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

  • 137 Replies
  • 21174 Views
Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

?

Tom

Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

I'm not asking you.

*

sokarul

  • 15516
  • Discount Chemist
Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

I'm not asking you.
And? Why make assumptions about his answers?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

Tom

Would a scale model show the same result?
no

Quote
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?
yes

I'm not asking you.
And? Why make assumptions about his answers?

You're a bad joke. Not an assumption, a fact!

*

Mikey T.

  • 2368
An actual scale model would not show the zig zag.
So you do not want to know anything then since you get mad if anyone else answers your questions, then call them a joke?
Troll.

?

Realdeal

  • 79
  • Undecided
I do not see how this ZIG ZAG thing would work with the lies we are being fed about the distance and size of the Sun though.  I still think those are lies, yet this doesn't seem to work for me.
Perhaps, use a greater level of introspective approach to examining your previous posts while keeping forum guidelines in mind.  I feel this would be helpful

I know what scares you!

The whole scientific community agrees that the Earth rotates, revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is tilted 23,5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the spatial orientation of Earth's "axis" is fixed with respect to something in a proximity of Polaris, one (366th) annual (sidereal) rotation of the Earth almost perfectly matches a period of 365 days (no matter for how many millions of miles they artificially enlarge (or shrink) Earth's orbit (they just increase (or decrease) Earth's orbital speed)), etc.,etc.,etc...

And now comes Cikljamas and says : that's all bullshit!

Not only that, Cikljamas offers you a very simple and undeniable, irrefutable argument which is able to scatter all heliocentric wet dreams once and for all.

Well, that's outrages and unacceptable.


Shall we survey their (HC) objections to my ZIGZAG argument once more?

Their only objection is that we couldn't notice ZIGZAG (which REs claim that it (ZIGZAG) exists, (because they know it would be inevitable geometrical consequence of HC stupid theory, if it were true), only (according to them) we can't notice it because the Sun is so far away and his parallax for the observer on the Earth is so small).

What to answer to that?

Their objection is absolutely meaningless!!!

I've already pointed out this many times, so it is ridiculous that i have to repeat it so often, but it seems that we have to parrot it (again and again) untill last idiot become able to grasp this utterly simple concept.

If the Sun's parallax (ZIGZAG) were so small, we wouldn't be able to observe such a large arc of Sun's daily path in the sky, also.

That is why we don't need any additional experiment which would demonstrate the trueness of this argument, and which would convince us that validity of my ZIGZAG  argument is absolutely undisputable.

So, before any sane and honest person tried to bring forth/pull out a "small parallax" objection (against my ZIGZAG argument), such person firstly should have to discard our/his/her daily experiences of Sun's motion in the sky in a large arc (from East to West), which lasts for many hours (sometimes for more than 16,5 hours (for instance at latitude, 51 degrees N - summer time (London)), and to accept that such daily experiences of ours are pure imagination, and nothing else but imagination.

When you see the Sun going from East to West, what is heliocentrist's answer concerning the possible cause of this phenomena?

They say it happens due to Earth's rotation FROM WEST to EAST!!!

THAT SETTLES THE MATTER!!!

Why? How?

Don't you see it, at the first glance?

If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).

That is why we don't need any additional demonstration.

Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.

That would be "to scale", having in mind the real/true ratio regarding the true dimension of the Sun vs the true dimension of the Earth, and regarding the real distance between the Sun and the Earth!!!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 04:56:11 AM by cikljamas »

*

sokarul

  • 15516
  • Discount Chemist
So, are you going to perform the experiment to a proper scale?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER



The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).
You said yourself zigzag would not be seen on a round Earth with a sun 93million miles away.
Here's a diagram again showing why there is no zigzag.


Quote
Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.
If you want to demonstrate this zigzag nonsense for a flat Earth, yes, move the light closer (not sure why you would want to do that though, since you claim Earth is flat and zigzag is not observed in reality) 

If you're trying to do a scale demonstration for RET, the light must be much further away (at least a mile or two *edit- about 22km) if using a carousel).  It's been explained how to properly do it if you want any integrity associated with this experiment.  Just put the camera about 6 inches out from the center of the carousel, the edge of the carousel will be the 'horizon' so make sure it's framed in the shot, have someone turn the carousel and keep the camera pointed at the distant light source. 

Are you going to do it or are you scared?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 11:27:24 AM by 29silhouette »

I know what scares you!

The whole scientific community agrees that the Earth rotates, revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is tilted 23,5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the spatial orientation of Earth's "axis" is fixed with respect to something in a proximity of Polaris, one (366th) annual (sidereal) rotation of the Earth almost perfectly matches a period of 365 days (no matter for how many millions of miles they artificially enlarge (or shrink) Earth's orbit (they just increase (or decrease) Earth's orbital speed)), etc.,etc.,etc...

The the number of sidereal days and solar days in a year will always differ by exactly one. This is regardless of the size of the orbit and rate of rotation. The Sun completes exactly one circuit of the ecliptic in one year - that's what defines the year - and is where the exactly one-day difference comes from.

Quote
And now comes Cikljamas and says : that's all bullshit!

We're well aware of that. Unfortunately, cikljamas is unable to grasp (or refuses to grasp), despite page after page of careful explanation, where his idea is wrong. This appears to still be the case.

Alpha2Omega does like the third-person presentation of the argument; at least that little bit is new. As a courtesy, and to avoid confusion, he will capitalize cikljamas' name as it is officially registered with the forum as his username.

Quote
Not only that, Cikljamas offers you a very simple and undeniable, irrefutable argument which is able to scatter all heliocentric wet dreams once and for all.

The problem is, cikljamas offers an argument that, while simple, is neither undeniable nor irrefutable. It's simply wrong.

Quote
Well, that's outrage[ou]s and unacceptable.

Shall we survey their (HC) objections to my ZIGZAG argument once more?

Their only objection is that we couldn't notice ZIGZAG (which REs claim that it (ZIGZAG) exists, (because they know it would be inevitable geometrical consequence of HC stupid theory, if it were true), only (according to them) we can't notice it because the Sun is so far away and his parallax for the observer on the Earth is so small).

That is partially correct. Another objection is that cikljamas himself is conflating two different phenomena and can't seem to sort out what his own "zig-zag" argument is.

Quote
What to answer to that?

Their objection is absolutely meaningless!!!

cikljamas decreeing this again and again doesn't make it any more true, that is, not at all, than it was the first time. Sorry.

Quote
I've already pointed out this many times, so it is ridiculous that i have to repeat it so often,

Alpha2Omega does not disagree with this statement. He further asserts that, most likely, all other readers agree with it, too!

Quote
but it seems that we have to parrot it (again and again) untill last idiot become able to grasp this utterly simple concept.

That is part of the problem. cikljamas does parrot this again and again, but what he fails to realize is that 'parroting' means repeating words without knowing their meaning. Is that what he is doing? It certainly seems like it. Apparently he also fails to realize that the "last idiot" he refers to is himself.

Quote
If the Sun's parallax (ZIGZAG) were so small, we wouldn't be able to observe such a large arc of Sun's daily path in the sky, also.
Since the effects of parallax and rotation are independent, this is an erroneous claim, as has been patiently explained again and again. cikljamas apparently ignores this explanation, but refuses to explain why he ignores it.

Quote
That is why we don't need any additional experiment which would demonstrate the trueness of this argument, and which would convince us that validity of my ZIGZAG  argument is absolutely undisputable.

cikljamas has slipped back into first-person voice. Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted. Third-person does get a bit tedious, though.

Quote
So, before any sane and honest person tried to bring forth/pull out a "small parallax" objection (against my ZIGZAG argument), such person firstly should have to discard our/his/her daily experiences of Sun's motion in the sky in a large arc (from East to West), which lasts for many hours (sometimes for more than 16,5 hours (for instance at latitude, 51 degrees N - summer time (London)), and to accept that such daily experiences of ours are pure imagination, and nothing else but imagination.

This is again parroting the same old tired argument. Rotation and parallax are independent of each other. Stand in one spot and stare at some object at any distance away. Turn halfway around without moving from the original spot. Did the object appear to move 180 in your field of view? Yes. Was there any parallax? No.

End of your "small parallax means no apparent movement" argument.

Quote
When you see the Sun going from East to West, what is heliocentrist's answer concerning the possible cause of this phenomena?

They say it happens due to Earth's rotation FROM WEST to EAST!!!

THAT SETTLES THE MATTER!!!

Why? How?

Don't you see it, at the first glance?

If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).

See, here's part of the problem: sometimes you attribute your "zig-zag" to parallax, and sometimes to another, entirely different effect, so it's hard to tell what you mean.

What you just describe here is the motion of a circumpolar star. If one is close enough to a pole, the Sun becomes circumpolar at certain times of year and remains 'up' for the full 24-hour day. Other than being vastly brighter than the other stars and moving slightly eastward with respect to them over the period of a day, it is no different. It follows a path across the sky that is a tilted circle centered on the North Celestial Pole (unless you're at the pole, then it's not tilted, but centered directly overhead).

So what does this mean? Let's say we're just north of the Arctic Circle around the June solstice. At local solar noon, the Sun is highest in the sky directly south of you and moving toward the west (left to right as you face it). As time progresses and the Sun follows its circular path centered on the North Celestial Pole, its motion becomes more and more northerly and less westerly (still left to right as you face it). A little less than six hours after local solar noon, it's due west of you and is moving northward, still following the same circle in the same direction - left to right as you face it. Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west). As time progresses and the Sun follows it's tilted circle (still left to right as you face it), it passes its lowest point, due north, at local solar midnight. At this point, if you're still facing toward the Sun, you've made a half-turn from the direction you were looking at noon, as the Earth made a half rotation under you. About six hours after that, it's due east, traveling southward (still left to right as you continue to face it), moving toward the south (and westward) until it returns to the highest point of the circle, due south, at noon.

This has been explained before, but maybe not in the same way. The Sun is moving in a circle centered on the Celestial Pole. It always moves the same direction around the circle. It does not "zig-zag" any more than the ends of the hands of a clock "zig zag"; they, too, move in circles.

Do you get it now?

Quote
That is why we don't need any additional demonstration.

Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.

That would be "to scale", having in mind the real/true ratio regarding the true dimension of the Sun vs the true dimension of the Earth, and regarding the real distance between the Sun and the Earth!!!

And now you're back to arguing that "zig-zag" is parallax. Do you see why it's so difficult to discuss this with you?

If you want to use this carousel to demonstrate this effect in the heliocentric model, then you have to scale the relative distances in your demonstration to match the relative distances of the heliocentric model, not some distances you just made up. The heliocentric model has the Sun more than 11,000 times as far from the Earth as the Earth's diameter. If you're using a carousel with a diameter of 20 meters to represent the Earth, the Sun in your model needs to be 22 km away; if that circle represents the Arctic Circle (about 40% the diameter of the Earth), your sun needs to be 1.5 times further away.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Alpha-liar,

Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?

I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)

Now, something about your stupid lies:

If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?

The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.

Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.

Quote
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 12:30:10 PM by cikljamas »

*

sokarul

  • 15516
  • Discount Chemist
I can't help myself since I clicked on your link.

Quote from: you
Five orders of magnitude, wow, i am trembling...hahaha...

So, it is not 0,002, it's 0,010, ha?
That's not five orders of magnitude. Five orders of magnitude would be 200,000 as how you write it or 200.000 or Americans.

Probably shouldn't link to posts with such giant errors. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Thanks Sokarul, for giving me a reason - an opportunity to link here one other post of mine : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449 

Sokarul, I can't help myself, also, but next picture is the best illustration of your personality:


You should change your name into "slimy scavenger", such name would suit you best!

What is really giant is your moral ugliness!

Alpha-liar,

Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?
Wow! Just how important do you think you are? Seriously.

As I said before, if Hell exists, I expect to see you there. If it's as bad as described, i'll be doomed to an eternity in a room with no one but you. Think about what that means for you!

Quote
I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)
Who? A being that doesn't exist?

Quote
Now, something about your stupid lies:

If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?

The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.
See, there's what you're missing. If you stand fixed and facing outward on the carousel, facing away from the light source 20 km away. After about 1/4 turn of the carousel while you're still facing directly outward, the distant light source starts to come into your field of view (it was behind you at the start, remember?). For the next 1/4 turn, the light source moves across your field of vision until it's in the middle of it as you continue to stand facing outward. You didn't change your position relative to the carousel - you're still facing directly outward - but the rotation of the carousel is rotating you, too. For the next 1/4 turn, the light continues to move across your field of vision until it disappears out the opposite side it entered from.

There was no parallax because the light is so far away. The light doesn't move wrt the carousel, the carousel rotates but doesn't otherwise move, you remained fixed on the carousel staring outward, yet the light crossed your field of vision from one side to the other! Amazing!

Quote
Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.
If we use the Sun to define our frame of reference, it is stationary by definition. The rotating Earth causes the apparent daily motion of the stationary (by definition) Sun across our sky. Whether the entire frame is stationary or not is irrelevant, as long as it isn't accelerating.

Quote
Quote
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!
No, I don't know that's wrong. How is that wrong? Please explain after you've calmed down.

You're getting incoherent. Try deep breaths. Yoga. Meds. Get away from the computer for a while at the very least. It seems to be bad for you.

"You will respond for your deliberate lies"? What does this mean?

"Your punishment will be severe!" Are you threatening me? It's not working.

Does your wife know what you do on your Internet time?

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350
Yeah, I'm not quite sure the point of that link, either. It might be nice if, when you respond to something, you give a link back to whatever it is you're responding to.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691206#msg1691206

Well that was a "cheep" shot. Har! I'm almost as funny as Papa thinks he is!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sokarul

  • 15516
  • Discount Chemist
Thanks Sokarul, for giving me a reason - an opportunity to link here one other post of mine : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449 

Sokarul, I can't help myself, also, but next picture is the best illustration of your personality:


You should change your name into "slimy scavenger", such name would suit you best!

What is really giant is your moral ugliness!
I'll change my name when you change your name to "pick and choosey". You ignored my last ousts but then respond to this one. Are you afraid to perform a proper experiment?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

JerkFace

  • 9519
  • Looking for Occam


That looks exactly like  cikljamas  Mossad's  newest  agent in Croatia,  about to explain how to zig zag when answering questions.
After being shown to be wrong due to terminal stupidity,  yet again.

If you made a mistake, about 5 orders of magnitude, no need to come back with a barrage of insults,  just accept the correction and move on. 
When you come back with insults then you have to expect to cop what gets returned.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 08:18:29 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Tom

Alpha-liar,

Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?

I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)

Now, something about your stupid lies:

If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?

The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.

Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.

Quote
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350


An experiment on scale like in a planetorium would be sufficent. With a slow rotating earth.

The zigzag argument makes sense. How would you explain that below the artic circle the sun is rising in the east and setting in the west? How is the fixed sun going back the other side of the earth during the night? It has to move back to the east somehow?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2015, 01:06:13 AM by Tom »

Of course it makes sense, not only that, it is 100 % true, irrefutable, and undeniable argument against the rotation of the Earth, which scatters HC theory into thin air!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377

An experiment on scale like in a planetorium would be sufficent. With a slow rotating earth.

The zigzag argument makes sense. How would you explain that below the artic circle the sun is rising in the east and setting in the west? How is the fixed sun going back the other side of the earth during the night? It has to move back to the east somehow?
It completes the circle. Easy. Same as these, just not as close to the pole:



Those aren't zig-zags. They're arcs of circles.

Here's a zig-zag, but it's the apparent motion of Mars over a period of months, not hours:



All the outer planets behave similarly. Why we see this.

Can we move on past the "zig-zag" sun argument now? There is no "zig-zag" due to parallax - it's too small. cikljamas has already admitted this. There is no "zig-zag" for the Sun to return to the starting place for tomorrow's sunrise - it's a circle.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Mikey T.

  • 2368
A little dead thread resurrection, since stickypajamas is slinging his zigzag nonsense again.

Of course it makes sense, not only that, it is 100 % true, irrefutable, and undeniable argument against the rotation of the Earth, which scatters HC theory into thin air!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377
All you need to do is get a ball and flashlight to show, or not show, the zig-zag.  Set the ball/globe up correctly put the flashlight off in the distance and trace the path of the midnight sun.  If you're right it will zig-zag...or if you're wrong it will trace a path exactly like the midnight sun videos.

Either it zig-zags or it doesn't.  A simple model will prove that much.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
A little dead thread resurrection, since stickypajamas is slinging his zigzag nonsense again.
If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
But don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head!  I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! Reply #70 on: May 24, 2015, 05:28:35 AM .

Still it's no worse than all the videos made by one of his other personas, odiupicku, he has no compunction about the most dreadful accusations against others.

I feel almost guilty coming down so heavily, but in my opinion cikljamas/odiupicku, Jeranism and Eric Dubay are among the three worst of the Flat Earth YouTube video producers.

PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's curses
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!

If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
But don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head!  I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
...
PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's curses
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!

I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...
:D Maybe we should be more respectful to ChickenMess in future  :P

*

Lonegranger

  • 3871
  • Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes Turn and face the strange
This thread is a clear example of how out of control ignorance can lead to outrageous claims that have no basis in reality. If you had problems with your beloved pet cat you would most likely consult a qualified Vet. IF you had toothache again you would go and see a qualified dentist. The clue here is being able to tap into  certified knowledge and experience.

The Zig Zag argument is one totally derived from pure ignorance.

If you would like to know the truth about the sun consult an expert or go and do a course, like this one....
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/study-abroad-ucl/study-abroad-guide/modules/phas2117

The distance to the sun is accurately known. The sun is studied on a second to second to second basis using both ground based and satellite based instruments.....like these ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_(spacecraft)

or these
https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov



Zen and the art of turd polishing.

If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
But don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head!  I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
...
PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's curses
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!

I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...

What i meant to convey to my countless fans (especially to Rabinos and Alpha2Omega) in my old post #66 was this :

If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :

We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE) along the equator (at equinox) for several minutes. So, the speed of an aircraft is 800 km/h, the speed of the earth at the equator is 1660 km/h. It means that an absolute speed of an aircraft is 2440 km/h.

Since the sun is allegedly at rest and we fly 2440 km/h we won't be able to notice ANY AMOUNT OF APPARENT DISPLACEMENT OF THE SUN during our measurment because the sun is 150 000 000 km away from the earth, which means that of our parallax is

6400/150000000 = 0,00004266
ctg 0,00004266 = 0,002444237
0,004888475 * 2 = 0,004888475

So, if we move 406 km per 10 minutes above the equator in a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE - IN ABSOLUTE TERMS - (BY FLYING IN A PERFECTY STRAIGHT LINE WE ARE CANCELING OUT ANY IMPACT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE) the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???

Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?

Of course we wouldn't!

ON TOP OF THAT :





JUST FOR LAUGH :


 



If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?

The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).

When I see this, I go what the hey; if this is what you think happens I can understand your confusion.
When you're observing the sun, above the Arctic Circle, when there is a 24 hour day, you have to continue turning right to keep the sun in Center view. To know what time it is you have to have a local reference, otherwise you would not be able tell what time it is. The view of the sun does not go backwards as you stated that 6pm. It is simply wrong.

?"what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle"?
THIS IS WRONG.
The Earth does not change rotation, nor does it have to.
You the Observer, has to continue turning right, to keep the sun Center View.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :
No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.

We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)
And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?

For example, starting at the equator and travelling in a straight line at the tangential velocity of Earth (the point on the equator, including the orbit) at first you appear stationary, but you start curving upwards, gaining altitude and falling behind Earth.
For a sun centred reference frame, it is a straight line, but from Earth, it certainly looks like a curve.


the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???
Assuming the measuring instrument has insufficient resolution to detect the parallax, yes.
And we aren't the clowns here.

Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?
Yes. We would.
Go and try it.

Of course we wouldn't!
Prove it.

Remember, you need a straight line, so you need to compensate for not only the effects of Earth's curvature but also the effects of Earth's rotation.
This means you can't even get a perfectly flat track to do it on, as the rotation of Earth will make that a curved path.

ON TOP OF THAT :
Yes, more ignorant crap.
Very ignorant crap, like asserting your senses can magically perceive absolute motion when they can't.

For example, when I am on a plane looking at Earth, I don't feel like I am moving. I just see Earth move past below me.
That is just like standing on Earth watching the stars.
Our senses cannot tell us which is moving. All we observe is the relative motion.
It could be Earth moving and the plane being stationary, or it could be Earth being stationary and the plane moving, or both could be moving.
Just like it could be Earth moving and the stars stationary, it could be the stars moving and Earth stationary or both could be moving.
Your senses cannot tell which.

Do you have anything rational to provide?
Perhaps go back to your zig-zag of the moon and admit you fucked up big time?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 02:53:27 PM by JackBlack »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2368
no copy pasta

just a video destroying the entire ZIGZAG stupidity

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Let's call it ZigZag model. Jane loves it!
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.