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

  • 137 Replies
  • 22527 Views
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433

However, since it seems that your delusional disorder is incurable i doubt that you will realize what is the true nature of your illness even after reading next elaboration :

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :

HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East

---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards East


---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

CONCLUSION :

1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.

3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!

As you know Jack, i was too generous when i said that within HC Noon scenario apparent motion of the moon would be towards West!!! It wouldn't be towards West, it would be towards East since THE DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE OBSERVER ON A SPINNING EARTH WOULD BE MUCH MORE DECISIVE THAN THE THE DIRECTION OF REAL MOTION OF THE MOON :



IN ADDITION :

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

That was even shown up above.

Nothing is shown up above. Your diagram is one another example how skilled (in mathematics) idiots like you can use mathematics to prove whatever they want to prove, however every decent experiment would prove that your dazzling mathematical acrobatics boil down to NOTHING!!!

In first part of your diagram (HC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between three parallel lines, and in the second part of your diagram (GC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between one parallel (green) line and one perpendicular (blue) line which goes through the center of the spherical model of the earth, and you think you have done something meaningful? You have done nothing, as usual. In HC model with the 150 000 000 distant sun there would be 0,004 degrees parallax due to ZIGZAG motion of the rotating earth, but in GC model there would be 180 degrees geocentric "parallax" due to sun's translation along half of it's entire daily orbit around the earth, and you think you can compare these two scenarios in such manner that at the end of the day we get the same result? Only in your wet dreams, and your delusional disordered brain.

Regarding your bullshit logic :
You said that if there wasn't ZIGZAG phenomena (regarding the parallax of the sun) it would only prove that the sun is "infinitely" far away from the earth, and if there were very easily noticeable ZIGZAG phenomena it would only prove that the sun is very close to the earth, but ZIGZAG phenomena would be the same either the sun circles around the sun or the earth rotates and orbits stationary sun.

THERE WOULD BE NO ZIGZAG PHENOMENA ON STATIONARY EARTH, AND ALTHOUGH AN ABSENCE OF ZIGZAG PHENOMENA COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE SUN IS INFINITELY FAR AWAY (IN THEORY, AND ONLY IN THEORY) IT COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THAT THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND THE STATIONARY EARTH.

In the case of non-existing ZIGZAG motion of the full moon, you said that there is ZIGZAG of the full moon, because you know that the moon is very close to the earth and if the moon is so close than there must be ZIGZAG within HC model, so you simply assert that there is ZIGZAG phenomena in reality because according to your insane logic : even if the earth were stationary there would be SAME ZIGZAG phenomena as in the HC model with a rotating earth.

So, you dug your own grave, because THERE ISN'T ZIGZAG phenomena in GC model, and you can frame it and display it on the wall right next to the certificate of your total insanity!

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.

Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?



Pyjamas ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof that the sun is far away.
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2017, 03:46:53 PM »
As you know Jack, i was too generous when i said that within HC Noon scenario apparent motion of the moon would be towards West!!! It wouldn't be towards West, it would be towards East since THE DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE OBSERVER ON A SPINNING EARTH WOULD BE MUCH MORE DECISIVE THAN THE THE DIRECTION OF REAL MOTION OF THE MOON :
You mean like I pointed out?
In the noon scenario, the moon is on the far side, so you are facing north. You (along with Earth) undergo a CCW rotation (when viewed from above), making everything appear to move in a CW direction, which means the moon will appear to move in a CW direction which would mean it would move towards the east, JUST LIKE YOU OBSERVE.

It isn't the direction of motion, it is the direction of rotation which is the decisive factor.


No shitty videos, EXPLAIN IT HERE!!!

Tell us exactly what experiment you will do, and what the expected results would be for a rotating Earth and a stationary Earth.

I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
Again, why would you need his opinion? Just so he can agree with me and say you are an idiot?
Why not actually address what I have said?

Now you are literally repeating the same refuted crap, word for word.

Again, my diagram shows an experiment, where you rotate the camera 0.25 degrees per minute (watching the sun, not the moon). This is to either cancel out the rotation of Earth or the average motion of the sun.
The 0.25 degrees is the same regardless of the model.

The angles shown are the angles expected by the 2 models.
At both 6 am and 6pm the sun will not be due east or west. Instead it will be a little to the north.
The amount it is to the north is the same for both models. It is given by atan(r/R)

Thus for there to be no zig-zag you either need r to be 0 (which can only be true at the pole), or R to be infinite.

It makes no difference if Earth is stationary or spinning.

Unless you can provide an experiment an explain what the expected results are for each model, your zig zag remains as unsubstantiated crap.
Unless you can point out anything wrong with my experiment and observation, your zig zag argument remains refuted as you would expect the same results on a stationary or rotating Earth.

Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?
Basically the exact same one as for the rotating Earth frame of reference.

Relative to an average motion, the sun moves faster when closer to you and slower when further away.

This happens in all motion.
If 2 objects are moving at the same speed and one is close to you while the other is far away, the closer one appears to be moving faster because it has a greater angular speed.

So if you were to film the sun for a day (at the arctic circle) using an equatorial mount telescope set to rotate at 0.25 degrees per minute to cancel either the rotation of Earth (w.r.t a solar day), or the average motion of the sun, then you would see the sun race ahead during the period from 6 am to 6 pm and fall behind during the period from 6 pm to 6 am.
This produces an apparent zig zag. This zag zag occurs regardless of if Earth is stationary or rotating. (although it should be more of a sin wave rather than a tiranlge wave or sawtooth which zig zag would be, but I figured I would overlook that part).

If Earth is rotating, this zig-zag occurs due to the sideways motion of the part of Earth you are on. When you are close to the object, this combines with the effect of Earth's rotation to make the object appear to move faster and thus appear to race ahead of the reference point. When you are far away, this opposes the effect of Earth's rotation to make the object appear slower and thus fall behind the reference point.

If Earth is stationary and the object is circling us, then this occurs due to the difference in distance between you and the object. When you are close to the object, its apparent angular speed will be faster (as you are close to it), thus it appears to race ahead. When you are further away, its apparent angular speed will be slower (as you are further away), thus it appears to fall behind.

In HC model ZIGZAG motion exists but it is not anything of that sort (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial object due to changed direction of rotational motion of the observer on the earth relative to the observing celestial object), it is just change in apparent speed (angular velocity) of celestial object in the sky?

So, in my video (above) you are not able to notice what is going on? When i move my camera to the RIGHT everything within FOV of the camera lens goes to the LEFT, and vice versa, but you are not able to notice this, isn't that so? And you can't see something that you won't see it because you are deliberately blind, what you see (in your delusional, deliberate blindness) instead is absolutely minute change in apparent speed of motion of observed environment, isn't that so?
CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!

In GC model ZIGZAG motion ALSO exists, and that motion is nothing else but changed apparent (angular) speed of the sun, moon, stars etc WITHIN ONE SINGLE POLAR DAY/NIGHT..., although no one has ever registered such change in apparent (angular) speeds of these objects (within one single day), and although in GC model there is no place for ZIGZAG motion about which we were talking all these years (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial objects which is applicable only within HC model)?
CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!

Now the question :

How come that angular velocity of the moon isn't 400 times greater than angular velocity of the sun?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

New question :

How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 275 200 times greater than angular velocity of Alpha Centauri?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 550 400 times greater than angular velocity of Sirius?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 1 600 000 times greater than angular velocity of Vega star?

HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION

Well, you can stick your magic word ROTATION to your ass, because it is all utter bullshit! What you can see in these photos (watch my video (above) again if you need) is the result of motion of my camera to the RIGHT - everything goes to the LEFT, and vice versa. If an object is 3 times farther away from some other object than it's angular velocity will be 3 times lesser than angular velocity of 3 times closer object.




All you have to do is to ensure fixed spatial orientation of your camera, like this  :

ZIGZAG VIDEO DEDICATED TO TABOO CONSPIRACY :


Why above method is 100 % reliable? Because of this :
GYRO SLUM DUNK :

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1? in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2?). This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, a Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned a Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0?.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.

Sir John Herschel says:--

"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."

Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words

"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1?; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."

The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

THE STARS SAY SO :

“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.

This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad."

In HC model ZIGZAG motion exists but it is not anything of that sort (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial object due to changed direction of rotational motion of the observer on the earth relative to the observing celestial object), it is just change in apparent speed (angular velocity) of celestial object in the sky?
Yes, that is correct. The direction of rotation remains constant. All you have it a change in apparent angular velocity of the object in the sky, just like you do for the GC model, it is just the origin of that difference which is different, the result is the same.

So, in my video (above) you are not able to notice what is going on?
Like I said, no shitty videos. Explain it here, provide the math.

When i move my camera to the RIGHT everything within FOV of the camera lens goes to the LEFT, and vice versa, but you are not able to notice this, isn't that so?
Yes, that is what will happen if you just TRANSLATE your camera to the left.
But that isn't what Earth is doing.
Are you yet again ignoring the rotation of Earth? The most significant contributor?

How about this, just make a video with this: Turn your camera to the left while moving it to the left, looking at a distant object.
Then recenter it and turn it to the left while moving it to the right.
See what happens.

Preferably do so with motors instead of your shaky hand which would allow you to point the camera however you like.
Also make sure the distant object is very far away compared to the size of your translation.

Or you can make an animation, which I will do shortly.

And you can't see something that you won't see it because you are deliberately blind, what you see (in your delusional, deliberate blindness) instead is absolutely minute change in apparent speed of motion of observed environment, isn't that so?
That appears to be describing you, where you repeatedly refuse to see Earth's rotation and the effect of that rotation.

You also completely ignore the extremely large distance to the sun.
You moved your setup what, 1 or 2 m?

Do you know how far away an object would need to be to compare it to the sun?
Assuming you are using the Arctic circle, with a radius of roughly 2500 km (as Earth would get in the way below that) and assuming it was just 1 m, then each m represents 2500 km. So the distance to the sun, roughly 150 000 000 km would need to be 150 000 000 m / 2500=60 000 m = 60 km.

What did you use? An object 15 m away. Do you know what that would correspond to? An object that is a mere 15*2500 km=37 500 km away, so in the area of a geosynchronous satellite, nothing like the sun.

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!
Nope, that would be you. Spouting a bunch of dishonest crap and describing exactly what you are doing.

In GC model ZIGZAG motion ALSO exists
Well thanks for finally admitting it.


that motion is nothing else but changed apparent (angular) speed of the sun, moon, stars etc WITHIN ONE SINGLE POLAR DAY/NIGHT
Yes, just like I had been saying.
If you monitor the sun or moon by having a camera turn at the rate of its average angular speed this would result in it appearing to move back and forth.
This matches the zig-zag of a HC case.

although no one has ever registered such change in apparent (angular) speeds of these objects
So is this now the part where I claim this difference doesn't exist and thus HC must be right, where I demand you provide valid citations of this change and claim HC will be right until you do?
You know, just like you do with your zig zag argument and GC?

Or should I be honest and point out it is the same in both models and thus it not being observed when people aren't looking for it proves nothing, and that if it doesn't exist then all it would mean is the sun is further away.


although in GC model there is no place for ZIGZAG motion about which we were talking all these years (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial objects which is applicable only within HC model)?
That is because there is no place for that in any model which is trying to describe reality. In fact, I don't think there is a place for that in any model at all which is just focusing on the rotation of Earth with a "fixed" celestial body like the sun.

Instead, the GC model contains the exact same (result wise) zig-zag motion as the HC model does, an change in the apparent angular velocity of the sun/moon/whatever.

How come that angular velocity of the moon isn't 400 times greater than angular velocity of the sun?
HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION
Good job, you answered your own question.
You have already admitted the parallax of the sun amounts to basically nothing. And that is for an ENTIRE HALF A DAY (at the equator I think). It was 0.004 degrees if I recall correctly.
Now what was the rotation of Earth? 0.25 degrees per minute. For half a day it would be 180 degrees.

So is it surprising that as the dominant cause remains the same, Earth's rotation, that the objects appear to move roughly the same amount?

There isn't anything magic about it. It is simple geometry.

New question :
How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 275 200 times greater than angular velocity of Alpha Centauri?
No. Not a new question. The exact same question.
It is just asking why the apparent motion of celestial objects is basically always the same (at least when considered along the celestial equator).


Well, you can stick your magic word ROTATION to your ass, because it is all utter bullshit! What you can see in these photos (watch my video (above) again if you need) is the result of motion of my camera to the RIGHT - everything goes to the LEFT, and vice versa. If an object is 3 times farther away from some other object than it's angular velocity will be 3 times lesser than angular velocity of 3 times closer object.
Yes, we can see the result of your TRANSLATION to the left or right.
Now how about you ROTATE your camera and see what that does?
If you notice, all the objects move to the left or right equally.

Now you can combine the effects of translation and rotation (i.e. just rotate the stick, with the camera fixed to it pointing either straight in or straight out), and note what happens. Close objects appear to change quite dramatically, but distant objects just appear to move based upon the rotation.

All you have to do is to ensure fixed spatial orientation of your camera, like this  :
Which then appeals to completely different arguments for or against Earth's rotation.
But sure, go ahead, use Foucault's pendulum or a laser ring gyroscope to correct for Earth's rotation and see what you get?

Why above method is 100 % reliable? Because of this :
You mean because of a horribly imperfect gyro which needs a self-righting mechanism, which cannot detect small changes in angle?

How about this, to make it valid experiment, instead of turning it quickly like in a car, turn it slowly, over the course of an entire day, try it once clockwise and once counter clockwise. See how it compares.

As for your copied and pasted crap, yes stars are very far away, with very small parallax. Who cares?
This isn't even the zig-zag you have been discussing. It isn't based on a daily motion but a yearly one.

As for your crap about NASA saying it is stationary, I would then point to all the evidence against it, such as Foucault's pendulum and laser ring gyroscopes, the path of the sun and planets making no sense, orbits making no sense and so on.

Remember, in the past, people thought Earth was stationary. So we have already been through this. The evidence for a moving Earth won. We have plenty of scientific backing for it.

Just because you have no scientific backing for your claims, doesn't mean we don't have any.

So no, what you are doing makes no sense. You have no evidence at all for your position, you need to lie and fabricate evidence for your position and you need to reject evidence for a rotating Earth.

You also continue to appeal to nonsense like claiming you can't feel it moving, just like you can't feel any smooth movement.

It is akin to saying a car or a plane can't be moving because I don't feel it moving. It must be Earth moving past the car or plane.
And before you appeal to turbulence or bumps or the like, don't forget about Earthquakes.
Before you appeal to the same refuted nonsense of wind like if you were outside the plane or the car, don't forget about wind like during storms.

JackBlack, muddying the water (as well as twisting my words) won't help!

1. These 0,04 degrees per hour is still 46 % of the difference between two alleged relative motions of the moon which don't exist. Had these two different DAILY speeds existed we would have known about them, until this day.

2. So, if changed direction of earth's motion (Noon time) doesn't matter then how come that we talk about alleged 46 % of the difference between two allegedly different DAILY relative speeds of the moon, in the first place?

3. Show me ONE SINGLE peer review article or ANY KIND of article ever published anywhere, which corroborates the existence of such phenomena!

4. Our motion is much more decisive than moon's alleged eastward motion, that is why the moon supposedly appears to move westward. The amount of displacement of moon's "apparent" westward (CW) motion : 2,5 diameters of moon's apparent angular diameter (or 1,25 degrees/5min.). IF YOU CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ALLEGED SPIN YOU WILL CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF MOON'S APPARENT MOTION. You can muddy the water by calling on circular motion and by doing that you can even achieve your ultimate goal (which is : to confuse other people), but to make this thing absolutely simple i restricted our hypothetical measurement to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight (which measurement would have to take place within 24 hours of one single polar Arctic day).

Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move 1,25 degrees (which is 2,5 apparent moon's diameters).

Only this displacement wouldn't be in the same direction at Noon (vs at Midnight) if the earth turned on it's axis, as simple as that.

Why?

Because the same decisive factor (alleged rotation of the earth) would be responsible not only for non-existing opposite outcome regarding 46 % alleged difference in two different relative DAILY moon's motion but it would be also responsible for one other (much more serious) opposite outcome = an apparent displacement of moon's angular diameter would occur in an opposite direction than it would occur at Noon (in relation to the result of our observation which would take place at Midnight).

What is the significance of restricting our measurement periods to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight?

Avoiding "circular motion" confusion!!!

I repeat :

While 4km distant moon (in our scaled down model) moved 3 m to the LEFT we moved (on our merry go round) 0,5 meter to the LEFT (also), and expecting result of our 0,5 m long motion should be apparent translation of our moon to the RIGHT for 2,5 apparent moon's diameters. While we are traveling these 0,5 m long trip we have to surmount 0,68mm bulge (which is less than 1 fucking mm which is less than 25th part of one fucking inch), and such lateral motion you are still ready to call "circular motion" (due to the fact that we have to overcome less than a whole 25th part of one fucking inch by moving along 0,5 meters (out of 157 m of total circumference) long path of our 50m (in diameter) big merry go round)?

So, in our scaled down model the moon should be ONLY 4 km away from us, and in the next video our "MOON" (the peak of a distant hill) is 14,4 km away from us, which is 3,6 times more than it should be if we were to imitate alleged HC reality...In this video you can see lateral and rotational translation, however rotational translation you can disregard since this particular rotational translation happens around the center of the fixed axis (as if we were centered at the north pole), but you can't disregard our lateral translation because you couldn't say the difference between this lateral translation and rotational motion along 0,5 m while turning CCW on our 50 m (in diameter) merry go round which represents our Arctic circle...



So, there is no doubt that the final result would be an apparent motion of the moon to the west (in noon HC scenario), that is to say : in the same direction in which the moon travels within HC scenario at noon as observed from the Arctic circle during appropriate Polar Night when the moon is visible 24 hours a day...

As for the amount of an apparent motion (which we would be able to easily measure as noticeable parallax if existed in the first place) to the west (as we travel to the east), a.k.a. the apparent angular speed in an opposite direction of our motion in relation to the moon's "real" motion, this would be the result on the basis of what has been recorded in my experiment :

« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 06:09:16 AM by cikljamas »

JackBlack, muddying the water (as well as twisting my words) won't help!
Nope. Not muddying the waters. You do enough of that already. Why would I make it worse?

And no, I haven't been twisting your words at all, but you sure do love twisting other peoples to blatantly lie about things.

1. These 0,04 degrees per hour is still 46 % of the difference between two alleged relative motions of the moon which don't exist. Had these two different DAILY speeds existed we would have known about them, until this day.
No.
Firstly, where did you pull the number from?

These -0.04 degrees per 5 minutes is the apparent angular velocity of the moon when correcting for the solar day and you being offset from the axis of Earth/centre of the moon's circular path. It is not a difference at all.

The difference is 0.016 degrees due to you being offset from the axis of Earth/centre of the moon's circular path.

This means the apparent motion of the moon changes between 1.202 degrees, and 1.218 degrees. This is expected in both models, the HC one and the GC one. The only way to change it is to change the relative sizes or the average speed.

That is not a 46% difference.
The 46% difference comes from correcting for the rotation of Earth (and technically orbit) or the average motion of the sun around Earth.
In this case you go from -0.048 to -0.032 degrees. This is a difference of 50% (I am fine accepting that 46% comes from a more accurate measure).
Again, this is expected in both models.


2. So, if changed direction of earth's motion (Noon time) doesn't matter then how come that we talk about alleged 46 % of the difference between two allegedly different DAILY relative speeds of the moon, in the first place?
So many errors I hardly no where to begin.
Firstly, the direction of Earth's motion does matter, and it does not change.
In both cases it is rotating in the same direction. When viewed from above the north pole, Earth is rotating CCW. This is the same at both midday and midnight.

You are the one repeatedly talking about a 46% difference. I am talking about a much smaller difference in apparent motion of the moon. It is a 1.3% difference.
This is because the translation of the spot of Earth you are on is an insignificant contributor. I say it is insignificant because it's effects are less than 5%. Yes, it still has an effect, but it is very small compared to the more significant effect of the motion of the moon along its orbit and the much more significant effect of Earth's rotation.

So if you wish to discuss the difference, discuss the 1.3% difference, as that is what most people would be looking for.

3. Show me ONE SINGLE peer review article or ANY KIND of article ever published anywhere, which corroborates the existence of such phenomena!
No. It is entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand.
The same phenomenon is expected in both the GC and HC models.
What dictates this phenomenon is the ratio of the distances (i.e. your distance/the moon's distance, both measured from the centre of the moon's path and centre of Earth's axis.

If you wish to claim that the moon is much further away, then we can start discussing if it exists or not.

4. Our motion is much more decisive than moon's alleged eastward motion, that is why the moon supposedly appears to move westward. The amount of displacement of moon's "apparent" westward (CW) motion : 2,5 diameters of moon's apparent angular diameter (or 1,25 degrees/5min.). IF YOU CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ALLEGED SPIN YOU WILL CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF MOON'S APPARENT MOTION.
Yes, if you changed the direction of Earth's spin but kept everything else the same you will change the direction of the moon's apparent motion. You would also change its magnitude. Ignoring the issue of the solar day changing, the moon's motion in 5 minutes would go from an average of 1.21 degrees to -1.29 degrees.

But who really cares? THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!!
Earth keeps spinning in the same direction. It never magically stops and starts going back the other way.

This is why the moon appears to move westwards when it is on the same side of Earth as you, and why it appears to move eastwards when it is on the opposite side of Earth to you.
Because the Earth's CCW motion makes the moon appear to move in a CW circle around you.

You can muddy the water by calling on circular motion and by doing that you can even achieve your ultimate goal (which is : to confuse other people), but to make this thing absolutely simple i restricted our hypothetical measurement to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight (which measurement would have to take place within 24 hours of one single polar Arctic day).
Again, I AM NOT CALLING ON CIRCULAR MOTION!!!!!
I am pointing out that Earth is rotating and that is the most dominant effect.
My goal is to point out your lies and explain what we would actually expect, vs your blatant lies about them.

Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move 1,25 degrees (which is 2,5 apparent moon's diameters).
No. Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move roughly 1.21 degrees, when measure along the celestial equator.
The main cause of this is Earth's -1.25 degree rotation.
The next most significant cause is the moon's -0.04 degree motion along its orbit. Note: -(-1.25)-0.04=1.21.

The circular path of the point of Earth you are on has very little to do with it and amounts to a 0.008 degree change (in either direction).
This means the actual apparent motion of the moon will be 1.202 or 1.218 degrees, a difference of 1.3%.

Only this displacement wouldn't be in the same direction at Noon (vs at Midnight) if the earth turned on it's axis, as simple as that.
That all depends upon how you measure it.

If you go for East-West, then that is correct. It wouldn't be in the same direction.
That is because at one time you are facing south, and thus the section of a CW path from above, which is in front of you, would be east-west, and thus the moon would appear to go to the west.
At the other time you are facing north, and thus the section of a CW path from above, which is in front of you, would be west-east, and thus the moon would appear to go to the west.

However, that is not the only way to measure it.
You can also measure that CW motion, or just note that it appears to go to the right.

Why?
Because the same decisive factor (alleged rotation of the earth) would be responsible not only for non-existing opposite outcome regarding 46 % alleged difference in two different relative DAILY moon's motion but it would be also responsible for one other (much more serious) opposite outcome = an apparent displacement of moon's angular diameter would occur in an opposite direction than it would occur at Noon (in relation to the result of our observation which would take place at Midnight).
No. Do you know why?
Because the same device factor(s), Earth's -1.25 degree motion (and the moon's -0.04 degree motion) will still result in the same apparent motion of the moon, i.e. an apparent angular displacement of 1.21 degrees, making the 0.008 degrees unable to effect the moon's apparent direction.


What is the significance of restricting our measurement periods to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight?
It means we can treat the translational components as a straight line, making it much simpler to calculate the apparent motion.

Avoiding "circular motion" confusion!!!
You are the only one appealing to circular motion.
Having the piece of dirt you are on travel in a roughly straight line doesn't magically move the rotation.

I repeat :
While 4km distant moon (in our scaled down model) moved 3 m to the LEFT we moved (on our merry go round) 0,5 meter to the LEFT (also), and expecting result of our 0,5 m long motion should be apparent translation of our moon to the RIGHT for 2,5 apparent moon's diameters. While we are traveling these 0,5 m long trip we have to surmount 0,68mm bulge (which is less than 1 fucking mm which is less than 25th part of one fucking inch), and such lateral motion you are still ready to call "circular motion" (due to the fact that we have to overcome less than a whole 25th part of one fucking inch by moving along 0,5 meters (out of 157 m of total circumference) long path of our 50m (in diameter) big merry go round)?
Repeating the strawman wont magically make you right. You are the only one appealing to a strawman.

I repeat, with your 4km distant moon, the mere -1.25 degree rotation of Earth still has you looking (assuming no correction) -1.25 degrees away from where the moon was. Scaled up that means your -1.25 degree rotation has resulted in the moon appearing to move 87 m. This is because you are now looking at a point that is 87 m away from where the moon originally was. This is quite significant compared to your pathetic 3m motion to the left or right.

Again:
THE CIRCULAR PATH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! IT IS THE ROTATION OF EARTH WHICH DOES!!!!


In this video you can see lateral and rotational translation
Yes and you make it impossible to tell the difference between them with your pathetic shaky hands.
I have pointed out that the rotation will be the most significant.

Also, rotational translation makes no sense. Translation by definition is just lateral movement, not rotation.

however rotational translation you can disregard since this particular rotational translation happens around the center of the fixed axis (as if we were centered at the north pole), but you can't disregard our lateral translation because you couldn't say the difference between this lateral translation and rotational motion along 0,5 m while turning CCW on our 50 m (in diameter) merry go round which represents our Arctic circle...
NO! You cannot disregard the rotation. That is because a rotation of -1.25 degrees will result in an apparent motion of all objects by 1.25 degrees.
Meanwhile, the lateral motion amounts to a pathetic 0.008 degrees.
If you are going to disregard one, it would be the translation, not the rotation.

If you want to compare the 2 you would need to accurate translate the camera without any rotation and then rotate the camera without any translation.
Or at least do one without the other.
Perhaps a better one would be to simply rotate the camera by a fixed amount while translating it left, and then do the same while translating it right, translating the same amount.

Guess what? Your pathetic attempt at translation failed miserably. That is because as well as translating the camera, you rotated it, as I have pointed out before.
You start with the line running diagonally up to the right for the roof in front, but then after your "translation" to the left, it runs diagonally up to the left.
This indicates you are rotating the camera as well.

But your video sure does show one thing, the rotation produces a very significant effect.
But your comment at the end is a blatant lie.
You haven't bothered showing the close roof. Is that because you know it would allow easy detection of the difference?

At best all it shows is that your translation was insignificant and the dominant factor in the apparent motion in the first case was the rotation.

Perhaps you should get a theodolite app and use that to take pictures so it can show your bearing (even better if you can take a video)?


So, there is no doubt that the final result would be an apparent motion of the moon to the west (in noon HC scenario), that is to say : in the same direction in which the moon travels within HC scenario at noon as observed from the Arctic circle during appropriate Polar Night when the moon is visible 24 hours a day...
No, there is no doubt that the rotation will be the most significant effect and thus for an observer on the artic circle the moon will appear to move roughly 1.25 degree to the right regardless of if it is mid day or mid night. The apparent movement due to their translation will amount to roughly 0.008 degrees.


this would be the result on the basis of what has been recorded in my experiment :
Your experiment is horribly flawed and without control.
You have a combination of rotation and translation, with no easy way to separate them.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 03:30:12 PM by JackBlack »

As you didn't want to bother with an honest experiment, or even an honest animation, I made some:
I have produced 2 models. One has a stationary Earth, with the sun circling around it.
The other has the sun stationary with Earth rotating.

In both these models the Earth is a sphere of radius 6.4 Mm
The sun is 80 Mm away from the centre of Earth (to exagerate the zig-zag, in reality it would be much further, that is only 80 000 km, closer than the moon, in reality the sun is 150 000 000 km away.
The sun is directly overhead a latitude of 25 degrees and the observer is at a latitude of 80 degrees, standing 0.000002 Mm (2 m) above the surface of Earth.
The camera is on an equatorial mount telescope, rotating 360 degrees a day in the equatorial plane.

For each, I have a camera with a horizontal (I think) FOV of 20 degrees and one of 90 degrees.

Here are the animations, see if you can tell which is which:






And the code to produce each frame (it was done in POV-RAY), firstly, the ini file for the animation :
Code: [Select]
Antialias=Off
Antialias_Threshold=0.1
Antialias_Depth=2

Input_File_Name="[INSERT NAME OF POV FILE HERE]"

Initial_Frame=1
Final_Frame=360
Initial_Clock=0
Final_Clock=1

Cyclic_Animation=on
Pause_when_Done=off

Then the POV file for GC:
Code: [Select]
#version 3.7;
global_settings {  assumed_gamma 1.0 }

#declare r=6.4;
#declare R=80;
#declare Sr=tan(radians(0.5))*R;
#declare Slat=25;
#declare Olat=70;

#declare Slrad=radians(Slat);
#declare Sx=R*cos(Slrad);
#declare Sy=R*sin(Slrad);
#declare Olrad=radians(Olat);
#declare cx=(r+0.000002)*cos(Olrad);
#declare cy=(r+0.000002)*sin(Olrad);

#declare theta=clock*360;
#declare trad=radians(theta);
#declare st=sin(trad);
#declare ct=cos(trad);


//Camera
camera{ angle 20
    right x*image_width/image_height
    location  <0 , cy , cx>
    look_at   <Sx*st , Sy , Sx*ct+cx>
}
       
       
//Lights
light_source{ (R-Sr*10)/R*<Sx*st,Sy,Sx*ct>
    color rgb<1,1,1>
}

             
//Sun
sphere{ <Sx*st,Sy,Sx*ct>, Sr
    texture { pigment{ rgb<1,1,0> }
        finish { diffuse 0.9
            phong 1}
    }
}


// Earth:
sphere{ <0,0,0>, r
    texture { pigment{ rgb<0,1,0> }
    }
}
For the large FOV, the 20 in the camera block was changed to 90, and Sy (also in the camera block) was changed to Sy*0.1

and the HC POV:
Code: [Select]
#version 3.7;
global_settings {  assumed_gamma 1.0 }

#declare r=6.4;
#declare R=80;
#declare Sr=tan(radians(0.5))*R;
#declare Slat=25;
#declare Olat=70;

#declare Slrad=radians(Slat);
#declare Sx=R*cos(Slrad);
#declare Sy=R*sin(Slrad);
#declare Olrad=radians(Olat);
#declare cx=(r+0.000002)*cos(Olrad);
#declare cy=(r+0.000002)*sin(Olrad);

#declare theta=clock*360;
#declare trad=radians(theta);
#declare st=sin(trad);
#declare ct=cos(trad);


//Camera
camera{ angle 20
    right x*image_width/image_height
    location  <-cx*st , cy , cx*ct>
    look_at   <-cx*st , Sy , Sx+cx*ct>
}
       
       
//Lights
light_source{ (R-Sr*10)/R*<0,Sy,Sx>
    color rgb<1,1,1>
}

             
//Sun
sphere{ <0,Sy,Sx>, Sr
    texture { pigment{ rgb<1,1,0> }
        finish { diffuse 0.9
            phong 1}
    }
}


// Earth:
sphere{ <0,0,0>, r
    texture { pigment{ rgb<0,1,0> }
    }
}

Now then, going to respond to that?
Going to finally admit the "zig-zag" is the same for both GC and HC?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 04:20:28 PM by JackBlack »

Jack, let's consider one solar eclipse situation :

1. Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.

What happens?

As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST means in this particular situation TO THE RIGHT (it's NOON and we are facing the sun - north is behind our back)!!!

2. Now we put the moon in motion

Since it's motion contributes - 0,008 degrees/min or - 0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?

So, why the shadow of the moon travels to the east, anyway?

3. Now imagine that we are somwhere in the Arctic circle, it's MIDNIGHT and solar eclipse occurs...

Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.

You can call it "holy CCW rotation", but this time we move in counter direction with respect to the moon (comparing classical "noon" scenarios).

What happens?

As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST this time means TO THE LEFT (it's MIDNIGHT and we are facing the sun - north is in front of us)!!!

4. Now we put the moon in motion

Now the moon travels in an opposite direction of our motion since we go to the RIGHT (to the EAST), and the moon goes to the LEFT (to the WEST), which means that this time the moon's motion contributes + 3 % (instead of - 3 %), and the shadow of the moon should go much faster to the WEST, isn't that so?

So, does the shadow of the moon travels to the west so much faster in this MIDNIGHT situation?

It doesn't
You know why?

Because the earth is stationary, that is why!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 01:42:31 AM by cikljamas »

Jack, let's consider one solar eclipse situation :
How about you focus on the current argument first, either admitting you were wrong or providing an argument to counter it?

I will be nice this time and deal with your post, but next time, I won't. Instead I will keep bringing up your failed zig-zag argument and how you expect the same for both a GC and HC model (as shown by the gifs where you can't tell which is which, so I had to re upload them one at a time after trying to upload them all together and not knowing which is which).

1. Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.
But the moon does move, and so does Earth (but I will ignore the orbital motion of Earth to keep the reference frames constant).

What happens?
As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST means in this particular situation TO THE RIGHT (it's NOON and we are facing the sun - north is behind our back)!!!
Yes, the shadow will remain at the same location, with Earth turning below it, meaning it would move to the west, as the sun and moon appear to move to the west together. This also works for the GC model.

2. Now we put the moon in motion
Since it's motion contributes - 0,008 degrees/min
That is for us, not the sun. The angular speed of the moon relative to the sun (which would determine the motion of the shadow) is significantly different.

I'll explain the actual reasoning in a bit.

0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?
No, that isn't so. But if it was, don't worry, the same would apply for the GC model.
The moon's motion relative to the sun is only 0.04 degrees/5 minutes, out of 1.25 degrees. So the argument works just as well for the GC model.
What you are trying to suggest for these 5 minutes:
Relative motion of the sun compared to Earth is -1.25. This will result in the shadow moving 1.25 degrees.
Relative motion of the moon compared to the sun (but still measured from Earth) is -0.04 degrees. This will make the shadow move -0.04 degrees.
Thus in total, it will move 1.21 degrees.

Notice how I never appealed to which one is moving and instead just appealed to the relative/apparent motion?

So once again you have provided an argument which doesn't refute GC at all. It applies equally to GC and HC.


3. Now imagine that we are somwhere in the Arctic circle, it's MIDNIGHT and solar eclipse occurs...
Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.
You can call it "holy CCW rotation", but this time we move in counter direction with respect to the moon (comparing classical "noon" scenarios).
No, I just call it CCW rotation. Nothing holy about it.

What happens?
As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
Yes, that is right. It is the same this time because the shadow starts where you are, not off in the distance.
TO THE WEST this time means TO THE LEFT (it's MIDNIGHT and we are facing the sun - north is in front of us)!!!


Now the moon travels in an opposite direction of our motion since we go to the RIGHT (to the EAST), and the moon goes to the LEFT (to the WEST), which means that this time the moon's motion contributes + 3 % (instead of - 3 %), and shadow of the moon should go even faster to the WEST, isn't that so?
No it isn't for the same reasons as above. But again, this applies equally to the GC model.
The relative motion of the sun is -1.25 degrees, so the shadow moves 1.25 degrees (as measured from the centre of Earth), this makes it go west, i.e. to the left.
At the same time, the moon's motion relative to the sun is to the left, and thus the shadow should move even further to the left.

Notice how yet again this flawed reasoning results in the same analysis for both models??
Do you know what?
The only difference between the 2 models is a simple rotation of the entire system by 0.25 degrees per minute.

If you take the GC model at any point in time, you can rotate the entire model by some amount and match the HC model.

As such, all honest analyses will give the same result.

Do you understand this yet?

You know why?
Because the earth is stationary, that is why!
No, I know why, because you completely misrepresent the model yet again.
One thing I am 100% certain of is it is not because Earth is stationary as that would produce the exact same "results".

First a simple attempt at an explanation:
The 1.25 degree motion due to Earth's rotation amounts to (at the equator) ~140 km.
The moon's motion during that time (using its actual speed instead of the 400 km orbit) is ~ 300 km.
The shadow, as it is past the moon from the light source) thus has to move MORE than 300 km on Earth from the motion of the moon. (the exact amount depends upon distance).
What this means is that the minimum motion would be 160 km to the left.
A similar argument can be made for the GC model.
The sun has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees.

A more complicated one, but still somewhat simple. I am now going to use the angles used before, as well as a 400 000 km orbit of the moon (R) and a 150 000 000 km distant sun (S), and a radius of Earth (r) of 6371 km. (this will slightly not match reality)
Here is the pic for it:

You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).

One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.

Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.

If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.

The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2

For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg

Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2

Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.

Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097

Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.

Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.


So pretty close.
Just to recap those 3 calculated motions:
1.26218495
1.268799292
1.268799395

All 3 quite close.
All 3 indicate an apparent motion of the shadow in the direction observed in reality.

Any objections?

Jack, show me one peer-review article (just one) which claims that midnight solar eclipse lasts 6 % shorter than noon solar eclipse (under the same circumstances), solely due to earth's rotation in counter direction in relation to the alleged direction of moon's motion!!! (We shall - for the moment - neglect major role which "rotation in counter direction" plays in all this...)

Don't you tell me that no one would notice by now something of this magnitude of importance for your fraudulent theory?

Well, i noticed it, you see, it is that simple?

As for the core of ZIGZAG argument, it is only the question of the obviousness of this non-existing phenomena which (obviousness) depends of the distances between the earth and celestial objects.

Claiming that ZIGZAG motion somehow comes down to the differences in apparent speeds of celestial objects is utter nonsense because in GC model all celestial objects move (apart from retrograde motions) in one single general direction which means that there is no change regarding the direction of their motion.

So, when you are trying to reduce non-existing ZIGZAG motion to some minute differences which come as a consequence of minute differences in the distances of the observer on the earth in relation to the celestial objects, it akin to calling on retrograde motion as a proof for the existence of non-existing ZIGZAG motion which is very clearly defined phenomena (WHICH EXCLUSIVE CAUSE IS ALLEGED CHANGE OF THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ROTATIONAL MOTION IN RELATION TO THE CELESTIAL OBJECTS) which obviously doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 06:50:23 AM by cikljamas »





0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?
No, that isn't so. But if it was, don't worry, the same would apply for the GC model.
The moon's motion relative to the sun is only 0.04 degrees/5 minutes, out of 1.25 degrees. So the argument works just as well for the GC model.
What you are trying to suggest for these 5 minutes:
Relative motion of the sun compared to Earth is -1.25. This will result in the shadow moving 1.25 degrees.
Relative motion of the moon compared to the sun (but still measured from Earth) is -0.04 degrees. This will make the shadow move -0.04 degrees.
Thus in total, it will move 1.21 degrees.

[/quote]
In which direction?

Jack, show me one peer-review article (just one) which claims that midnight solar eclipse lasts 6 % shorter than noon solar eclipse (under the same circumstances), solely due to earth's rotation in counter direction in relation to the alleged direction of moon's motion!!! (We shall - for the moment - neglect major role which "rotation in counter direction" plays in all this...)
No. Like I said, deal with your zig-zag BS before moving on.

Once you either provide a rational justification for your zig-zag crap, showing the math backing it or at the very least provide a refutation of my math, then we can move on. Until then, that is all I will deal with.


As for the core of ZIGZAG argument, it is only the question of the obviousness of this non-existing phenomena which (obviousness) depends of the distances between the earth and celestial objects.
You are yet to show it is non-existent. But yes, it just depends upon the ratio of distances.

Claiming that ZIGZAG motion somehow comes down to the differences in apparent speeds of celestial objects is utter nonsense because in GC model all celestial objects move (apart from retrograde motions) in one single general direction which means that there is no change regarding the direction of their motion.
And in HC theory, due to the decisive nature of Earth's rotation, being much greater in magnitude than the angular velocity of the moon and much greater in magnitude than the effect of being off centre, there is no change regarding the direction of motion.
Instead all you get is a change in apparent speed.

That is not nonsense for the GC model either.
Sure, in the GC model their speeds are fixed, e.g. the sun circles 1.25 degrees every 5 minutes, the moon moves 1.21 degrees in that time.
But the distance between you and the object does change.
As the linear velocity is the same (taking a small section of the path such that the error from a straight line due to the curve is negligible), it would be the distance which determines its apparent motion.

For an extreme example, pretend there is a car travelling at 100 m/s around a track that is a circle with a diameter of 110 m.
You are standing close to the track, such that the car passes 10 m from you.
How fast does the car appear to be going as it goes past the section of the track near you?

Well, in 0.1 s it moved 10 m. So in 0.2 s it moves 20 m, 10 m from your left, to right in front then 10 m to your right.
It is 10 m distant. The math is pretty simple.
It forms 2 right angle isosceles triangles and thus moves at an apparent angular velocity of 45 degrees per second.

Now try it on the other side of the track, the far side, which is 100 m away from you.
Just looking at the 0.1 s before (or after) it goes past the point directly opposite you, you again get 2 right angle triangles, but this time the 2 lengths are 10 m and 100 m.
This means the angle is atan(10/100)=5.7 degrees.

So while it is close to you, its apparent angular speed is 45 degrees per second. While it is far away it is 5.7 degrees per second.

So notice how even in the GC model you get a difference in the apparent angular velocity.

So no, this same zig-zag motion will exist.

That was proven by the models I made, where the camera rotates in an equatorial plane at 0.25 degrees per minute watching a much closer sun.
In the HC model, this cancels the rotation of Earth, resulting in the camera always looking at the same direction, and thus looking to the left or right of the sun depending upon its offset from the centre, with the sun appearing to move to the right as the patch of dirt you are on moves left (now we are just looking at translation as we have removed the rotation by rotating the camera), and it appears to move left as the patch of dirt you are on moves right.
In the GC model, this cancels the average motion of the sun, resulting in the camera following the sun at the north pole, but not quite following it elsewhere due to the offset from the centre.
At noon, when the sun is close, due to it being closer it will have a faster angular velocity than average and thus appear to move to the right.
At midnight, when the sun is far, due to it being further it will have a slower angular velocity than average and thus appear to move to the left.

As such, you obtain the exact same experimental result under both HC and GC models.

There is no difference in the zig-zag result, just the origin of it.

How many times must this be repeated and explained in different ways before you accept it?

So, when you are trying to reduce non-existing ZIGZAG motion to some minute differences which come as a consequence of minute differences in the distances of the observer on the earth in relation to the celestial objects, it akin to calling on retrograde motion as a proof for the existence of non-existing ZIGZAG motion which is very clearly defined phenomena (WHICH EXCLUSIVE CAUSE IS ALLEGED CHANGE OF THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ROTATIONAL MOTION IN RELATION TO THE CELESTIAL OBJECTS) which obviously doesn't exist.
This sentence makes almost no sense.
The zig-zag motion would be due to minute differences in distances. That applies to both the HC and GC models, just not to a FE model with the sun circling overhead in which case the distance is no longer minute (for reality, 2500 km vs 150 000 000 km for the sun or 400 000 km for the moon; for FE, 2500 km vs 7500 km for the tropic, i.e. where the sun or moon would be directly overhead while it is visible from all locations in the arctic circle).

All your zig-zag argumment does is show the sun and moon are far away and thus the FE model is wrong. It cannot distinguish between GC and HC.

Once again, THE EARTH DOES NOT CHANGE THE DIRECTION IT ROTATES!!! (at least not anything like what you are suggesting).
It is always rotating CCW when viewed from above.

Now deal with the zig-zag BS before moving on.
Either show what is wrong with my analysis, or provide a hypothetical experiment and the math behind it to show what you would expect for each model.

Remember for this experiment you can just use the apparent motion of the sun/moon. You can't use something else like a gyroscope/laser ring gyroscope or Foucault's pendulum or the like as they constitute completely different arguments for Earth's rotation.
This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).

Are you capable and wiling to do that? Or do you know it will prove you wrong so you wont?




Can you be a little more shaky while moving the camera?  Perhaps pointing it around the room and up and down while moving it back and forth so that there is no question about it no longer being aimed along a parallel line of sight between positions.

Is it dishonesty on your part, or just plain clumsiness?

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.

I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)

JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.

Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?

I missed this reply when it was made.

The "zigzag" you refer to is a very slight change in rate of apparent daily motion of the moon (much less for the sun) from east to west while they're above the horizon in a day. It is insignificant except in the case of very high precision measurements. It is never a change in apparent direction.

Apologies for the late reply.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Jack, i explained everything in my posts #124 and #126, go and read them again if you need. Now, let's imagine this situation : solar eclipse is going to happen exactly at noon (it reminds me to the name of a legendary western movie "High Noon", not only that, it reminds me to the story told in that movie, also, so i am now Gary Cooper, and i am fightiagainst a bunch of criminal liars who are just about to be defeated :) )...

So, maximum of total solar eclipse is going to happen at high noon, all we have to do is to analyze these fraudulent words written by Jack Black :

Now deal with the zig-zag BS before moving on.
Either show what is wrong with my analysis, or provide a hypothetical experiment and the math behind it to show what you would expect for each model.

Remember for this experiment you can just use the apparent motion of the sun/moon. You can't use something else like a gyroscope/laser ring gyroscope or Foucault's pendulum or the like as they constitute completely different arguments for Earth's rotation.
This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).


Why this words are misleading? Because when we rotate camera relative to Earth (to counter Earth's rotation), in the same time we counter the average motion of the sun, also! Why? Because the sun is stationary within HC theory, is it not?

So, 2,5 minutes before noon our camera is starting to strictly focusing to the center of the sun, which means that our camera is turned about 0,65 degrees to the left (from the imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth), right at noon our camera is perfectly aligned with imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth (and still centered to the center of the sun), 2,5 minutes after noon our camera is turned 0,65 degrees to the right from our imaginary vertical line (and still centered to the center of the sun).

With such experiment (which can last even much longer, for example for one whole hour during which we have to compensate for 15 degrees of earth's rotation - 7 degrees before noon, and 7 degrees after noon) we can provide fixed spatial orientation of our camera (presuming that the earth really rotates), and thus modify our rotational motion into kind of lateral translation. I said "kind of" because if wouldn't be exactly LATERAL translation, but it would fulfil our needs quite good. To ensure as much LATERAL translation as this type of experiment allows, we have to reduce duration of our experiment to 5 minutes.

What would be the result of our experiment?

Since the moon is allegedly 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, then the effect of our LATERAL motion will have to be somewhere close to this difference (400 times), also. What this means is this : For the same amount of our LATERAL translation the apparent translation of the moon (in counter direction of our LATERAL motion) would be proportionally (400 times) GREATER than the apparent translation of the sun (in the same direction). We only need to reduce this number (400) for 3 % (due to moon's alleged motion towards east)...

Since the moon and the sun would be aligned we could easily measure disproportional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, if HC theory were true, but since HC theory is utter bullshit, then there is no such disproportiotional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, because their motions are REAL, not APPARENT!!!

ONCE AGAIN :

LATERAL MOTION VS ROTATIONAL MOTION :


MOON LATEARAL 3 X : http://i.imgur.com/MQSFTNJ.jpg
MOON LATERAL MOTION 3 XXX : http://i.imgur.com/2HwyMov.jpg
CAMERA MOVING DISTANCE : http://i.imgur.com/rEMSeUm.jpg

However, this is the reason why we can't ensure REAL fixed spatial orientation of our camera by using above method  :

ZIGZAG VIDEO DEDICATED TO TABOO CONSPIRACY :


Why directional gyros a.k.a. heading indicators are 100 % reliable instruments? Because of this :
GYRO SLUM DUNK :
« Last Edit: July 28, 2017, 03:42:29 AM by cikljamas »

Jack, i explained everything in my posts #124 and #126, go and read them again if you need.
I have read them and I have refuted them.

If you think there is something I missed, feel free to provide it again.
You are also yet to refute the math which shows you are wrong, and the animations which do the same.

Now, let's imagine this situation : solar eclipse is going to happen exactly at noon
No, let's not. Let's deal with your zig-zag failure before moving on.

This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).
Why this words are misleading? Because when we rotate camera relative to Earth (to counter Earth's rotation), in the same time we counter the average motion of the sun, also! Why? Because the sun is stationary within HC theory, is it not?
Nope. Not mine that is misleading, yours.
I never said you are doing them both in the one model.
I said in one (implied to be the HC one) you turn the camera relative to Earth to counter Earth's rotation.
In the other, (implied to be the GC one) you still need to turn the camera relative to Earth, but now instead of countering Earth's rotation you are countering the average motion of the sun.

Is that easier for you to understand?

So, 2,5 minutes before noon our camera is starting to strictly focusing to the center of the sun, which means that our camera is turned about 0,65 degrees to the left (from the imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth), right at noon our camera is perfectly aligned with imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth (and still centered to the center of the sun), 2,5 minutes after noon our camera is turned 0,65 degrees to the right from our imaginary vertical line (and still centered to the center of the sun).
No it isn't.
At noon, it will be perfectly aligned (assuming that is the 0 point), shortly after noon and shortly before the sun will be misaligned, in both the HC and GC models.
In the HC model you are keeping the direction the camera faces fixed. What that means (assuming the direction of the sun at noon is forward) is that a little before noon you will be to the right of the sun, but still looking straight ahead. That means the sun will appear to be a little to the left.
Shortly after, you will be to the left of the sun and thus it will appear a little to the right.
In the GC model you get the same result, but for a different reason.
At noon the sun is closest to you, so it will be moving at a faster than average speed. What this means is that in those 2.5 minutes after noon, you will turn your camera 0.625 degrees, but the sun will move a little more than that (both going to the right) and thus the sun will appear to move to the right and be seen a little to the right after noon.
Due to symmetry (or going backwards), the sun will appear a little to the left before hand.
This matches the GC scenario.

Again, both can be seen in the animations above.

The only time you stay centred with the sun is if you are at the centre, either on Earth's axis, or the axis of the circle the sun takes.
If you are off centre, you will get a "zig-zag", even if it is imperceptible.

Since the moon is allegedly 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, then the effect of our LATERAL motion will have to be somewhere close to this difference (400 times), also. What this means is this : For the same amount of our LATERAL translation the apparent translation of the moon (in counter direction of our LATERAL motion) would be proportionally (400 times) GREATER than the apparent translation of the sun (in the same direction). We only need to reduce this number (400) for 3 % (due to moon's alleged motion towards east)...
No, the result due to the translation will be roughly 400 times greater for the moon. You don't try and adjust it by 3%. You would have to adjust it for the motion of the moon in its orbit, 0.04 degrees.

Since the moon and the sun would be aligned
Stop trying to change it to the eclipse. Deal with your zig-zag BS first.

there is no such disproportiotional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, because their motions are REAL, not APPARENT!!!
You are aware real motion gives rise to apparent motion?
It is how the motion appears to be.
A car travelling at 100 m/s 10 m away appears to me moving much faster than a car travelling 100 m/s 100 m away.
The apparent motion of the car is greater when it is closer, even though it has real motion.

ONCE AGAIN :
Repeating the same refuted BS won't magically make it true.

LATERAL MOTION VS ROTATIONAL MOTION :

Yes, good job, you failed to move the camera laterally and instead rotated it significantly, making your result meaningless.

Would you like me to make an animation showing the difference?

However, this is the reason why we can't ensure REAL fixed spatial orientation of our camera by using above method  :
We don't need to.

All we need to do is correct for the apparent average motion of the sun, regardless of if it is caused by a combination of Earth's orbit and rotation, or if it is caused by the sun's motion around us.

It produces the same result.

Why directional gyros a.k.a. heading indicators are 100 % reliable instruments? Because of this :
No, they aren't 100% reliable instruments, no instrument is.
Again, this is another argument entirely. Deal with your failed zig-zag BS before moving on.