ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)

  • 433 Replies
  • 111254 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #180 on: May 09, 2015, 03:57:43 AM »
Quote
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), it 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!

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

Now, how about this:

Polaris has been seen as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. I am given to understand that, in the "Naval and Military Intelligence" of the Times, of 13th May, 1862, it is distinctly stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the Polar Star at midnight, in 23,53 degrees South lat., and 35,46 longitude. It would seem therefore, that this fact, with reference to the Polar Star being visible below the equator at such a distance, might form a strong argument against the rotundity of the earth.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 04:05:20 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #181 on: May 09, 2015, 04:04:40 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #182 on: May 09, 2015, 04:11:40 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Mikey, just look at the evidence, and if you have to say something constructive and sanely, feel free to spell it out...since you like very much my copy pasta technique, voila, just for you:

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 #183 on: May 09, 2015, 04:11:58 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 04:14:57 AM by Aliveandkicking »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #184 on: May 09, 2015, 04:18:21 AM »
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:



Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html

Still nothing?????????

So, who is a troll here?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #185 on: May 09, 2015, 04:27:46 AM »
Well I will poke at cik from time to time, but he is in the same category as JRowe in not listening to anything but his own drivel, but cik then happily begins jacking off to what only he perceived as a victory.  Have you ever read his zig zag argument.  Funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
Do I try to discuss things with cik, no I get a better conversation talking to my dog.  The responses are vastly more intelligent.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #186 on: May 09, 2015, 04:36:05 AM »
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...





" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #187 on: May 09, 2015, 04:37:01 AM »
Well I will poke at cik from time to time, but he is in the same category as JRowe in not listening to anything but his own drivel, but cik then happily begins jacking off to what only he perceived as a victory.  Have you ever read his zig zag argument.  Funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
Do I try to discuss things with cik, no I get a better conversation talking to my dog.  The responses are vastly more intelligent.

The whole thing is a bit crazy.    Why go to the trouble of putting neat lines on gleasons flat earth map of the world and just keep on going for days and days when the only purpose is to fuck with peoples minds?

The whole thing is beyond me to understand

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #188 on: May 09, 2015, 04:59:29 AM »
The whole thing is a bit crazy.    Why go to the trouble of putting neat lines on gleasons flat earth map of the world and just keep on going for days and days when the only purpose is to fuck with peoples minds?

The whole thing is beyond me to understand

You are right, someone is fucking with people's minds, only the question is: Who is fucking with whoes minds?

Maybe this can help you to figure it out: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #189 on: May 09, 2015, 05:33:11 AM »
Well I will poke at cik from time to time, but he is in the same category as JRowe in not listening to anything but his own drivel, but cik then happily begins jacking off to what only he perceived as a victory. Have you ever read his zig zag argument.  Funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
Do I try to discuss things with cik, no I get a better conversation talking to my dog.  The responses are vastly more intelligent.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #190 on: May 09, 2015, 07:23:52 AM »
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'd believe your cat has the brains in your family,  do you seriously NOT see the flaws in that video.   What he calls a hot spot is reflection off the clouds,  you can see the exact same  thing from a plane. 
The relationship between the earth and the sun, don't change as the camera moves around, but in his model they do,  so he has no understanding of optics and perspective.

It reminds me of that Eric Dubay video where the sun is shining through the clouds and the rays of sunlight are at angle, and he mistakes this for the sun being really close, and just  above the clouds.
Some people have no clue.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #191 on: May 09, 2015, 08:14:38 AM »
Now, how about this:

Polaris has been seen as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. I am given to understand that, in the "Naval and Military Intelligence" of the Times, of 13th May, 1862, it is distinctly stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the Polar Star at midnight, in 23,53 degrees South lat., and 35,46 longitude. It would seem therefore, that this fact, with reference to the Polar Star being visible below the equator at such a distance, might form a strong argument against the rotundity of the earth.


Fixed that for you.  Cpt. Wilkins did not state it was 'South'.  What he saw is possible from 23,53 north.  If it were possible from 23.53 south, can you find any other evidence of it?

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?
Quite simple.  The ice sheet also curves with the ocean's curvature.


Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:



Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html

Still nothing?????????

So, who is a troll here?
You are the troll (or have horrible reading comprehension.  Perhaps other issues).  The picture had been addressed earlier, but I'll explain further. 

On a round-Earth, the sun would appear north at that northern latitude at midnight.  There is no issue with what is seen in the picture.  At midnight the sun would be on the opposite side of the arctic circle from their location, which means the photographer would be looking north toward both it and the north pole at midnight.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #192 on: May 09, 2015, 11:29:49 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
Ah, yes. If you read the follow-up posts, you can see where your points are shown to be wrong, or were just abandoned. Why do you want people to look at this old stuff? It makes you look bad. Are you hoping they'll just look at the post you think is clever and insightful without bothering to look at the the follow-up that shows exactly where it's wrong?

Quote
"Every year the Sun is as long south of the Equator as he is north[citation needed];
You say this. Doing so doesn't make it true.

Can you go to a reliable source for the dates of a few March and September equinoxes in succession and determine the number of days between each, then report back here? Are the numbers of days between the equinoxes equal? If you would be so kind, please provide the source for the information (and whether it was cross-checked with other sources if you're suspicious), the dates of each equinox (and time in UTC if available), and the number of days between succeeding equinoxes. I'll wait for your answer. If you have Microsoft Excel available, it's really good at things like this; type in the dates (and times if you have them) in a format Excel recognizes as a date (and time), then subtract the earlier one from the later and display the result as a number - you will get the number of days (and fraction of a day, if you provided times) as the result! Easier and less error-prone than counting days!

Quote
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."

<More incorrect stuff from Rowbotham> http://i.imgur.com/fVcXqlu.jpg
The basic premise of the text in the link is that some physical characteristics of New Zealand and England should be equivalent since they are at about the same latitudes in opposite hemispheres. The text claims that, but it's is wrong. All of England is further from the Equator than The most southerly points of the major islands of New Zealand. No part of the main islands of New Zealand, or even Stewart Island, are as far south as 50° South Latitude. Very little of England is less than 50° North Latitude, and the parts that are are just barely less than 50° N.  As usual, Mr. Rowbotham is either lying or simply mistaken. We'll probably never know which of these is right, but at this point it hardly matters. What does matter is that you cannot rely on anything he says as fact.

Anecdotal reports like those quoted here are of little to no value, even if they were factually correct. Rowbotham's florid language claims that New Zealand receives significantly less sunlight over the year than England does. Do you have any evidence to back that up? If so, let's see it. If not, why do you believe the claim?

Rowbotham asks "What can cause the twilight in New Zealand to be much more sudden, or the nights so much colder than England?" There are no details about how much is "much more sudden", so this statement is of little value. The North Island extends as far north as 34° South latitude, significantly closer to the Equator than England is, despite Rowbotham's claims otherwise. Twilight is shorter at lower latitude, so no surprise there. There is no quantitative data about how much shorter the twilight is in New Zealand, or where this observation is made, just the usual hand waving.

How much colder are the nights? Where are the comparisons being made? Parts of New Zealand are quite mountainous - far more than England, and it's well known that temperatures are lower at higher elevations, and well understood why. Probably more pertinent is the fact that climate is not dependent only on latitude; the real world is far more interesting than that. England is warmed by the Gulf Stream (a large-scale ocean current carrying warm, tropical, water northward); no warm current of that scale exists in the southern hemisphere. New Zealand is cooled by the Antarctic Current (a large-scale ocean current that circulates cold polar waters to lower latitudes), similarly absent from the Northern Hemisphere. This is just more anecdotal blather.

Quote
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!!!!
What's really interesting is how you manage to misunderstand or misrepresent the obvious.

Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described. Your "Datum Line" is spurious, too. What do you think it represents in the real world? Meaningful datums are more or less concentric with sea level, so your 5120-meter assertion is simply a misconception on your part. A level plain has a constant elevation above sea level or similar equipotential datum (hint: these are curved); it's not a straight line or geometric plane (note the different spelling).

Don't you ever read and try to understand any responses to your posts? It appears not. Maybe someone does, so all is not lost even if you are.

Quote
Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?
I really can't comprehend why you continue to struggle with this. You must want to misunderstand, but I can't comprehend why. Does it make you feel empowered or something to argue contrary to obvious fact?

Quote
On top of that:

http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg
The "Datum Horizontal Line" is explained in the text as a constant elevation 26 feet below the [mean] level of the Mediterranean. Thus it's a constant 26 feet (approximately) below the surface of the water in the Suez Canal since the mean level of the surface of the Red Sea is within half a foot of the Med. Since the datum is a constant distance from sea level and sea level follows the curvature of the Earth, the datum line is also curved and concentric with sea level. This is pretty basic stuff. The text is insisting that this datum is a straight line in real life and arriving at a conclusion based on that assumption. The assumption is wrong, so the conclusion is wrong. This reads like more of Mr. Rowbotham's nonsense, so no surprise there.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #193 on: May 09, 2015, 11:38:43 AM »


The two basic types of iceberg forms are tabular and non-tabular. Tabular icebergs have steep sides and a flat top, much like a plateau, with a length-to-height ratio of more than 5:1.[12] This type of iceberg, also known as an ice island,[13] can be quite large, as in the case of Pobeda Ice Island. Antarctic icebergs formed by breaking off from an ice shelf, such as the Ross Ice Shelf or Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, are typically tabular. The largest icebergs in the world are formed this way.

Non-tabular icebergs have different shapes and include:[14]

    Dome: An iceberg with a rounded top.
    Pinnacle: An iceberg with one or more spires.
    Wedge: An iceberg with a steep edge on one side and a slope on the opposite side.
    Dry-Dock: An iceberg that has eroded to form a slot or channel.
    Blocky: An iceberg with steep, vertical sides and a flat top. It differs from tabular icebergs in that its shape is more like a block than a flat sheet.



The largest icebergs recorded have been calved, or broken off, from the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica. Iceberg B-15, photographed by satellite in 2000, measured 295 by 37 kilometres (183 by 23 mi), with a surface area of 11,000 square kilometres (4,200 sq mi). The largest iceberg on record was an Antarctic tabular iceberg of over 31,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) [335 by 97 kilometres (208 by 60 mi)] sighted 150 miles (240 km) west of Scott Island, in the South Pacific Ocean, by the USS Glacier on November 12, 1956. This iceberg was larger than Belgium.

The Largest Iceberg in the World : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #194 on: May 09, 2015, 11:50:14 AM »
Those icebergs would be big enough to curve with the earth.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #195 on: May 09, 2015, 12:04:42 PM »
Quote
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), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

As for the sentence written with red letters:



The last time you placed apparently random arrows on a map you conceded that they were meaningless. Does the same apply here?

Your top map shows two arrows pointing due west from the northern part of Australia and southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

The second, a different projection, shows two slightly-north-of-due-west arrows from the western part of Australia and, again, southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

What do these represent? What point are you trying to make? How do these images have anything to do with the red text?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #196 on: May 09, 2015, 12:36:45 PM »




How about some data to go along with the pretty pictures? How wide (miles, km, or whatever) is the iceberg in the top picture? Since we don't even see the top surface of this 'berg, we can't say much of anything about its shape. We're looking at it from below the top, so the shape of the edge influences the profile; see how it appears to peak at the corner near the right side, where the sides bend sharply?

What's the length (again, in miles, etc.) of your purple line in the lower picture? How much curvature would there be on the surface of an 8,000-mile diameter sphere over that length? Would you be able to see it in that second photo?

Also, would you mind scaling routine images so they don't take up so much vertical space in your posts or need to be scrolled horizontally? If you don't know how to do this, you can Quote this message and look at the "width=" qualifier inside the img tags at the beginning. The number is the width in pixels; there's a space between "img" and "width", but no spaces inside the square brackets otherwise. Some pictures need to be larger to preserve needed details, but the vast majority don't, and scrolling past acres or useless imagery gets tiresome, especially after it's been copied and repeated for the dozenth time. Thanks in advance for considering this small courtesy.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #197 on: May 09, 2015, 01:12:16 PM »
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Ahh cik, my little puppet.  The weak minded never understand when their strings are being pulled to make them dance. 
Perhaps this is right, I have no idea how smart your cat is, but I do know your cat is smarter than you are.
Your high altitude balloon pictures do not show what you think they do.  The last picture shows the edge of the sun basically touching the edge of the Earth, being a 2 dimensional image, could be the sun just starting to go behind the horizon. 
Dance little puppet.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #198 on: May 09, 2015, 01:22:43 PM »
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Ahh cik, my little puppet.  The weak minded never understand when their strings are being pulled to make them dance. 
Perhaps this is right, I have no idea how smart your cat is, but I do know your cat is smarter than you are.
Your high altitude balloon pictures do not show what you think they do.  The last picture shows the edge of the sun basically touching the edge of the Earth, being a 2 dimensional image, could be the sun just starting to go behind the horizon. 
Dance little puppet.

Who actually is most crazy here?  Those who have a faith or  those who seek to force these faithful people to bow to their own versions of reality?

I think we must all be crazy to be here. 

I spent most of the day trying to organise my computers so it would be impossible to come back here and yet here i am once more.......

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #199 on: May 09, 2015, 04:59:57 PM »
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Ahh cik, my little puppet.  The weak minded never understand when their strings are being pulled to make them dance. 
Perhaps this is right, I have no idea how smart your cat is, but I do know your cat is smarter than you are.
Your high altitude balloon pictures do not show what you think they do.  The last picture shows the edge of the sun basically touching the edge of the Earth, being a 2 dimensional image, could be the sun just starting to go behind the horizon. 
Dance little puppet.

Who actually is most crazy here?  Those who have a faith or  those who seek to force these faithful people to bow to their own versions of reality?

I think we must all be crazy to be here. 

I spent most of the day trying to organise my computers so it would be impossible to come back here and yet here i am once more.......
Your here because there is a niggling in you to find or confirming the  truth. Warning . Once you peer through the window of the matrix. You will realise there is no excaping the plantation. Only justling on who gets to be the house servents & who get to wear the chains & pick the cotten for the masters. If you decide to try & out run the blood hounds or standup to the masters.Once caught trying to escape it, Be prepared to cop the flogging of their whip your going to receive for the remainder of your days on the plantation.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 07:39:17 PM 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 #200 on: May 09, 2015, 11:48:16 PM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.
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 #201 on: May 09, 2015, 11:59:27 PM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

It is not possible to have two west (270 degree) sunsets at different East west lines on the same day in Australia.   The only time a 270 degree sunset is visible is when the sun is directly overhead at noon for that location.   

All East West lines north of about Rockhampton have the sun directly overhead one day per year and will all experience a West sunset on that day.


I was totally wrong about that claim.  All solstice sunsets are southwest
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 08:26:45 PM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #202 on: May 10, 2015, 12:37:31 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 12:39:31 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 #203 on: May 10, 2015, 12:44:25 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.

At summer solstice for southern Australia:

The sun sets southwest west at st kilda and west at Longreach Queensland and north west in Torres strait Queensland at the same time as st kilda in these locations north of St kilda

Four hours later...........

The sun sets southwest west at Perth and west at Exmouth WA and north west at Darwin at the same time as Perth in locations north of Perth

There is no mystery about this at all.


I was totally wrong about that claim.  All solstice sunsets are southwest


« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 08:27:50 PM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #204 on: May 10, 2015, 01:32:31 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.

At summer solstice for southern Australia:

The sun sets southwest west at st kilda and west at Longreach Queensland and north west in Torres strait Queensland at the same time as st kilda in these locations north of St kilda

Four hours later...........

The sun sets southwest west at Perth and west at Exmouth WA and north west at Darwin at the same time as Perth in locations north of Perth

There is no mystery about this at all.
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.
.
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 #205 on: May 10, 2015, 02:03:40 AM »
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.

At summer solstice for southern Australia:

The sun sets southwest west at st kilda and west at Longreach Queensland and north west in Torres strait Queensland at the same time as st kilda in these locations north of St kilda

Four hours later...........

The sun sets southwest west at Perth and west at Exmouth WA and north west at Darwin at the same time as Perth in locations north of Perth

There is no mystery about this at all.
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.
.

You need to find somebody else to jerk off with.  If you want to play the penguin all day long with people you can go fuck yourself for all i care.
I rest my case you honour . Oh & fix that type o its an easy mistake to make .its an  a instead of u . Cant
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…:

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #206 on: May 10, 2015, 04:48:45 AM »
Quote
What's really interesting is how you manage to misunderstand or misrepresent the obvious.

Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described.

Alpha, are you talking to me?

1. Regarding "A HUGE ICEBERGS" argument, and your question above, i can only ask you this:

If the shapes of all other types of icebergs (NON-tabular icebergs) don't follow the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL ("the curvature of the LEVEL", it figures, it say it all, :facepalm:), then why would any sane person expect that the formation of the general shape of TABULAR icebergs has anything to do with the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL (even if the Sea LEVEL were not the LEVEL at all, but a CURVE)

Why do we say "Sea LEVEL", instead of "Sea CURVE", after all?

2. "A huge icebergs" argument is not the lonely argument in favor of FET, not at all, there are countless similar arguments:

A) ENGINEERING (Suez Canal - the best example of this kind)

The 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.

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!

B) OCEAN BEDS argument:

Not only that the Ocean Basin/Floor is not CONVEX shaped, it is not even FLAT shaped, but CONCAVE, exactly as we would expect from something that we call A BASIN!!!

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

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807

C) LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html

D) PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

E) SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329

F) GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185

G) THE GREAT FLOOD : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435

H) TSUNAMI ARGUMENT : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526

3.  Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067

    PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

    If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

    Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

    My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

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

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224

Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Who actually is most crazy here?  Those who have a faith or  those who seek to force these faithful people to bow to their own versions of reality?

I think we must all be crazy to be here. 

I spent most of the day trying to organise my computers so it would be impossible to come back here and yet here i am once more.......
Your here because there is a niggling in you to find or confirming the  truth. Warning . Once you peer through the window of the matrix. You will realise there is no excaping the plantation. Only justling on who gets to be the house servents & who get to wear the chains & pick the cotten for the masters. If you decide to try & out run the blood hounds or standup to the masters.Once caught trying to escape it, Be prepared to cop the flogging of their whip your going to receive for the remainder of your days on the plantation.



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


  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #207 on: May 10, 2015, 04:50:00 AM »
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #208 on: May 10, 2015, 05:03:12 AM »
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php

Bloomington silkpajamas and sceptimatic are the same troll

th3rm0m3t3r0 and jroa are trolls.   

I find it hard to believe jrowesceptic is not a troll but who knows what is possible.

As far as i can see there are no honest flat earth believers on this board

I do not exclude that some of the round earth people are also trolls who are here to divert attention when the trolls time wasting ploy is obviously failing
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 05:19:07 AM by Aliveandkicking »

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #209 on: May 10, 2015, 05:22:29 AM »
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
Is that some sort of pathetic joke ?Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
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…: