ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)

  • 433 Replies
  • 111245 Views

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #241 on: May 11, 2015, 03:36:09 AM »


What kind of a moron thinks they cannot see a west sunset from that beach??

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #242 on: May 11, 2015, 03:43:05 AM »
Who has ever said they can't see West Sunset? You are not just Simple Minded, you are a liar also, ha? If you are not a liar, then just show us that sentence in which someone claims that it is not possible to see West Sunset from Mindil Beach...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #243 on: May 11, 2015, 03:49:44 AM »


On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."


According to the Flat Earth FAQ,  the definitive experiment on the Bedford Level was done by Henry Yule Oldham,  but what the FAQ doesn't say is that he confirmed Wallace's results proving the earth was round. 
I seriously doubt anyone would  seriously try to argue the discredited Rowbotham Bedford Level experiment.    So the flat earth FAQ implies the earth is a sphere. ;D

Biography: Henry Yule Oldham, was a teacher and geographer who, in 1901, conducted the definitive version of the Bedford Level experiment, a proof that the Earth is a sphere.
Born: December 14, 1862
Died: January 01, 1951 (age 88)


In any event these days you can prove the earth is round with modern precision differential levels.  Also it's common practice to make earth curvature corrections when doing geodetic surveys.   Large precision machine tool setup sometimes has to correct for earth's curvature.

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #244 on: May 11, 2015, 03:51:46 AM »
What kind of a moron thinks they cannot see a west sunset from that beach??

cyclejamas is just deliberately being confusing because he's lost the argument.   Not worth the time to try and correct him.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #245 on: May 11, 2015, 03:53:56 AM »
What kind of a moron thinks they cannot see a west sunset from that beach??

cyclejamas is just deliberately being confusing because he's lost the argument.   Not worth the time to try and correct him.

Probably why he placed a west arrow next to the wrong beach

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #246 on: May 11, 2015, 04:03:05 AM »
I saw from the ISS stupidity thread that Eric Dubai sounds like an Australian?

Given how few boards can provide entertainment for a retard like that it would not surprise me at all if it turns out the dynamic trio are the same fuckwit

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #247 on: May 11, 2015, 04:12:35 AM »
Hey fucking retards, i have never been there (at that beach), so why wouldn't you point us to the exact position of Mindil beach on that google map...and show us that sentence in which someone claims that it is not possible to see West Sunset from Mindil Beach...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #248 on: May 11, 2015, 04:15:32 AM »
Hey fucking retards, i have never been there (at that beach), so why wouldn't you point us to the exact position of Mindil beach on that google map...and show us that sentence in which someone claims that it is not possible to see West Sunset from Mindil Beach...

How about you explain to all the fucktards here why you posted a picture of a beach with a west arrow on it?


*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #249 on: May 11, 2015, 05:15:36 AM »
>For the same reason you don't think the tops of those icebergs are flat. They aren't parallel to the surface of the sea.<

In the most cases, they are parallel (more or less). Haven't you seen those pictures? Should i put them here again?


>The tabular icebergs spanning hundreds of km that you're carrying on about maintain more or less constant height above the level of the surrounding water. Constant height. Since the surface of the water is curved, then the surface of the ice is also curved. This curvature is too small to notice without careful measurement over short distances<

How is this in accordance with what you just have said (in a previous quote)? Are they parallel or not, at the end of the day? Alpha, what's going on with you? You are losing concentration, or what?

>If you're measuring your survey elevations in reference to a sea level or similar datum, the curvature is already accounted for. Adding it in again would be "most unsatisfactory".<

On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."



This is a very ingenious and plausible argument, by which the visible contradiction between the theory of rotundity and the results of practical levelling is explained; and many excellent mathematicians and geodesists have been deceived by it. Logically, however, it will be seen that it is not a proof of rotundity; it is only an explanation or reconciliation of results with the supposition of rotundity, but does not prove it to exist. The following modification was therefore adopted by the author, in order that convexity, if it existed, might be demonstrated. A theodolite was placed at the point A, in fig. 10, and levelled; it was then directed over the flag-staff B to the cross-staff C--the instrument A, the flag-staff B, and the cross-staff C, having exactly the same altitude. The theodolite was then advanced to B, the flag-staff to C, and the cross-staff to D, which was thus secured .as a continuation of one and the same line of sight A, B, C, prolonged to D, the altitude of D being the same as that of A, B, and C. The theodolite was again moved forward to the position C, the flag-staff to D, and the cross-staff to the point E--the line of sight to which was thus again secured as a prolongation of A, B, C, D, to E. The process was repeated to F, and onwards by 20 chain lengths to the end of six miles of the canal, .and parallel with it.

By thus having an object between the theodolite and the cross-staff, which object in its turn becomes a test or guide by which the same line of sight is continued throughout the whole length surveyed, the argument or explanation which is dependent upon the supposition of rotundity, and that each position of the theodolite is a different tangent, is completely destroyed. The result of this peculiar or modified survey, which has been several times repeated, was that the line of sight and the surface of the water ran parallel to each other; and as the line of sight was, in this instance, a right line, the surface of the water for six miles was demonstrably horizontal.



This mode of forward levelling is so very exact and satisfactory, that the following further illustration may be given with advantage.
In fig. 11, let A, B, C, represent the first position, respectively of the theodolite, flag-staff, and cross-staff; B, C, D, the second position; C, D, E, the third position; and D, E, F, the fourth; similarly repeated throughout the whole distance surveyed.



The remarks thus made in reference to simple "forward" levelling, apply with equal force to what is called by surveyors the "back-and-fore-sight" process, which consists in reading backwards a distance equal to the distance read forwards. This plan is adopted to obviate the necessity for calculating, or allowing for the earth's supposed convexity.

You can also use this method:



If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 05:24:49 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #250 on: May 11, 2015, 05:23:20 AM »
Quote
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

A line of the surface of the earth allegedly curves 8 inches per mile, and pilots are still able to do this :



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



Quote
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?????????
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 05:28:19 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #251 on: May 11, 2015, 05:54:52 AM »

http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/

The picture is exactly what you would expect for st kilda in october.

So in october same day .We have a sunset at stkilda bay beach south- west ,4hour later a sunset at a  darwin beach West . What you dont see a problem with that ?.
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 #252 on: May 11, 2015, 06:28:43 AM »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #253 on: May 11, 2015, 06:42:58 AM »
cikljamas, surely you are capable of answering simple questions. Do you have an answer for this?

...
Care to explain what would cause the patterns of light and dark on the disk as shown around 3:49? What would cause a moving "pool of dark" surrounded by light on a flat earth during the northern winter?

Still waiting.

If anyone has any doubt just look at the light and dark pattern which cikljamas requires for his claims.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #254 on: May 11, 2015, 06:55:30 AM »
FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :



FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :



"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #255 on: May 11, 2015, 07:06:34 AM »
If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
There are some questions you haven't answered about leveling in this post, but why not answer those in a more appropriate thread. In case you haven't noticed, the topic of this thread is Antarctica Midnight Sun, not the BLE. Since you started it, it seems like you should know that.

You still have some questions from me more applicable to this thread that have not been answered yet. Please answer those here. I'll get the links to them so you don't have to bother your little head finding them.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #256 on: May 11, 2015, 07:09:34 AM »
FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :



FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :




Just like RET predicts.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #257 on: May 11, 2015, 07:23:56 AM »
Still nothing?????????
There was this.

You haven't answered this question from here yet:

Which way do you think is true north in your picture? I want to see if you understand what it's showing.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #258 on: May 11, 2015, 07:32:33 AM »
A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
So what is point 'B'?

Why are you asking Mick West what he would trust?  I'm sure he's not lurking on this site.

Why does he need his sight funded?  Did he have expensive eye surgery?  How do you know this?

You're not making any sense Charles.  ???
That is because he doesn't think about what his controllers tell him to say.  They just drop off an envelope with the cash and he gets text messages of how to respond.  He is nothing but a shill.
Will you stop it with this shill nonsense .no one pays me to post anything. This is how you agenda21 scum work .Anyone that doesn't yeld to your organization. Its lies & propergander, you hound harass intimidate & do your utmost to standover.
Oh the irony of this post.  You tell me to stop calling you a shill, then processto go and, basically, call me a shill.  That sounds exactly like something an anti-agenda 21 shill would say.  You hhaven't read anything I have posted.  Both sides of the agenda 21, and most other controversial issues, are controlled by The Rockefeller's.  This has been shown to be true by aabbbbaaaa.  I am professing the truth and trying to get both sides to see clearly.  The sooner you let go of these petty issues, the better.  Can't you see you are just being played like a fiddle?

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #259 on: May 11, 2015, 07:36:03 AM »
I don't think silkpyjamas knows that June is mid winter,  although in Darwin, who would know,  they only have wet and dry seasons.   In any event, North West is about right for June sunset in Darwin.   

As to why the sun would set in the South West at St Kilda in Summer and the North West at Darwin in winter,  I don't really think that deserves an answer.

Also silkjammies,   if you want to debate the Bedford Level Experiment  I'd be more than happy to.   

Planes flying over water proves nothing,  other than that they are good pilots.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #260 on: May 11, 2015, 07:47:06 AM »
If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You don't see the refraction is that video.   The presenter is deliberately trying to maximize refraction by having the camera only 2 ft above water level,  but if you look carefully you can see the optical distortion.

It reminds me of that Eric Dubay stuff about lighthouses where he fails to account for standard refraction corrections and the ship's bridge height.  Deliberately misleading people about lighthouse visibility distances.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 08:00:18 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #261 on: May 11, 2015, 08:03:50 AM »
These questions still haven't been answered. This is repeated from here.

Any answers to the questions below, cikljamas? What the hell do those sets of nearly-parallel arrows on these maps represent?

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

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #262 on: May 11, 2015, 08:49:05 AM »
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).

The best proof of the trueness of my words above is this:

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :



FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :




"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #263 on: May 11, 2015, 09:21:50 AM »
You know you are played out when you can't even respond to the last 5 posts and can only repost what you posted before.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #264 on: May 11, 2015, 09:28:27 AM »
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #265 on: May 11, 2015, 09:49:28 AM »
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

You must be a pomme.  Summer solstice in Australia is in december.  Northwest for june would be right.


*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #266 on: May 11, 2015, 09:59:31 AM »
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

You must be a pomme.  Summer solstice in Australia is in december.  Northwest for june would be right.

I already pointed that out a few posts ago.   On his Fannie Bay Map in  the overlaid text he says two things.

1.  June sunsets are north west,  which is correct.
2.  January Sunsets are also north west which is wrong.

If you've ever been to Darwin, there are only two seasons,  the wet season,  and the dry season.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #267 on: May 11, 2015, 10:05:35 AM »
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

You must be a pomme.  Summer solstice in Australia is in december.  Northwest for june would be right.

I already pointed that out a few posts ago.   On his Fannie Bay Map in  the overlaid text he says two things.

1.  June sunsets are north west,  which is correct.
2.  January Sunsets are also north west which is wrong.

If you've ever been to Darwin, there are only two seasons,  the wet season,  and the dry season.

I was bit slow picking that up.  I already posted this picture from a fannie bay/mindil beach sunset markets page 



This moron earlier said he knew i was lying when i described my NZ experiences of south west sunset.   Now he wants us to believe some fuckwit on the internet has found a flaw in round earth theory!   ;D  ;D  ;D

Just too much.   :)

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #268 on: May 11, 2015, 10:23:02 AM »


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

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!
Still nothing?????????

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.

Ckljamis, you really are terrible at this. 

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #269 on: May 11, 2015, 10:50:55 AM »
Hey fucking retards,
That is not very christian of you.  No need to be a sore-loser you hypocrite.