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:
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:
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!
As for the sentence written with red letters:
As for the sentence written with blue letters:
1. Some time since, it was a common practice amongst surveyors, and men laying out canals and railways to allow 8 inches for every mile, for the consideration of the convexity of the surface of the earth. It was supposed that if this were not done, the water in the canal would not remain stationary.
It has, however, since been discovered that things are more satisfactory when the allowance of 8 inches to the mile is not permitted to enter into the calculations at all ;
in fact in those cases where an allowance is made, every thing turns out most unsatisfactory.The allowing then for convexity, or what was called by engineers
"forward levelling," has given way to the method of
"back-and-fore" sight", or
"double sight,", where no allowance whatever is made for convexity.
Those who argue in favor of the earth's surface being a plane, point proudly to the fact that all the most practical scientific men of the day totally disregard the sphericity of the earth's surface, and regard it, for all practical purposes, as if it were a plane.
2. If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches, nearly. From the Age, of 5th August 1893, I extract the following:
" The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893),
" It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!
A surveyor,
Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :
" In levelling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsall level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."I think most will grant that a practical man is capable of forming a judgment, in all cases of more value than the merely theoretical calculator. Here, then, we have the evidence of practical men to the effect that no allowance for curvature is made in cutting canals, a clear proof that we are not living on a huge ball, but on a surface, the general contour of which is level, as the datum line from which surveys are made
IS ALWAYS A HORIZONTAL LINE.
3. On top of that:
http://www.energeticforum.com/269599-post626.html