EXACT form of the surface of the Earth.

But even without the help of 100 % corrupted scientific community we have debunked many major hoaxes of modern "science", and first and greatest of all scientific lies and hoaxes (of all time) is (without the doubt) the HC - RE theory.

Eric Dollard The Sun is not what we wave been told.!!! : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

sick llamas, you've been reading a different thread than the rest of us  if you see any fe win here.

Another great video CIK.   Interesting when Dollard says the Sun's  light could only be minutes old.   What I think makes foucault's pendulum dubious is the fact that it seems to be effected by a solar eclipse. What does an eclipse have to do with the rotation of the earth?   A few hundred flat earthers are expected to have all the answers, but do the millions of taxpayer supported 'Big Bang' scientists have all the answers?

I don't think flat earthers have to have all the answers.

Some answers that make sense and can be observed in reality would be a nice start though.

sick llamas, you've been reading a different thread than the rest of us  if you see any fe win here.

Your father has been ill when he slept with your mother, so you ended up so retarded.

Alpha,

You can twist my words and misinterpret their meaning as much as you want, but it won't help you,

Hey, you're the one who said "The Sun is a complete mystery. How it works? Noone knows." and "So, i don't know how the Sun works, but i know how the Sun doesn't work." not me. Don't blame me for your ignorance. I've been trying to help.

nothing can save your idiotic theory from being put down and crushed into cubes. I did it numerous times (by now) in this thread. Anyone who read this thread from the beginning (to the end) and read it with proper attention and comprehension, cannot fail becoming fully convinced in incomparable superiority of FE theory over RE theory.

Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure.

It used to be interesting gathering enough detail about your errors to properly explain why they're errors. Now you're just being silly.

<more pointless ranting>

Another great video CIK.   Interesting when Dollard says the Sun's  light could only be minutes old.   What I think makes foucault's pendulum dubious is the fact that it seems to be effected by a solar eclipse. What does an eclipse have to do with the rotation of the earth?   A few hundred flat earthers are expected to have all the answers, but do the millions of taxpayer supported 'Big Bang' scientists have all the answers?

The Sun's light is not even minutes old, it's instantaneous, because the Sun is so close to the Earth. This is something that we know, even without the help of a totally morally corrupted scientific community!

This guy lives in a car, because he revealed some facts about the sun which he hasn't been allowed to reveal.

Should i remind us to these words:

Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.

Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677089#msg1677089

Another great video CIK.   Interesting when Dollard says the Sun's  light could only be minutes old.   What I think makes foucault's pendulum dubious is the fact that it seems to be effected by a solar eclipse. What does an eclipse have to do with the rotation of the earth?   A few hundred flat earthers are expected to have all the answers, but do the millions of taxpayer supported 'Big Bang' scientists have all the answers?

You have to see this excerpt (it's hilarious):

#t=15m14s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=15m14s

If you wanted to ask me if there is anything strange (tragic) that has happened to this guy i would have to give you the right answer, which is this:

 20 shocking attacks on Kent that North Korea would welcome. URGENT! : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ya, I would imagine they would jail everyone who didn't believe in evolution if they could get away with it! Probably including torture, and the death penalty. Here is a good website on the topic www.evoillusion.org/  This website was a benefit to me and my friend...
   
I don't agree with everything Kent says, but I respect him. He has very big balls. He is what you would call a real man.  Give him a Cigar, a glass of whiskey, and a Cowboy hat, and put him beside Clint Eastwood.

What makes a man, isn't big muscles and tattoos, but the ability to speak your mind, and to take a stand. We live in a politically correct age, where the biggest crime is to disagree with the establishment.  Being wrong about something isn't the end of the world. Losing our freedoms, is the end of everything (including science). If flat earthers happen to be wrong, it isn't the end of the world, but I am willing to bet, most flat earthers strongly support individual freedom.

Why are old world monkeys only found in Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys only found in South America?