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?