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

  • 137 Replies
  • 27810 Views
Let's call it ZigZag model. Jane loves it!
No. It isn't a model, it is an alleged consequence of a model.

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
JackBlack, a bit of sarcasm on this forum won't hurt  ;)

FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

Cikl has already admitted his 'zigzag' isn't really all that.
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
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.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.

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.
We are interested to ensure a sun centred reference frame, one way or another!

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.
Assuming the measuring instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, we could detect any amount of it, wouldn't we?
Yes, you are 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.
No. We wouldn't.
Go and try it.

Of course we wouldn't!
Prove it.
I don't have to, i know what is the truth, that is to say : i know what would be the outcome of any experiment of that kind or of similar kind :)

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

It is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts (in a short paper) of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology. Scientists have measured the speed of microscopic constituents of the Earth, atoms and molecules, but they have failed to measure the speed of rotating Earth! The "Earth’s rotation" is a technical notation refers to a fake mechanism that only found in the fairytale of heliocentrism.

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.
Increase the speed of an aircraft (up to mach 7), and decrease the duration of an experiment, and voila...

Do you have anything rational to provide?
Perhaps go back to your zig-zag of the moon and admit you fucked up big time?
So that i could respond to a pile of stupidity which you have spouted out there?

Shall we recall to mind one wonderful example of your ingeniously stupid logic presented in that thread :

Quote
This shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 02:07:16 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
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.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
         the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
         the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

Sure, "once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth", but the sun cannot be close to the earth because its apparent size does not change during the day. Matrix Decode prives that quiteconvincingly,have a look at

Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun, Matrix Decode

So, there is no Zig-Zag motion of the rotating Globe. What happens on your Pizza Planet is for you to work out.

But, it is no evidence against the Heliocentric Globe and it's about time you deleted your deceptive videos.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
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.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
         the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
         the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450
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.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
         the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
         the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what?  When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere.  This is would not happen.  Did you even watch the video I posted?  I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that.  I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth, but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, also!!! ** MikeyT crossed out the untruthful parts, cik almost made a fully truthful statement here
 
Here ya go. 

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
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.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
         the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
         the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what?  When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere.  This is would not happen.  Did you even watch the video I posted?  I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that.  I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.

I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth! I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another. For instance :

1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turn around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question :

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!

I love how the ball earth fags are now changing their numbers on altitude to see a curve....First it was 35.000 feet,then 80.000 feet,then 100.000 feet and now it's 250 miles up haha...U dumbfucks are pathetic..

All of you dumfucks now admit that we can't see the curvature of the earth even from a very high altitudes (more than 125 000 feet), and we can't see it because the earth is so, so huge, isn't that so? The earth is so huge that when you observe the earth from Mt Everest you would be able to see 333 km in all directions according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator. So, 333 km = 3 degrees (3 * 60 nautical miles = 111 km). Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flat, of course it's flat since it's flat when we observe it from even much, much higher altitudes, you can't deny that, can you? Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see MUCH more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorable (http://i.imgur.com/aNMU8HX.jpg), but we are going to use these 333 km. Now, imagine yourself standing somewhere at the Arctic circle and observing the motion of the sun ) which travels at 666 km/h at the Arctic circle latitude which is 66,6 degree N. It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun. Let's say that you observe the motion of the sun from 15 minutes before MIDNIGHT till 15 minutes after MIDNIGHT. Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450

Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what?  When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere.  This is would not happen.  Did you even watch the video I posted?  I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that.  I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.

I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :

***** REMOVED pompass blathering that had nothing to do with my question ****

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question :

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!

**** REMOVED unnecessary insulting behavior to make himself feel better, also had nothing to do with my question *****
I left a bit, well the bits that had a shred of content that was close to what I asked, yet you did not answer it...  AGAIN. 

I will try to restate it, maybe you will understand.
If the Sun appears to move across the sky, What seems to remain still when seeing this apparent motion? 
I would say the sky and the horizon.
Now for your straw man argument,  If we were on a ball and we were stood close enough to the North or South pole to get a 24 hour day during the right time of the year. 
Your argument is that we would see the Sun travelling, say East to west for half the day, then West to East for the rest.  Is this correct? 
What would that movement be in relation to, as in, If I am looking at a mountain and the Sun moves right to left during the morning and around lunch am I going to see the Sun move left to right over that same mountain? 

So please explain, ZIG ZAG in RELATION to WHAT?   

Do try to limit the insulting and copy pasta.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450
I will also link you video again.  Not my work, and it is a bit more insulting than I like but it attempts to understand this notion of zigzag and  does a good job of destroying it.


*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
So please explain, ZIG ZAG in RELATION to WHAT?   

In relation to the vertical line in the middle of our camera lens (in order to avoid possible "misleading" effects (assuming that the sun is 150 000 000 km away) we have to obscure everything we see on the horizon, that is to say : any kind of "orientation points" that are placed on the earth) :



So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450
God, lets try to dumb this down a bit more.

What would the Sun move against.  I gave you an example, you could just say yes that example is correct or no it is not. 

Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly.  I am just trying to get your argument broken down to where we could honestly discuss it.  Right now it isn't.  I and everyone else is making assumptions about what you are talking about with the ZigZag stuff. 

Imagine we are at your Arctic circle location you use in your earlier explanations.
So keeping a mountain on the horizon in my view for the entire day.  Do you think I will I see the Sun apparently go left to right and then right to left (a zig zag movement) if I am on a globe with the Sun 93 million miles away. 

Easy to answer, you will have a chance to explain your answer, just give me a short and sweet answer.  Yes the above is correct or no it is not.   
If not, then follow up with something as simple as that to describe what you think will be seen.  Like I said, we sill get into explanations later.  Just getting the foundation setup for the discussion.  And I do want a discussion, we spend enough time insulting each other in other threads.  We can do that there.

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.
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
         the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
         the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.

This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!

Quote
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

If this is how you see it, I understand your confusion, it is wrong.
Standing above the Arctic Circle during the summer, a person tracking the sun, has to turn right to stay with it, he never has to turn left to track to sun.
If you were at the South Pole, you would be tracking the sun by turning to the left, during their summer.
It has to work at both polls.
Or Is there no South Pole in your model? (No South Pole is wrong.)
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument!
No it isn't, and yes there is. 

IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!
Wait...
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,
  Are you saying it would 'zigzag' noticeably or not?  Yes or no, please make up your mind.

All of you dumfucks
Don't be a sore loser.  Also, you misspelled 'dumb'.

  Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly. 
You need to ask a person who is honest.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
God, lets try to dumb this down a bit more.

What would the Sun move against.  I gave you an example, you could just say yes that example is correct or no it is not. 

Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly.  I am just trying to get your argument broken down to where we could honestly discuss it.  Right now it isn't.  I and everyone else is making assumptions about what you are talking about with the ZigZag stuff. 

Imagine we are at your Arctic circle location you use in your earlier explanations.
So keeping a mountain on the horizon in my view for the entire day.  Do you think I will I see the Sun apparently go left to right and then right to left (a zig zag movement) if I am on a globe with the Sun 93 million miles away. 

Easy to answer, you will have a chance to explain your answer, just give me a short and sweet answer.  Yes the above is correct or no it is not.   
If not, then follow up with something as simple as that to describe what you think will be seen.  Like I said, we sill get into explanations later.  Just getting the foundation setup for the discussion.  And I do want a discussion, we spend enough time insulting each other in other threads.  We can do that there.

I've just quoted your post #102, and in my post #101 i had answered to your question that you have posted in your post #102, that is to say : you are asking me the question in the post #102 to which very question i had answered in the post #101???

Do i have to repeat here what was written in my post #101???

Let's repeat it :

Quote
In relation to the vertical line in the middle of our camera lens (in order to avoid possible "misleading" effects (assuming that the sun is 150 000 000 km away) we have to obscure everything we see on the horizon, that is to say : any kind of "orientation points" that are placed on the earth) :



So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?

So, if the sun were so far away then we couldn't notice ZIGZAG motion of the earth with the naked eyes. Is this the sweet answer that you were looking for? But as you could see in 29silhouette's quote of my words which i had written 2 years ago, i admitted that long time ago. So, obviousness of ZIGZAG motion of the sun depends of the actual distance between the sun and the earth.

Very close sun = very obvious ZIGZAG motion of the sun.
Very distant sun = ZIGZAG motion would be hardly detected by naked eyes (it would be impossible to detect it with naked eyes - to be quite sincere), but even then, it would be possible to detect it with special instruments.

REGARDING THE DISTANCE TO THE CELESTIAL LIGHTS :

Quote
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!"


Or do i have to repeat something that it seems that you still don't understand, after all these years (i would rather say that you just pretend that you don't understand it), which is this :

Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP



Very close sun = very obvious ZIGZAG motion of the sun.
Very distant sun = ZIGZAG motion would be hardly detected by naked eyes (it would be impossible to detect it with naked eyes - to be quite sincere), but even then, it would be possible to detect it with special instruments.
With that cleared up, are you going to add that information to any of your youtube videos on the subject?  Don't want any misleading videos do you?





"I challenge you to take a long exposure photograph while moving, and get a sharp image like this."
That's easy.  You really should learn more about photography.


*Well shoot, photobucket finally caught up to me.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 08:15:20 PM by 29silhouette »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450
**** Lots of meaningless copy pasta and nonanswers.****

Or do i have to repeat something that it seems that you still don't understand, after all these years (i would rather say that you just pretend that you don't understand it), which is this :

Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?

No, it doesn't!

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!

So you clearly contradict yourself many times in that post alone, but I got rid of some of it.
Notice the bold and bold enlarged wordings.

Your straw man argument asserts that if you are on a globe and it rotates then you would see a certain thing, you called it your ZIGZAG whatever. 

This is not what would happen.  You continue to conflate things here.  Your video is sorta dealing with linear, side to side motion vs rotational motion from the point of the observer. 

I asked what the Sun is moving in difference to in your zig zag example.  I have yet to see an answer to this.  I even laid it out for you to say yes to a proposed example, which in reality was inspired by a video you made on the subject.
I was not looking for a sweet or gotcha comment from you, just the truth.   I am still not closed to the idea of exploring this supposed zig zag phenomenon as you have made many posts and videos based on it without actually explaining it in relation to the questions asked.
I will bold the next part to highlight my intentions:

To be honest, my goal is to embarrass you, yes.  Just as that is your goal.  I am trying to get you to explain your idea, break it down.  My primary goal is to destroy the seed of the wrongful thought.  My secondary goal, if the primary is not attainable due to you not answering questions, is to show that you yourself know it is absolute bullshit and therefore will neverendingly evade answering questions that would allow others to properly analyze it.
 I see four outcomes,
1: you actually answer the very easy questions and you finally see how wrong the idea is.
2: you actually answer the very easy questions and you double down on an idea you know is wrong.
3: you continually deflect and dance around, not answering and even more people get to see you for the fraud you are.
4:you answer the questions, we analyze it and you show me a different way of seeing it (this is pretty much has the chances of a fart in a tornado survivng 100% in tact for a year without a container).

So this zig zag Sun.  Does it zig zag  for the accepted model in your thought experiment or not.  If not, then your argument is completely invalid. If so, then answer the question about what it zig zags in relation to.

Can you please answer the question without mountains of copy pasta and deflection videos?

Yes or no, then explain in follow on posts. 
Does it zig zag in your thought experiment with the currently accepted model (spheroid, Sun far away, etc)?  YES or NO

If yes then, What does the Sun move in relation to.  Horizon, Sky (blue color), both, neither and insert item in as few words as possible)

No gotcha intended here.  No sweet back you into a corner moment intended yet.  (you are already there)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 11:12:26 AM by Mikey T. »

Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!!
That is what you are trying to make the escence of your zig-zag argument. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't.
You obtain the same result regardless of if Earth is at rest while the object circles us, Earth is rotating while the object orbits us, or Earth is rotating (and potentially orbiting) with the object stationary.

I showed that mathematically.
Well, I showed it for 2 out of the three. Do you need me to go back and show it for the case of a stationary object and rotating Earth?

As long as the relative motion remains the same, you cannot tell which scenario is happening.
Your zig-zag argument CANNOT determine if Earth is at rest.

All the zig-zag argument is actually capable of doing is disproving the FE idea of a very close sun which would produce a significant zig-zag motion.


Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth
But you can't. The zig-zag argument proves it is very distant.

zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.
Which would just disprove the sun being close. It can't show Earth isn't rotating.

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.
We are interested to ensure a sun centred reference frame, one way or another!
And if you do, you get the same results regardless of if Earth is moving or not.
In a sun-centred reference frame, the sun remains in the same position and thus it's apparent position is dependent upon yours. Travelling in a straight line some 150 000 000 km from the sun would produce no significant apparent motion of the sun.

Assuming the measuring instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, we could detect any amount of it, wouldn't we?
Yes, if your instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, you could detect it, but only the amount the instrument is capable of detecting.


Yes, you are the clowns here. :)
Then how come we are able to put forward rational arguments to completely refute your nonsense and you are just capable of spouting the same refuted crap while ignoring our arguments?

No. We wouldn't.
Go and try it.
No. You are the one claiming it would happen, you go and try it and provide evidence of it, making sure you tell us how you managed to set up your straight path.

I have tried similar experiments, such as monitoring the path of the sun over time and noticing that it remains at a fairly constant speed with no noticeable parallax.

I don't have to, i know what is the truth, that is to say : i know what would be the outcome of any experiment of that kind or of similar kind :)
No. You do. You are making a baseless claim as part of your argument.
You don't know what the outcome would be.
You are just asserting an outcome to pretend your argument is true.
I know what the outcome will be based upon other experiments and it doesn't match your claims.

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.
No. They haven't.
Examining the red-shift of distant stars (or galaxies) has detected significant motion of Earth. Of course, this is only relative motion as nothing is capable of detecting absolute motion.
No experiment has ever determined that Earth is at rest as no experiment is capable of doing so.
I assume you are including the likes of Michelson Morley. The assumption that Earth is at rest relies upon the aether existing and Earth being stationary relative to it.
If that is not the case, then it cannot conclude anything about the motion of Earth.
So this experiment has a few options:
1- Earth is stationary relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist (which would allow numerous other theories, like relativity or ballistic light, as a quick recap:
aether - light travels at a speed c in the aether, with the aether acting as a universal absolute reference frame. This would mean in various moving reference frames, the speed of light would differ.
ballistic light - light acts like any other particle with Newtonian relativity, where if you launch it at speed u (in your reference frame) while moving at speed v (in an external observers reference frame), then it will travel at speed u+v in the observers frame. This would mean in any moving reference frame, as long as the observer and the light source are moving together, the speed of light will be constant.
relativity (the only one capable of explaining all observations) - the speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame.



I assume you are also thinking of Airy's failure?
The issue is he failed to take into account the effect of a moving medium. However an important part of this is the earlier detection of stellar aberration.
This is important because of what that experiment shows, again, you have a few options:
1 - The Earth is moving relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist.

And then there is another you would likely like to avoid, the Sagnac effect (also done by Michelson). This was a ring interferometer which detected a phase shift.
Again, the results of this experiment leave us with a few option:
1 - Earth is moving relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist.

Regardless of which, it proved light does not act ballistically.

Notice what the conclusions are (when combining all the experiments):
1 - Earth is both moving and stationary relative to the aether.
2 - The aether does not exist.

1 is a contradiction. Either Earth is moving relative to the aether or it isn't. You can't have both.
This means that 1 is false.
This only leaves option number 2 - the aether does not exist.

This means none of these experiments can determine Earth's motion relative to the aether and you have lost your absolute reference frame.

This means nonse of these experiments could determine if Earth is motionless.



However, we have carried out experiments which have detected absolute rotational motion.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of ... Michelson-Morley interferometry, ... and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
Except Airy's failure required motion of Earth relative to the aether to begin with, which Michelson Morley would have detected, regardless of if it was Earth moving or the aether.
So these experiments just provide a contradiction, showing the aether isn't real, showing these experiments to try to measure Earth's motion is pointless as it is based upon flawed premises.

No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology.
Sure we have.
We have measured our speed relative to numerous objects.

The "Earth’s rotation" is a technical notation refers to a fake mechanism that only found in the fairytale of heliocentrism.
No. Earth's rotation was measured long ago. All the way back in the 1900s. No modern technology required.

So no, Earth's rotation is a real, physical thing.

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.
Increase the speed of an aircraft (up to mach 7), and decrease the duration of an experiment, and voila...
Mach 7 relative to what? What course is it following? One which follows the surface of Earth, or one which appears to curve away from it?

So that i could respond to a pile of stupidity which you have spouted out there?
No, so that you can respond to the rational arguments I provided which completely disproved your stupid crap.

You are the one spouting stupidity here.

Shall we recall to mind one wonderful example of your ingeniously stupid logic presented in that thread :

Quote
This shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.
You mean that wonderful example of me pointing out your stupidity.
It shows you understand that the rotation of Earth, that 1.25 degrees over 5 minutes, is the major contributor to the apparent motion of the moon, not the translation of a point on Earth's surface or the translation of the moon as it moves along its orbit.

Yet you ignore that and claim the translational speed of the moon relative to the point on Earth differing by 46% should make the moon's apparent motion should differ by 46 %, rather than continue to be based on the 1.25 degrees rotation.

So no, that is your stupidity/dishonesty, not mine, and thanks for reminding everyone of that.

Would you like to be reminded of your other stupidity, such as where you claim the direction of Earth's rotation magically changes between mid day and mid night?

Quote
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whether
         the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
         the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
No. It isn't pure stupidity.
Yes, if Earth rotates and you set up a camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth (and the orbital motion, such that it turns roughly 0.25 degrees per minute), there would be an apparent zig-zag motion which you couldn't detect.
So what?
If Earth was stationary and the sun circled us, and again, you set up a camera to rotate that same roughly 0.25 degrees per minute, you would get the same result. There would be an apparent zig-zag motion there as well, again being too small to detect.

If the sun was much closer (such as in the FE models), then there would be a very noticable zig-zag motion.

So this isn't Rab's stupidity. It is yours.
Rab isn't saying there is no zig-zag. He is saying you would get it regardless of if Earth was stationary with the sun circling, or if Earth was rotating with the sun stationary.

If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.

Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
The important part is not the absolute motion, it is the relative motion, and more specifically, the apparent rotational motion.

So lest set up our little frame doing what you typically do.
On a rotating Earth with a stationary sun:
We view Earth from above the north pole. The sun is up, Earth  is down.
At mid day the spot you are standing on is moving left. (thus suns relative motion is to the right).
At mid night the spot you are standing on is moving right. (thus suns relative motion is to the left).

What about a stationary Earth with the sun circling?
Well now we need a new setup. North pole in the centre, you are up from the north pole.
At mid day, the sun is circling further up, moving from East to west, or to the right.
At mid night, the sun is now on the other side of Earth, moving east to west there, which means to the left.

So you still get the same effect, the sun's apparent motion (when you remove the effect of rotation/orbit) remains the same.


However, the better time to examine it is at the time of the parallax.
This would be roughly 6 am and 6 pm.

In the rotating Earth example, at 6am you are to the right of the north pole, looking due east.
The sun is slightly to the north (left) (but imperceptibly so).
At 6 pm, you are to the left, and facing due west, and the sun is slightly to the north (right) but imperceptibly so.

Now the stationary Earth example (using the same references as the stationary example above):
At 6 am you are looking east (to the left), and the sun is slightly below the direction you are facing (i.e to the north).
At 6 pm, you are looking west (to the right), and the sun is again slightly below the direction you are facing (i.e to the north).

So you do get the same effect.
In both cases you get a parallax.

So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES  IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
You get the same apparent motion.
Just because it is real motion doesn't mean it will no longer have any apparent motion.

You still get the same parallax.

So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
That is right, the problem is not calling into question if the parallax exists or not, it is just measuring the parallax to determine the distance. But that parallax exists regardless of which is moving.

The only way for there to truly be no parallax is if the sun is infinitely far away.

I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :
And you failed to do so honestly.

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth!
If it was you would be able to defend it rationally rather than dismiss arguments and continue to assert the same refuted nonsense.

I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another.
No. Several people have not only tried to refute it but succeeded.
I already did the math and showed what would happen with the moon.
Conveniently, that works fine for the sun by simply setting the orbital speed to 0.

That shows that it doesn't matter if Earth is rotating with the sun stationary or the sun is circling a stationary Earth, you get the same apparent motion.

Your argument is quite easy to refute.
It is not a proof in favour of a stationary Earth. It is a proof in favour of a distant sun, which is an absolute fact.

It is actually your response to these objection which fail.


1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turn around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).
And here you go again ignoring the rotational component of the motion.
Even during these 2 hours Earth is still rotating. Your motion is not simply a case of translation, it is a combination of translation and rotation.
During each of these hours the Earth you are on rotates 15 degrees. So you do still need to turn your camera.

You are the one missing the point here. You are the one you seems to completely ignore that regardless of what your translation is, there is still a rotational component to your motion which is the dominant factor in the apparent motion of the sun.

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!
No we wouldn't.
Again, you miss the core of the objection.
The dominant cause of the sun's apparent motion is the rotation of Earth. This remains constant and thus we do not observe any zig zag motion (as the parallax is too small).
The apparent direction of motion will remain the same due to the same direction of rotation.

Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?
Yes, that is true. But the rotation of Earth doesn't magically change.

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?
The difference is in your hypothetical situation, Earth is rotating at 0.25 degrees per minute in one direction then stops and rotates 0.25 degrees in the other direction, while in reality, Earth continues to rotate in the same direction. This lateral, translational motion you are discussing is the tiny, non-observable (at least by the naked eye) parallax.

Or to put it another way, the Earth is rotating at -0.25 degrees, causing an apparent motion of the sun of 0.25 degrees. In your hypothetical, this magically changes to 0.25 degrees, causing an apparent motion of -0.25 degrees, while in reality it remains at -0.25 degrees and thus the suns apparent motion remains 0.25 degrees.

So again, you fail to understand the core objection, that it is Earth's rotation which is the dominant effect and causes the 0.25 degree apparent motion of the sun. This remains the same.

To understand this, draw a circle.
Then draw a straight line that goes through this circle (touching both edges and the centre) and off to some distant point.
Then draw another straight line offset at a small angle, still passing through the centre, still touching both sides.
These lines indicate the direction you look without turning the camera. Notice how it doesn't matter if you are on the near or far side, that direction is still the same?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!
Again, it is not an apparent change in direction, it is an apparent change in speed, or a change in direction from an Earth-rotating reference frame (i.e. turning the camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth).

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!
This objection makes no sense.
You cannot spin sideways to have just have lateral motion.
You either have just lateral, translation motion and thus no spinning, or you have rotation as well.
If you have rotation then you still get the apparent motion.

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!
Earth is always turning. So we are always turning towards or away from the stationary sun.

Stop acting like you have magically stopped the rotation of Earth so the motion is purely translation. At no point is it ever that, unless you set up a camera to turn to compensate for the motion of the sun which means you no longer have the sun move.

I love how the ball earth fags are now changing their numbers on altitude to see a curve....First it was 35.000 feet,then 80.000 feet,then 100.000 feet and now it's 250 miles up haha...U dumbfucks are pathetic..
How about you try staying on topic and admit defeat or mount a rational defence?

Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flat
The horizon is always flat (barring irregularities of Earth). That is because it is the intersection of a plane with the sphere of Earth. It has the same dip angle all around.

Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see MUCH more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorable
Yes, for a flat Earth there should be no horizon except the edge of Earth.

It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun.
NO YOU ARE NOT!
This is because Earth is still rotating. Over the course of half an hour you will turn roughly 7.5 degrees. Stop acting like this rotation doesn't exist.

Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???
No, you wouldn't. That is because you are still turning 7.5 degrees in the same direction, causing the same apparent motion of the sun.
The actual difference would be very tiny, the parallax, which you have already admitted is so small you cannot see it.

So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?
You have already provided this video and I have already pointed out the problems with it. You aren't just translating the camera, you are rotating it as well.
This is most obvious with the roof at the bottom where the vertical line goes down it in different direction.

Do I need to take screen shots and draw your 2 reference lines in extending them to show they meet and thus it is effectively a rotation, not a translation?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2450
Damn it Jack, don't scare him off.  He may have the balls to answer the questions. 

Always Brick... err Jack?, bringing hand grenades to melees.  Silly guy.


Damn it Jack, don't scare him off.  He may have the balls to answer the questions. 

Always Brick... err Jack?, bringing hand grenades to melees.  Silly guy.


I'd prefer a tactical nuclear weapon.

Okay Pyjama boy, since you want to keep bringing it up in other threads, like here:
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.
Reading this thread would be rather pointless for it. You would want to read his BS zig-zag threads.
Basically the parallax he is talking about is correcting for Earth's average rotation of 0.25 degrees per minute (matching a solar day), and noticing that the sun doesn't remain in the exact same spot throughout the day due to you not being at the centre of Earth's rotation, while ignoring the more complex parts to it like the eccentricity of the orbit or the tilt.

You just explained what we are talking about (HC "ZIGZAG" (due to the non-existing rotation of the globe) DIURNAL parallax) while we are looking for non-existing peer-review article which would have to deal with non-existing diurnal parallax of the sun. Bravo Jack, you are evolving...:) Now, explain to us how would you measure "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax" (whatever it could be :)) ??? Or should we wait for your smart friend Rabinoz to explain to us what is the true meaning of "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax"??? :)

I will explain how to measure this apparent zig-zag, and give the math to calculate the expected result in a simplified geocentric and heliocentric model where you just focus on the daily motion, not on the yearly motion with axial tilt and the eccentricity of the orbit, in fact, for simplicity we will just pretend the orbit doesn't exist and it is just Earth turning, in reality the motion along our orbit will produce a small angular offset, however that is negated by using a solar day instead of a sidereal day):

We are set up with us at some distance r from the north pole. The sun is some distance R from the north pole. We have a camera set up on an equatorial mount to follow the approximate path of the sun through the sky.

We note that the sun appears to make one revolution every 24 hours. Thus its apparent motion is 15 degrees per hour.
So to compensate for this, we will turn the camera -15 degrees per hour.

This means we get something like the below:

The red circle is our position on Earth, a circle of radius r from the north pole.
The blue lines are construction lines for figuring out the angles.
The green line is where the camera is facing.

On the left is the HC case, with a rotating Earth.
We centre it at mid day, and have the camera rotate. As Earth is rotating, the rotation of the camera is canceled by the rotation of Earth and the camera is facing in the same direction (the green line)

At 6pm we get a. The sun is a little off. At the north pole, it would align perfectly, but we are not there. So we have that small angle a offset due to us being distant from the centre of rotation. By geometry we note 90-a and thus a in the red triangle.
This gives us tan(a)=r/R.
Similarly at b (6am) the sun is still a little off, and we again use geometry and get tan(b)=r/R.
Due to symmetry a and b are the same.

So now for the GC case, well now we are stationary and the sun is circling the north pole.
We still align it at mid day, and still turn the camera the same amount.
But now, we no longer have the rotation of Earth to cancel our rotation of the camera so the camera faces different directions. At mid day the sun would be off to the left. We turn 90 degrees and end up at c, at roughly 6 pm
Now, if we were at the north pole, it would align with the sun perfectly. However we aren't.
As we are offset from the centre of the sun's path, the sun will be offset from the camera.
Again, using geometry, we get tan(c)=r/R.
After another 12 hours we end up at d.
Again using geometry we get tan(d)=r/R.
Again due to symmetry these are the same.

But notice how tan(a) and tan(c) are the same?
This is because the relative angular motion of the sun (w.r.t the camera) is the same.
In the case of HC, we have the rotation of Earth cancelling the majority of the rotation of the camera and are just left with a little zig-zag.
In the case of GC, we have the circular path of the sun cancelling the majority of the rotation of the camera and are just left with a little zig-zag.

So once again, your zig-zag argument is pure BS. You get the exact same result with a stationary Earth and circling sun as you do with a stationary sun and rotating Earth.

Going to admit defeat this time?

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Nice job Jack, thanks! Wouldn't it be good way to determine the true distance to the sun if latitudinal lines were perfect circles? However, they are not perfect circles, so we lose one of our precious orientation points :

An excerpt from the video "EARTH IS A RELM IT IS NOT A PLANET" :



But, since the moon is much closer (according to HC bullshit theory) to the earth you can apply my ZIGZAG argument with much higher efficiency to "The ZIGZAG of The Full Moon" case and prove to us that there is 46 % difference between DAILY (during one certain arctic polar night within 24 hours period of time) RELATIVE speeds of The Full Moon, and there you go : once you have proven 46 % difference in DAILY speed of The Full Moon, you would prove an existence of ZIGZAG phenomena, that is to say you would prove that Moon's real motion really occurs in an opposite direction from everyone who ever lived seen it go, and thus HC theory acquires FIRST (in the entire history of fruitless attempts of promulgation of the veracity of HC bullshit theory) EXPERIMENTAL (and even SOLID one) PROOF. Jack, don't you want to become famous?

In order to spare your efforts, all you have to do is to carefully watch this video :


Why the video above provides 100 % reliable method of verification of validity of my ZIGZAG argument? Because of this :


GOING TO ADMIT DEFEAT THIS TIME???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Nice job Jack, thanks! Wouldn't it be good way to determine the true distance to the sun if latitudinal lines were perfect circles? However, they are not perfect circles, so we lose one of our precious orientation points :
They don't need to be perfect circles.
It either needs to rotate smoothly (for a daily basis) or have the sun circle smoothly.

The simple fact is you get the same zig-zag for both, the HC model and the GC model.

You bitched and moaned about in the other thread, demanding proof.
I provided it here again, and you just ignore it?
WHY?


But, since the moon is much closer (according to HC bullshit theory) to the earth you can apply my ZIGZAG argument with much higher efficiency to "The ZIGZAG of The Full Moon" case and prove to us that there is 46 % difference between DAILY (during one certain arctic polar night within 24 hours period of time) RELATIVE speeds of The Full Moon, and there you go : once you have proven 46 % difference in DAILY speed of The Full Moon, you would prove an existence of ZIGZAG phenomena, that is to say you would prove that Moon's real motion really occurs in an opposite direction from everyone who ever lived seen it go, and thus HC theory acquires FIRST (in the entire history of fruitless attempts of promulgation of the veracity of HC bullshit theory) EXPERIMENTAL (and even SOLID one) PROOF. Jack, don't you want to become famous?
Are you competely incapable of understanding anything?
THE ZIG ZAG IS THE SAME IN THE HC MODEL AND THE GC MODEL!!!
As such the zig zag being detected would not be evidence in favour of either model.

All the zig-zag would tell us is the ratio of the distances from the centre of rotation of us and the body we are monitoring (the sun or the moon).

It will not tell us which is moving.

In order to spare your efforts, all you have to do is to carefully watch this video :
Your video has already been refuted.

Why the video above provides 100 % reliable method of verification of validity of my ZIGZAG argument? Because of this :
No, not because of that. There is nothing you can do to save your zig-zag BS. It is dead in the water. It has been completely refuted.
It cannot distinguish between a rotating Earth or a stationary Earth.

GOING TO ADMIT DEFEAT THIS TIME???
Why would I admit something that never happened?
You are the one being defeated, yet again.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
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!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?
Well, the idea would be for you to pretend I am stupid so you can ignore my arguments.
The problem is you can't prove it. Instead all you can do is spout ignorant crap which has already been refuted.

The only one you are making look stupid or dishonest here is you.
Especially when you need to post the same post in multiple threads to try and hide from your failure.

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433
That wasn't an explanation. It was a load of bullshit which I refuted already.

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.

That was even shown up above.

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
No it wouldn't be.
The main cause (as admitted by your already) and repeatedly shown to be the case is the rotation of Earth.
So here is a real analysis:
In Midnight scenario :
-  Earth rotates CCW (west to east) causing an apparent motion of moon CW. As the moon is to the south of the observer, this apparent CW motion will be towards the WEST!
-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East, which slightly increases the apparent westerly motion of the moon.

-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards east, which reduces the apparent westerly motion of the moon.

-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards WEST (i.e. CW)


In Noon scenario :
-  Earth rotates CCW (west to east) causing an apparent motion of moon CW. As the moon is to the north of the observer (at and a much greater distance from the centre of rotation than the moon), this apparent CW motion will be towards the EAST!
-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East which reduces the apparent easterly motion of the moon.

-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards west - which again reduces the apparent easterly motion of the moon.

-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards EAST (i.e. CW)

See how bringing in the dominant effect, which is a key part of the model, allows the model to match reality?

This has already been pointed out to you countless times.

STOP IGNORING THE ROTATION OF EARTH!!!
If Earth rotates -1.25 degrees, things in the sky will appear to move 1.25 degrees. (just looking at the celestial equator component).

---- 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.
And this has been pointed out to be pure bullshit.
Within the GC theory you would expect the same difference as the HC theory. This is because you are at a different distance to the moon and thus the apparent angular motion of the moon will be different, just like something going past you at 1 m/s will appear quite fast if it is 1 m away, but look almost stationary at 1 km away.
In reality the change in distance is not that great. For the Arctic Circle, the change in distance is roughly 5000 km out of a total 400 000 km distance. And that applies in either a GC or HC model (if you want to be realistic and have it match reality).


Within the common FE model you would expect the difference to be much greater. This is because you are now going (assuming the moon is over the equator, it gets better as the moon moves south and worse as it moves north) the distance ranges from roughly 7500 km (midnight) to 12500 km (midday), which would cause a massive difference in apparent speed.

Also it has been pointed out before that that 46% is only looking at the LINEAR speeds. These linear speeds combined contribute (over a 5 minute period) -0.032 or -0.048 degrees to the moons apparent motion. That is very little compared to the contribution due to Earth's rotation (over the same 5 minute period) of 1.25 degrees.
This means the total apparent motion of the moon will be 1.202 to 1.218 degrees.

Stop bringing up the same refuted bullshit. It just makes you look stupid, dishonest and ignorant.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :
Exactly the same as above.

Again a real analysis:

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 However, as the observer is further away from the moon which is moving at the same speed, the apparent motion will be reduced.

---- 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.
Again, only linear speeds. This is only a small amount. This results in an angular motion of -0.032 degrees or -0.048 degrees. This amounts to an actual observed apparent motion of 1.202 degrees or 1.218 degrees. Thus the difference is actually 1.3%.

It is only if you compensate for the rotation of Earth that you get a 46% difference.
To do that you rotate the camera 1.25 degrees to compensate for the -1.25 degree rotation of Earth, which would in turn cause a -1.25 degree apparent motion of all the objects in the sky (notice how it cancels? 1.25 degree for rotation of Earth, -1.25 degree for rotation of camera, resulting in 0 overall?).

So that means we would get just the -0.032 degrees and -0.048 degrees, a difference of 50% (the exact percentage varies depending upon how you calculate it and how many sig figs you use).

For the GC case, assuming the real distances to the moon (which I have approximated as 400 000 km), at midnight, the distance between the moon and the point on the Artic circle (which I estimated as 2500 km) is 397 500, and the moon's motion in its orbit, which would be a 1.21 degree motion over 5 minutes, putting it at a distance (which is approximately linear) of 8447 km, then the apparent angular motion of the moon will be an angular motion which you can get (at least to a good approximation) as atan(8447 km / 397500 km)=1.218 degrees.
At mid day, basically all that remains the same. The only difference is the distance from the observer to the moon. That changes to 402500 km.
That means the angle changes to atan(8447/402500)=1.202 degrees.

Notice how this matches the HC model?
But wait, there's more.
Just like how you can compensate in the HC model to find the 46% difference, you can do the same here.
To make it an honest comparison we simply compensate in the same exact manner, i.e. move the camera 1.25 degrees in these 5 minutes. This would match the average apparent angular speed of the sun. This would be how you do your measurement anyway, otherwise you are comparing apples and potatoes.
So what would we get now?

Well we have our observed motions of 1.218 degrees and 1.202 degrees. We get an apparent motion of -1.25 degrees due to the motion of the camera and thus get an observed motion of -0.032 or -0.048 degrees, just like above.

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!
And once again a conclusion full of BS.
So here are some actual ones:
0 - There is no difference in observed outcomes (regarding your zig zag BS) between the GC and HC models. They both produce the same apparent motion of the moon.
1 - There is no 46% difference in the apparent motion of the moon. The actual difference in apparent motion is roughly 1.3%, it is only if you attempt to correct for the rotation of Earth or apparent motion of the sun that you get this ~46% difference.
2 - By affirming the zigzag phenomenon all we confirm is the relative sizes of various things, such as the distance to the moon and the distance of the observer from the centre of rotation/orbit. It cannot distinguish between HC and GC, nor between a rotating Earth or stationary Earth.
3 - As such, this CANNOT be proof in favour of HC theory. The result expected is the same under HC and GC, and thus it will prove nothing.


Now are you going to respond rationally for once, admitting that you were wrong or pointing out what is actually wrong with my analysis in explicit detail, using math to show the expected results in both cases and so on, or will you continue your childish antics and just repeat the same refuted crap again and again?

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
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!

 

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
Why? Why not go through what I have written and either accept it or point out specifically what was wrong?


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!!!
No, shown above is the fact that your argument is pure bullshit, that you would expect the exact same result for a rotating Earth as a stationary Earth.

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?
No, I'm not.
Firstly, I'm not comparing angles in the HC model. I am comparing them between models.
And yes, I have done something meaningful.
It shows that at 6am, the sun would not be due east.
Instead, it will be a slight angle off (towards the north), the angle indicated by b and d.
This applies for BOTH MODELS!!!
Similarly, for 6 pm the sun would not be due west, but would be slightly off, indicated by a and c.

The angles are the same in both models.
This shows the observation would be the same in both models.

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?
Yes, I can compare these 2 results.
The issue is you are not in an absolute reference frame where you can easily measure which is the case (not without a completely different argument regarding Earth's rotation, the zig zag argument stands on its own merit, or fails).
Instead, all you can measure is the apparent motion of the sun. You can also try to compensate for the "alleged" (real) rotation of Earth.


You are the one trying to compare completely different experiments.

In one experiment you have the camera set up, rotating 0.25 degrees per minute, compensating for either the sun's actual average motion, or the Earth's rotation.
In the other you have the camera fixed.
That is why you are getting completely different results.

If you were to hypothetically carry out the same experiment in both models, you get the same result.
With one experiment, you will get an apparent back and forth motion of the sun, where from 6am to 6pm it will move 0.005 degrees (for a person on the equator), and if you could watch it at night, it would move back the 0.005 degrees from 6pm to 6am.

With the other, you get a rotation of the sun between 6am and 6pm of 180.005, and from 6pm to 6am you would get 179.995 degrees.

The difference is entirely to do with rotating the camera or not and nothing to do with HC vs GC.

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.
BULLSHIT!
Again, I proved that above.
If you think there would be no zig zag, go and refute the above.
Tell me how c and d can be 0 without r being 0 or R being infinite.

That is what is required for no zig zag.

Also, I take it logic isn't your strong suit?

If A indicate B or C, A is not proof of either.
It either proves one specific thing, or it doesn't prove anything by itself.

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!
No, you are the one digging your own grave.
I have proven that there is a zig zag phenomenon in the GC model.
The only way to have no zig-zag is if the object is infinitely far away.
Note: using the sun, insert other times for other objects)
Otherwise, at 6 am it will not be due east, at 6pm it will not be due west, at mid day it will be moving faster than at mid night, and if you cancel the average motion that means at mid day it moves one way and at mid night it moves the other, i.e. ZIG ZAGS!!!

If you wish to assert there will be no zig zag with a stationary Earth, you need to prove it.

Tell us exactly what experiment you would carry out.
This is just the experiment, so no changing it between the 2 models, it must be exactly the same. You cannot appeal to the rotation of Earth at all, only to the apparent motion of the sun or moon, as doing so would amount to an entirely separate argument as to if Earth is rotating, and thus it isn't your zig zag BS being proof.
Then show us what the expected results would be in this experiment for the 2 models, showing all calculations, even drawing a picture if you want.

If you can't do that, then why not try acting like an adult for once and admitting you were wrong?