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

  • 137 Replies
  • 22525 Views
Copied here so that the Antarctic midnight sun thread is not derailed.  Please do not answer this stuff in the Antarctic midnight sun thread.

If you carried out careful analysis of this argument...
Quote
    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

...you couldn't miss to bring one and only possible conclusion : The Earth is at rest!

Only, there is one condition: You have to be honest a.k.a. brave, so to be able to allow yourself to follow evidence wherever they may lead you.

Let's see how and when you are going to fulfill this condition...

Apparently this zigzag movement is undetectable to the human eye.

I am at 60N and it is still twilight here at 23:12.   I can follow the sun around the sky more or less 360 degrees at solstice as it is only fully dark for about one hour at 1am

If i drive 30Km north there is a reasonable twilight at the darkest point of the night and i am pretty sure you can still see the sky has red in it at the horizon at solstice.




dawn 90 minutes later.  Our house is blocking view of brightest light. 


« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 03:58:12 PM by Aliveandkicking »

Yep, proven wrong before, and it will be proven wrong again.

But you cannot see it with the naked eye

*

Mikey T.

  • 2399
No, cik thought that he was proving that if the Earth was round and you were far enough North to observe 24 hours of sun, it would go across the sky one way then at around the normal sunset time it would reverse directions.  He argued fervently, yet it was an utter failure of a thought experiment.  He assumed the sun was very close, that the horizon doesn't spin with the Earth, and that a human was much larger than we actually are when compared to the size of the Earth.  He tried using a merry go round and a distant light as an analogy.  Ignoring the sides of the merry go round as the analogous horizon. 
He is rather silly, and will continue to believe he destroyed spherical Earth because of this failure of spacial reasoning.

it would go across the sky one way then at around the normal sunset time it would reverse directions.

What?
W-
But-
How would that even-
Screw it, I give up.
I'm not nearly drunk enough to deal with that level of dumb.
You am no real Super Sand!

So this is something you can see with the naked eye?

So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

What actually is he saying about those photos and observations?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 10:36:17 PM by Aliveandkicking »

*

JerkFace

  • 9912
  • Looking for Occam
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!

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

*

JerkFace

  • 9912
  • Looking for Occam
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!

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

Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait.  You are trying to divert attention from your inability to comprehend simple spatial relationships as exemplified by your zigzag theory.  ( And the sun is 93 million miles away )

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait.  You are trying to divert attention from your inability to comprehend simple spatial relationships as exemplified by your zigzag theory.  ( And the sun is 93 million miles away )


DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :

0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is  the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could  have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned  to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the  sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods,  with always the same result, or there­abouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another.  .  .  . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical;  but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then,  when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.” 

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in  1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.” 

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.

Original post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651347#msg1651347
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 04:29:40 AM by cikljamas »

*

sokarul

  • 15979
  • Discount Chemist
Why doesn't the sun appear smaller as it gets further away?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

And thanks to Cikl's convenient link to one of the other threads, we see the following;

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,

... in which Cikl himself says his zig-zag hypotheses is rubbish when applied to RET.  Makes me wonder why he even argues it in the first place.  So yes, every time Cikl claims "Zig Zag" disproves RET, he is knowingly lying. 

I guess we can close the books on this one.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 08:59:52 AM by 29silhouette »

29silhouette,

Taking words out of the context is your speciality, ha?

Very dishonest, sad and pathetic!

Let's see this sentence in it's entirety:

If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth, but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, also!!!

The full context is here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999

No Cikl, I was directly quoting what you said about 'zig-zag'.  I couldn't even remember what you were trying to say about your 180 degree displacement, so I left it out. 

Now then, trying to make sense of that post; n the Arctic or Antarctic circle, the sun moves one direction all the way around you.  Is that what you meant by 180 displacement?  Because that's what happens in reality.

Down towards the bottom of that post, you mention displacement again, and keeping a telescope aimed at the sun would require turning it it one direction and then the opposite direction, and that in reality that is not the case. 

Guess what.  Since we have established there would be no zig-zag with RET, a telescope would be adjusted continuously in one direction, and that is in fact what happens in reality.

If there would be no zig-zag, and the 180 displacement you're talking about is a part of or direct result of zig-zag, then it's disproven also.

Speaking of dishonest, you still haven't answered for the manipulated map, and your foul-mouthed name calling is quite sad and pathetic, especially for a person of religion (if you are).


So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?

Actually he is the only one lying,  either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which.    Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle,  and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.

Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.

But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!

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


Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

*

JerkFace

  • 9912
  • Looking for Occam
Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

You have to stop watching those BS youtube videos.   Try to watch real educational videos on each topic, that way you'll be less likely to be fooled

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

You have to stop watching those BS youtube videos.   Try to watch real educational videos on each topic, that way you'll be less likely to be fooled

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
i didn't understand nothing so it's probably wrong = too complicated life is simple explanation of life are simple math=complicated=wrong.

Modestman, of course it's wrong, see this :



Please cikl see the PM I sent you it's really disrupt me.

Modestman, of course it's wrong, see this :

http://i.imgur.com/RwWFnbf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QrSzn48.jpg
Nice sleight of hand. The author [Rowbotham, presumably] charges that corrections to the elevation angle measured for a celestial body are needed, and applied, but the phenomenon being measured in the partly-described experiment is mostly change in azimuth. He then simply declares, after an (IMO) intentionally confusing explanation of one of the corrections, that the experiment is invalid.

Unless you carefully work through what he's saying in his confusing explanation of the conversion from geocentric to surface position, you get totally lost and just accept what he says next. This is the old magician's trick of distracting the audience doing by something irrelevant so they don't notice the trick.

It's not possible to tell from the material presented here if he adequately describes the experiment or its outcome since such details, if they even exist in the original document, are omitted from the extract here. Based on the meager description we have, it sounds like the author, to use the technical term, is full of it.

Can you please cite the source of the material you present? A link to the text and/or page scans, with attribution, would be best, if they are available.

One interesting thing to come out of this is the fact that the change in apparent position of a nearby celestial body, as you move from the center of the Earth to the surface, will always make it appear lower in the sky (unless it's exactly on the zenith - then it doesn't change). I'd never thought of it that way, but this does make sense. This has little practical significance but is still interesting to know; learning stuff like this is why I put up with all the BS here; there is an occasional worthwhile nugget.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=13m38s
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 09:06:17 AM by cikljamas »

*

sokarul

  • 15979
  • Discount Chemist
Then why did you once say no zigzag would happen on a round earth?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

JerkFace

  • 9912
  • Looking for Occam
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=13m38s

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=13m38s

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 03:53:09 AM by cikljamas »

My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=13m38s

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

*

JerkFace

  • 9912
  • Looking for Occam
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.

This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=13m38s

Perfect proof, of what I was saying about  idiotic and  incompetent youtube authors.    But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.

Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

I don't encourage him, but the truth is that from time to time we all make mistakes, it doesn't mean that we are not right regarding our basic hypothesis!!!

The only difference between FEs and REs is that we (FEs) admit our mistakes, and they don't!

That says a lot, also!

Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.

*

JerkFace

  • 9912
  • Looking for Occam
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.

You are consistent,  maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther,  I've not seen you help their cause at all,  you make them look as stupid as you are.
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
And your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.