I know what scares you!
The whole scientific community agrees that the Earth rotates, revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is tilted 23,5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the spatial orientation of Earth's "axis" is fixed with respect to something in a proximity of Polaris, one (366th) annual (sidereal) rotation of the Earth almost perfectly matches a period of 365 days (no matter for how many millions of miles they artificially enlarge (or shrink) Earth's orbit (they just increase (or decrease) Earth's orbital speed)), etc.,etc.,etc...
The the number of sidereal days and solar days in a year will
always differ by
exactly one. This is regardless of the size of the orbit and rate of rotation. The Sun completes
exactly one circuit of the ecliptic in one year - that's what defines the year - and is where the
exactly one-day difference comes from.
And now comes Cikljamas and says : that's all bullshit!
We're well aware of that. Unfortunately, cikljamas is unable to grasp (or refuses to grasp), despite page after page of careful explanation, where his idea is wrong. This appears to still be the case.
Alpha2Omega does like the third-person presentation of the argument; at least that little bit is new. As a courtesy, and to avoid confusion, he will capitalize cikljamas' name as it is officially registered with the forum as his username.
Not only that, Cikljamas offers you a very simple and undeniable, irrefutable argument which is able to scatter all heliocentric wet dreams once and for all.
The problem is, cikljamas offers an argument that, while simple, is neither undeniable nor irrefutable. It's simply wrong.
Well, that's outrage[ou]s and unacceptable.
Shall we survey their (HC) objections to my ZIGZAG argument once more?
Their only objection is that we couldn't notice ZIGZAG (which REs claim that it (ZIGZAG) exists, (because they know it would be inevitable geometrical consequence of HC stupid theory, if it were true), only (according to them) we can't notice it because the Sun is so far away and his parallax for the observer on the Earth is so small).
That is partially correct. Another objection is that cikljamas himself is conflating two different phenomena and can't seem to sort out what his own "zig-zag" argument
is.
What to answer to that?
Their objection is absolutely meaningless!!!
cikljamas decreeing this again and again doesn't make it any more true, that is, not at all, than it was the first time. Sorry.
I've already pointed out this many times, so it is ridiculous that i have to repeat it so often,
Alpha2Omega does not disagree with this statement. He further asserts that, most likely,
all other readers agree with it, too!
but it seems that we have to parrot it (again and again) untill last idiot become able to grasp this utterly simple concept.
That is part of the problem. cikljamas does parrot this again and again, but what he fails to realize is that 'parroting' means repeating words without knowing their meaning. Is that what he is doing? It certainly seems like it. Apparently he also fails to realize that the "last idiot" he refers to is himself.
If the Sun's parallax (ZIGZAG) were so small, we wouldn't be able to observe such a large arc of Sun's daily path in the sky, also.
Since the effects of parallax and rotation are independent, this is an erroneous claim, as has been patiently explained again and again. cikljamas apparently ignores this explanation, but refuses to explain
why he ignores it.
That is why we don't need any additional experiment which would demonstrate the trueness of this argument, and which would convince us that validity of my ZIGZAG argument is absolutely undisputable.
cikljamas has slipped back into first-person voice. Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted. Third-person does get a bit tedious, though.
So, before any sane and honest person tried to bring forth/pull out a "small parallax" objection (against my ZIGZAG argument), such person firstly should have to discard our/his/her daily experiences of Sun's motion in the sky in a large arc (from East to West), which lasts for many hours (sometimes for more than 16,5 hours (for instance at latitude, 51 degrees N - summer time (London)), and to accept that such daily experiences of ours are pure imagination, and nothing else but imagination.
This is again parroting the same old tired argument. Rotation and parallax are independent of each other. Stand in one spot and stare at some object at any distance away. Turn halfway around without moving from the original spot. Did the object appear to move 180° in your field of view? Yes. Was there any parallax? No.
End of your "small parallax means no apparent movement" argument.
When you see the Sun going from East to West, what is heliocentrist's answer concerning the possible cause of this phenomena?
They say it happens due to Earth's rotation FROM WEST to EAST!!!
THAT SETTLES THE MATTER!!!
Why? How?
Don't you see it, at the first glance?
If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?
The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).
See, here's part of the problem: sometimes you attribute your "zig-zag" to parallax, and sometimes to another, entirely different effect, so it's hard to tell
what you mean.
What you just describe here is the motion of a circumpolar star. If one is close enough to a pole, the Sun becomes circumpolar at certain times of year and remains 'up' for the full 24-hour day. Other than being
vastly brighter than the other stars and moving
slightly eastward with respect to them over the period of a day, it is no different. It follows a path across the sky that is a tilted circle centered on the North Celestial Pole (unless you're
at the pole, then it's not tilted, but centered directly overhead).
So what does this mean? Let's say we're just north of the Arctic Circle around the June solstice. At local solar noon, the Sun is highest in the sky directly south of you and moving toward the west (left to right as you face it). As time progresses and the Sun follows its circular path centered on the North Celestial Pole, its motion becomes more and more northerly and less westerly (still left to right as you face it). A little less than six hours after local solar noon, it's due west of you and is moving northward, still following the same circle in the same direction - left to right as you face it. Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an
easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west). As time progresses and the Sun follows it's tilted circle (
still left to right as you face it), it passes its lowest point, due north, at local solar midnight. At this point, if you're still facing toward the Sun, you've made a half-turn from the direction you were looking at noon, as the Earth made a half rotation under you. About six hours after that, it's due east, traveling southward (still left to right as you continue to face it), moving toward the south (and
westward) until it returns to the highest point of the circle, due south, at noon.
This has been explained before, but maybe not in the same way.
The Sun is moving in a circle centered on the Celestial Pole.
It always moves the same direction around the circle. It does not "zig-zag" any more than the ends of the hands of a clock "zig zag"; they, too, move in circles.
Do you get it now?
That is why we don't need any additional demonstration.
Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.
That would be "to scale", having in mind the real/true ratio regarding the true dimension of the Sun vs the true dimension of the Earth, and regarding the real distance between the Sun and the Earth!!!
And now you're back to arguing that "zig-zag" is parallax. Do you see why it's so difficult to discuss this with you?
If you want to use this carousel to demonstrate this effect in the heliocentric model, then you have to scale the relative distances in your demonstration to match the relative distances of the heliocentric model, not some distances you just made up. The heliocentric model has the Sun more than 11,000 times as far from the Earth as the Earth's diameter. If you're using a carousel with a diameter of 20 meters to represent the Earth, the Sun in your model needs to be 22 km away; if that circle represents the Arctic Circle (about 40% the diameter of the Earth), your sun needs to be 1.5 times further away.