ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)

  • 433 Replies
  • 111243 Views
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #120 on: May 08, 2015, 12:27:27 AM »
Realy ? Stkilda beach is a bay beach . So how do you manage to see the same sunset a few hours later on the broome west australia coast . http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG
And darwin http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg
http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg

WA is 4 hours behind, so why wouldn't you expect to see the sun set  a few hours later,  I've missed your point.

Mikey,  no need to travel here,  explain what experiment you'd like and I'll see what I can do.  Although St Kilda is few hours drive.  My son used to live close to St Kilda Beach,  and we would wander down to the beach with the grandkids on long summer evenings, watching the sun set  in the south west. 


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #121 on: May 08, 2015, 12:46:22 AM »
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ



https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.


« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 12:56:08 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #122 on: May 08, 2015, 12:58:12 AM »
Take a compass with you .Then tell me how the sun rises eastly ,then is seen to set south west at stkilda which is a bay beach.Then 4 hours later setting west in broome & darwin. So tommorow will you be selling anther lime .like the used car salemen you are .
http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 01:02:44 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #123 on: May 08, 2015, 01:03:46 AM »
Take a compass with you .Then tell me how the sun rises eastly ,then is seen to set south west at stkilda which is a bay beach.Then 4 hours later setting west in broome & darwin. So tommorow will you be selling anther lime .like the used car salemen you are .

I do not understand.

We expect the sun to rise in the 'east' and set in the 'west'.  The precise angle that occurs depends on the time of the year

If in Australia the sunsets somewhere in Australia 4 hours after it rises somewhere in Australia then something is totally sticking out like dogs balls as an error in the round earth model.   To make a definative statement on what you are saying you will need to expand on where you have seen this happen.

This part of your statement fits the round earth model however:

>>then is seen to set south west at stkilda which is a bay beach.Then 4 hours later setting west in broome & darwin.

At the equator there is about 4000 miles difference East west in 4 hours.   It will be less miles than that as  you travel south.  At a guess it will be only 2000 east west a few hundred miles south of Tasmania

« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 01:13:00 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #124 on: May 08, 2015, 01:12:22 AM »
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ



https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west ? From that location & if south west , how is it possible to see  a sun set in darwin .http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 01:18:28 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #125 on: May 08, 2015, 01:18:28 AM »
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ



https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west .

The shadows show the sun is in the north west and the sun itself is very high in the sky and far from sunset much later in the day.  It is early afternoon

In australia if you face the sun at noon you are looking north.   Compared to the noon direction the sun rises somewhere on your right in the east and tracks across the sky to set somewhere in the west.

So for the sunset picture you see more or less the same thing accept the sun has risen in the south east, moved across the sky leftwards thru north at noon and then set leftwards south west.  Our picture shows therefore we are looking at summer time (south of the equator).
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 01:23:21 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #126 on: May 08, 2015, 01:20:53 AM »
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ



https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west .

The shadows show the sun is in the north west and the sun itself is very high in the sky and far from sunset much later in the day.  It is early afternoon

In australia if you face the sun at noon you are looking north.    The sun rises somewhere on your right in the east and tracks across the sky to set somewhere in the west.

So for the sunset picture you see more or less the same thing accept the sun has risen in the south east, moved across the sky leftwards thru north at noon and then set leftwards south west.
huh !!!     http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #127 on: May 08, 2015, 01:27:07 AM »
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ



https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west .

The shadows show the sun is in the north west and the sun itself is very high in the sky and far from sunset much later in the day.  It is early afternoon

In australia if you face the sun at noon you are looking north.    The sun rises somewhere on your right in the east and tracks across the sky to set somewhere in the west.

So for the sunset picture you see more or less the same thing accept the sun has risen in the south east, moved across the sky leftwards thru north at noon and then set leftwards south west.
huh !!!     http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg

I dont understand once more.  Your picture comes from this page:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/gallery-fn2wzol2-1226353094566?page=11

Mindil faces north west so we are looking at a sunset nearer to mid winter than midsummer.  Something like that.

Mindil Beach Sunset Market, Darwin NT operates from the last Thursday in April to the last Thursday in October annually.


This picture of mindil likely shows sunset around September

« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 01:52:57 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #128 on: May 08, 2015, 01:55:21 AM »
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #129 on: May 08, 2015, 02:03:07 AM »
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.

Australia is a huge country.  the picture is complex because the tropic of capricorn is between darwin and southern australia.  If we are talking about summer solstice in southern australia, then Darwin is now north of the sun so will see northwest sunsets.

However we always expect to see summer south west sunsets in southern australia.  In Darwin there will be south west, west and north west summer sunsets depending on what day of summer it is.

We expect the sunsets to be separated by approximately 600 miles per hour east west in southern australia and by approximately about 900 miles per hour east west in northern australia

>>You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .

You need to expand a bit on what you are saying is not possible.



« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 02:32:03 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #130 on: May 08, 2015, 02:33:01 AM »
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.

We expect to see summer south west sunsets in southern australia and westerly summer sunsets in darwin.

We expect the sunsets to be separated by approximately 600 miles per hour east west in southern australia and by approximately about 900 miles per hour east west in northern australia

>>You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .

You need to expand a bit on what you are saying is not possible.
Seems your just  playing games . Care to elaborate on the direction the sun travels in your spherical model. You know east west & the in between.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 02:35:42 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #131 on: May 08, 2015, 02:49:45 AM »
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.

We expect to see summer south west sunsets in southern australia and westerly summer sunsets in darwin.

We expect the sunsets to be separated by approximately 600 miles per hour east west in southern australia and by approximately about 900 miles per hour east west in northern australia

>>You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .

You need to expand a bit on what you are saying is not possible.
Seems your just  playing games . Care to elaborate on the direction the sun travels in your spherical model. You know east west & the in between.

I am making quite a bit of effort to understand you, spending a great deal of time to find things for you to look at,  but  I overlooked the fact the tropic of capricorn is so much further south than darwin than i realised.  I have majorly edited the earlier reply.   

The tropic of capricorn falling between perth and darwin makes the picture complicated.

Perth will always see south west summer sunsets.  Darwin will see south west, west and North west summer sunsets.

The sun follows a line of latitude ie east to west line on a globe.     Depending upon the time of summer, darwin is south or north of a line of latitude the sun is following.  Perth is always south of the suns track along an east west latitude line in summer

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #132 on: May 08, 2015, 02:59:51 AM »
Incidently the line the sun follows on a globe is the same as for a flat earth model.    In both cases in summer darwin sees northwest southwest and west sunsets as the suns position at the overhead point on earth moves.  In Darwin at noon in summer on one day the sun is overhead. on other days in summer it is either north or south of the observer in darwin.  ( I am assuming the suns position on a flat earth changes to account for the overhead observation found all over the world between the two tropics for one day per year.)

The difference is on a flat earth perth will see summer north west sunsets
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 03:06:26 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #133 on: May 08, 2015, 05:08:38 AM »
You mean this crap
How can you rely on theses map for anything.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn
On the map of new holland in 1794 ? amazing
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 05:18:27 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #134 on: May 08, 2015, 05:31:25 AM »
You mean this crap
How can you rely on theses map for anything.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn
On the map of new holland in 1794 ? amazing

You are totally losing me again.

The tropic of capricorn is measureable with fairly simple equipment.   It is effectively a real line on the actual surface of the earth created by observing the directly overhead angle to the sun.   At all places further south than the tropic of capricorn the sun is never directly overhead at any time of the year.

You must be aware in a large part of australia, at only certain times of the year, the sun can be observed to be directly overhead??

The east west line where this begins is called the tropic of capricorn.

In principle the Aboriginals were aware of 'the tropic of capricorn of australia'  hundreds of thousands of years ago
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 05:42:26 AM by Aliveandkicking »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #135 on: May 08, 2015, 05:35:32 AM »
Why would 117 days without sun be longer than 112 days at a slightly higher northern latitude in Norway? Cast your mind back to the Equation of Time discussions some months ago. You were asserting (correctly) that the Earth is closest to the Sun near the southern solstice, and (incorrectly) that the southern hemisphere should be broiling. Remember that? Well, the reply was (also correctly) that, because the Earth is closest to the Sun then, it's also moving fastest in its orbit at the same time, so (again correctly) the southern summer is slightly shorter than the northern one. Remember?


It would be better for you to skip that part (The equation of time), and you know why. Do i have to remind you? Because you asked for it : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935

"Every year the Sun is as long south of the Equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being in consequence of the fact stated, -far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."



And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."



If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #136 on: May 08, 2015, 05:48:12 AM »

 the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."


Sigh.

Rowbotham did not know the the rotating axis of the earth is tilted with respect to the sun.  Every 6 months the north pole is inclined away from the sun and 6 months later the north pole is inclined towards the Sun
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 05:51:33 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #137 on: May 08, 2015, 06:20:36 AM »
You mean this crap
How can you rely on theses map for anything.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn
On the map of new holland in 1794 ? amazing

You are totally losing me again.

The tropic of capricorn is measureable with fairly simple equipment.   It is effectively a real line on the actual surface of the earth created by observing the directly overhead angle to the sun.   At all places further south than the tropic of capricorn the sun is never directly overhead at any time of the year.

You must be aware in a large part of australia, at only certain times of the year, the sun can be observed to be directly overhead??

The east west line where this begins is called the tropic of capricorn.

In principle the Aboriginals were aware of 'the tropic of capricorn of australia'  hundreds of thousands of years ago
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #138 on: May 08, 2015, 06:46:39 AM »
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #139 on: May 08, 2015, 07:42:06 AM »
Rayzor, what else could we expect of you REs, but parroting same phrases?

So an explanation for the astonishing flatness of the Suez Canal boils down to this:

>The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth<

Oddly, you haven't even tried to comment my "A huge iceberg" argument?

If you want to render your round-religion even more unbearable, read this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

1. No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever." Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899

2. Enter Airy

In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480

3. Other experiments : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902

Sigh!
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 07:51:46 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #140 on: May 08, 2015, 08:07:26 AM »
Cikljamas, in order to measure velocity then you need a frame of reference and if you are measuring the velocity of the Earth using the Earth as a frame of reference then of course you will get zero.  If you were on a car going 80 miles per hour on a strait road and there were no windows then from inside the car there would be no experiment you could do that would tell you how fast you are going.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #141 on: May 08, 2015, 08:07:26 AM »

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.

The facts should be describing the world rather than the opinions about it.
 
The same applies to the tropics either side of the equator.  They are observeable by an ordinary person regardless of whatever opinions might exist about them.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 08:33:48 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #142 on: May 08, 2015, 08:38:28 AM »
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #143 on: May 08, 2015, 08:55:33 AM »
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 08:57:17 AM by Aliveandkicking »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #144 on: May 08, 2015, 10:50:03 AM »

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.

The facts should be describing the world rather than the opinions about it.
 
The same applies to the tropics either side of the equator.  They are observeable by an ordinary person regardless of whatever opinions might exist about them.

>There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.<

1. How could the sun cross New Zealand in northern arc at all, since the tropic of capricorn stays north from New Zealand all the time?

2. Look at this picture once again:


At that particular day (February 13 2012) the Sun sets at 0h 30m, and the Sun rises at 7,30...

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=2&year=2012

In the third picture which shows the first glimpse of Sunrise you can even see the Full Moon. This is the sentence from that article (you can find it between second and third picture):

I drift back to sleep before the bright light of the morning wakes me a couple of hours later and I dig myself out of my sleeping bag to take a few snaps of the sun rising with the moon in the back drop.

So, if we see the Full Moon in front of us (at the exact place where the Sun has set a few hours ago) it means that in the moment of taking this picture, the Sun should be behind us.

Now, how can it be, how could he (the Sun) accomplish such a long journey in maximally 7 hours, having in mind that it should take 12 hours for carrying out such a (180 degrees) wide turn?

Beside that, at that very day, it should have been impossible to spot the Full Moon from that very position:

http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/antarctica/casey?year=2012

3. Since you have refered to what ordinary people know (if they were prepared to believe to their senses), i would like to see your own comment on this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872

Or you are not ready (not any more) to believe in your own common sense and your senses?

4. What your common sense has to say on this:

And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."




If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:

« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 11:32:23 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #145 on: May 08, 2015, 10:58:32 AM »
There is no point in refuting your arguments because you never read what we post.  I can easily refute what you are saying but until you learn how to read I am not going to because there is no point.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #146 on: May 08, 2015, 11:08:20 AM »
There is no point in refuting your arguments because you never read what we post.  I can easily refute what you are saying but until you learn how to read I am not going to because there is no point.

You can easily fuck Sharon Stone, also, but you don't want to, is that right? Don't worry, you can always dream of doing it. At least, you won't get any disease.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 11:10:47 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #147 on: May 08, 2015, 11:10:38 AM »

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.

The facts should be describing the world rather than the opinions about it.
 
The same applies to the tropics either side of the equator.  They are observeable by an ordinary person regardless of whatever opinions might exist about them.

>There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.<

1. How could the sun cross New Zealand in northern arc at all, since the tropic of capricorn stays north from New Zealand all the time?

2. Look at this picture once again:


At that particular day (February 13 2012) the Sun sets at 0h 30m, and the Sun rises at 7,30...

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=2&year=2012

In the third picture which shows the first glimpse of Sunrise you can even see the Full Moon. This is the sentence from that article (you can find it between second and third picture):

I drift back to sleep before the bright light of the morning wakes me a couple of hours later and I dig myself out of my sleeping bag to take a few snaps of the sun rising with the moon in the back drop.

So, if we see the Full Moon in front of us (at the exact place where the Sun has set a few hours ago) it means that in the moment of taking this picture, the Sun should be behind us.

Now, how can it be, how could he (the Sun) accomplish such a long journey in maximally 7 hours, having in mind that it should take 12 hours for carrying out such a (180 degrees) wide turn?

Beside that, at that very day, it should have been impossible to spot the Full Moon from that very position:

http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/antarctica/casey?year=2012

3. Since you have refered to what ordinary people know (if they were prepared to believe to their senses), i would like to see your own comment on this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872

Or you are not ready (not any more) to believe in your own common sense and your senses?

4. What your common sense has to say on this:

And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."



If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:





1. In summer the sun is north of new zealand for most of the journey across the sky so that is what you see - a northern arc.   It is only at the beginning and end of the journey that the sun is not north of NZ.   However  I cannot understand why you asked that question so you need to put a bit more flesh on why you would not expect a northern arc for looking at a northern object

2. As i mentioned before (and then forgot) your pictures are from near Neko harbour 100miles from casey.   It seems we both got muddled up when i said the three pictures could be from the same camera position.  The first picture is out of sequence i think because it shows the station whereas the others are said to be at paradise bay.

https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/

To begin with they are at this Antarctic station which is shown in the first picture you showed:

https://www.google.com/maps/@-64.8959504,-62.8704972,291m/data=!3m1!1e3

In the final moon picture, the sun is shining on that distant mountain so the sun must be behind or nearly behind the observer?



3. I do not understand why during a polar day you will see a reversal of the Sun if the earth rotates.   If you are on a rotating disk going around once per minute the sun appears to rotate around you in a continuous motion.  That is more or less what you experience during polar day.  The rotating earth is however at an angle to the sun so you go up and down and the sun appears to go up and down while remaining visible *if you kept turning your body to keep looking at it*

4. >>If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together

same goes for the suez canal text.   The writer is very muddled up. 

Anyway at this point in time i do not want to distract from this southern sun thread
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 01:21:14 PM by Aliveandkicking »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #148 on: May 08, 2015, 01:29:18 PM »
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain) is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

2. I would say that these 100 miles don't make significant difference regarding main part of my analysis.

3. Didn't i tell you that you were going to lose you common sense, suddenly and completely?

All i can do is to quote these words of an honest man again:

Quote
Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

 
Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
  Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

    With hope that my english was not too confusing,
    best regards and greetings from Serbia

    Goran


THANKS GORAN!!!

4. >Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together<

Really now? The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together? Whoever said that, urgently needs medical help!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #149 on: May 08, 2015, 01:38:31 PM »
There is no point in refuting your arguments because you never read what we post.  I can easily refute what you are saying but until you learn how to read I am not going to because there is no point.

You can easily fuck Sharon Stone, also, but you don't want to, is that right? Don't worry, you can always dream of doing it. At least, you won't get any disease.  ;)

Ummm...  What?

I guess I shouldn't be too too suppressed to see a post like this from you, everything you post is equally as nonsensical and illogical.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.