Would you all agree that this is the final version of "Mindil beach - Sunset" case:
,having in mind what we can see in this video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> , provided by Rayzor)?
The Sun is setting south of due west in the video, so no issues there. Since it's clear, apparently even to you now, that the Sun sets in the WSW to WNW range, why don't you just discard those maps? If you insist that you need one, replace it with one with the arrows pointing in the WSW and WNW directions and labeled as such. That will be less confusing than labeling a WSW arrow as "west" for some reason, and a due west arrow as "northwest". Get rid of the purple text and graphics while you're at it, too, please!
Now, we have to come back again to the foundation of modern astronomy which i have established
Oh, please...
by offering to the humanity absolutely irrefutable proof of the stability (motionless) of the Earth.
Supposition 1. ROUND EARTH + HELIOCENTRISM
1. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
2. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle, also.
You have never successfully explained why this would be so. In order for this to be the case, the Earth would have to be
much, much closer to the Sun than the Heliocentric model has it.
THERE IS NO ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN WITHIN THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!
You see... we told you! Your strawman argument is exposed for what it is.
A consequence of that: HELIOCENTRISM IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS HYPOTHESIS WHICH I HAVE REFUTED ONCE AND FOR ALL WITH JUST ONE SIMPLE BUT UNDENIABLE ARGUMENT!!!
Nope. cikljamas' completely bogus representation of the the Heliocentric model is undeniably wrong. Are you
still confused about the Heliocentric model, or are you intentionally misrepresenting what it says? The latter is called
lying.
For those who are still not acquainted with this simple and devastating (for HC theory this idea) proof, here it is once more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999
Now, if heliocentrism is wrong then Round Earth theory must be wrong,
Even if the condition
were true (it's not, as is clearly shown if you follow those threads), how does that conclusion necessarily follow?
also, because without the alleged tilt of the earth, there is no way how someone could explain a principle of work of seasons (day and night map) on the Earth.
Which is how we know the Earth rotates and its axis
is tilted. Simple and elegant, this accurately explains millennia of observations.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067
Supposition 2. ROUND EARTH + GEOCENTRISM
1. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
2. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle, also.
Since there would not be in this model or the actual Heliocentric model, this is ambiguous.
The Sun should be a much smaller body than the Earth, because smaller bodies have to circle around bigger bodies instead of vice-versa. Same goes for the stars and the moon.
If you're going to argue about orbital mechanics, you may want to learn something about it first. When you say "smaller" here, you mean "less massive". Even so, the "smaller" body doesn't "circle around" the "bigger" body, they both
orbit their common center of mass. Orbits are not necessarily perfect circles; in fact, they're very seldom, if ever, perfect circles.
A consequence of that: 1. All celestial bodies must be very, very close to the Earth.
Why? How can you determine the size of the Sun based only on the assumption that it is less massive than the Earth. You have to make another assumption about its density to do that. This is why your earlier fuzzy thinking about the
linear size instead of
mass of orbiting bodies is leading you astray.
2. The Sun's rays should penetrate through the Earth or bend around the Earth so to be able to illuminate large portions of the Earth simultanously. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659755#msg1659755
3. Velocities of the supposed geocentric-daily motions of the celestial bodies around the motionless ROUND earth would be enormous.
4. There would be unexplainable, why the speeds of the Sun's motion are so different when comparing his motion above the tropic of capricorn vs his motion above the tropic of cancer. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587
OK. I'm convinced. The Geocentric Universe is impossible! Welcome to the 17th Century!
Supposition 3. THE EARTH IS FLAT
1. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224
2. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle if there were TRUE Midnight Sun phenomena down there, that is to say, if the Sun were CLEARLY visible for FULL 24 hours a day within the Antarctic circle, which has yet to be determine!
Well, there you go, then! We do see a true midnight sun from within the Antarctic circle and no "zigzag".
I have opened this thread in order to try to put this question beyond dispute.
And it
is beyond dispute.
Let's review:
cikljamas' strawman substitute for the Heliocentric model of the solar system is nothing but a strawman.
The Geocentric model of the solar system is clearly shown to be impossible (some of cikljamas' reasons are even correct).
The flat-earth model of the universe is wrong (fails on cikljamas' own "Antarctic zig-zag" requirement).
This pretty much leaves us with the Heliocentric model of the solar system that
does work. That's the one with a large (on a human scale) rotating spherical earth, orbiting a
much more massive sun at great distance compared with earth's size, and the
stars at even vastly greater distances. This expects no "zig-zag" motion of the Sun from anywhere on earth (check!), the Sun appearing to move along a constant line through the backdrop of stars from anywhere on earth (check!), daily motion of the Sun and stars across the sky in a way that depends on latitude (check!), northern and southern circumpolar stars (check!), including the Sun at high enough latitudes at certain times of year (check!), seasons depending on the position of the sun through the year (check!).
If there are any other possibilities that successfully explain
all of the above, let's hear them! Notions that fail any of these need not apply. There are additional observations that also need to be addressed by competing models, but none presented so far address even the obvious basics.
This would be the best way how to render it: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686598#msg1686598
Render what? You still haven't explained what this picture is telling you. I'll repeat the question again: Which way is true north in this picture. How do you know?
I'll add this: How do you know what time it was when the picture was taken? [Yes, I know there's a watch in the picture.]
While we are waiting for someone to bring forth such an evidence, we can try something else :
What evidence are you waiting for? Antarctic midnight sun? It's been provided numerous times.
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
ANTARCTICA LEMAIRE CHANNEL SUNSET : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
http://i.imgur.com/4Sz40wS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg
Lovely pictures. Do you have some reason to believe the sunset is in the north? Don't be shy. Let's hear it! [OK, I see you are just now attempting that. Stay tuned...]