ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 05:36:09 AM

Quote from: Zero Point on September 20, 2015, 05:14:13 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 05:05:29 AM

Quote from: Zero Point on September 20, 2015, 04:58:52 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 03:57:52 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 20, 2015, 03:50:13 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 01:13:47 AM

Quote from: Zero Point on September 20, 2015, 12:45:19 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 19, 2015, 11:28:36 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on September 19, 2015, 02:46:34 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 19, 2015, 10:26:22 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 19, 2015, 05:21:03 AM

Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Enjoy it!!!

P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!

Your 'zigzag' conundrum has been refuted before, and will be refuted again.  You're basing it off the sun being 3000 miles away, but that is the FET distance.  RET is 93million miles, so the arctic sun video shows what is to be expected. 

As for the star-trails, you're confusing time-lapse photography with long-exposure photography again.

93 million mile ? Have you  done any investigating as to how that figure was derived.  Numerous  mathematical  calculation , have been touted as being correct. Based on useing that sun distance . The problem is that distance has never been correct from the start. That fact has been kept out of the big picture.  Simply because it means all the calculation & theories that have used that mesurement for their calcuations . Cant be right. What an embarrassment that would be to own up to. Ps do you think they will come clean about that. You bet they wont, they will just keep lying their ass of saving face & keep getting their pay cheque & talking shit.

Well there is the whole "sun doesn't appear to get smaller as it gets further away" problem facing a model where the sun isn't 93 million miles away.

It doesn't get smaller in its diameter but vertically... the further it goes the less you see the bottom... it's because your eyes are limited to watch just up to a distance and always more from the top to the bottom... just like when you walk a street the lamp posts always look lower until you stop seeing them... the more close the post lamps are to you the higher they look to you... but they are all at the same high... it's an optical illusion that the Sun is coming down... it's actually going at the same high all the time. If you use equipment to watch the Sun when Sun looks like having disappeared you can clearly see that the Sun is still above. not under the horizon... the more resolution you have on the equipment you use the further you can see the Sun above.

And this is exactly what we don't observe, which we would observe if the earth was flat. Which is another evidence against FE.

This is exactly what we DO observe : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Thanks for posting a video that agrees with my point, we don't observe the sun getting smaller vertically, which we would observe on a spotlight sun.

Hi,
the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.

.

Please clean up that post, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Grammatically it is a disaster, and as I am no native English speaker it is hard to understand.

The only thing I understood is that you think we can't see height, which is a clear lie from you. Our depth perception has nothing to do with it, which you seem to think.

What I wrote is grammatically perfect but I'll move away some words so you understand more clearly:

the reason why the Sun doesn't get smaller vertically is because the Sun does not get smaller at all, but your vertical viewing angle narrows and you stop seeing it at the bottom because the Sun it's closer to the Earth's surface than the top of the Sky's ceiling, the Sun does not disappear vertically because your optical angle is wider horizontally, yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye you have open and open the other eye the Sun will look like in a different position again... this optical illusion relates to the capability of your eyes, and the angle of vision your eyes can perceive horizontally is wider than the angle of vision your eyes can perceive vertically.

Since you are not an English native speaker, if you still do not understand I advise you to take a few more English lessons.

.

Thank you, a lot cleaner and easier to understand.

So the sun does not get smaller because our vertical viewing angle narrows? Why does it do that? And that would mean that everything we see would be taller than it actually is, not just the sun. We don't see that.

What we do see is that the sun does in fact disappear vertically, it's bottom get obscured first.
Our optical angle is about equal horizontally and vertically, since our eyes are focusing at the same point. And one individual eye has equal optical angle in every direction. And I don't see how this would manipulate our image of the sun (and only the sun!) depending on it's position in the sky.

And yet again you speak of our depth perception as if it had something to do with this phenomenon. Maybe it has, but you seem to think that depth perception is horizontal perception, which makes you wrong from the beginning of that statement.

An example of your bad grammar:

Quote

yet if you close one eye the position of the Sun changes, and if you close the eye

So if you close an eye and then close it? I understand that you meant the other eye, but it doesn't make it right.

You don't say horizontally and depth... there's just horizontally, left to right or right to left, and vertically, up and down...

Your quoting of my words is partial... stop messing around and use that time for some English lessons, otherwise communication is not possible.

.

Just one question -

Do you actually believe the absolute bullshit you put in each of your posts?

You really don't think the distance to the sun matters?

Hi,

I'm going to admit, I did not have time to watch the new argument. But I did watch the "zigzag" argument a couple of days ago.
Yes, the distance to the sun does matter. Not in the sense that it "does not" happen at large distance, but that the distance is too large to make this zigzag noticable.

Calculate with me:
- The arctic circle has a diameter of about 6,000 km. That means that is the largest distance of the observers side of the zigzag pattern.
- The diameter of the sun is about 1,400,000 km.
- The distance to the sun is about 150,000,000 km.

You can calculate the view angle that the sun covers from the earth:
arctan(1,400,000/150,000,000) = 0.53 degrees.

You can also calculate the zigzag angle due to our position change:
arctan(6,000/150,000,000) = 0.0023 degrees.

So the zigzag effect is 1/230 the diameter of the sun. That is unnoticably small.

Quote from: cikljamas on September 19, 2015, 05:21:03 AM

Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Enjoy it!!!

P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!

Well, that was a waste of time to watch. How long did it take you to put that thing together?

I see you're still making the same mistake you were making before. You have the Sun and stars way too close when making your "zigzag" argument. If the Sun were about the diameter of the Arctic Circle (roughly 3,000 miles) distant, then we would see it zig-zagging due to parallax. But it's not nearly that close, so we don't. How about running a similar visualization, but put the Sun 30,000 times further away, where it really is, and see how much "zig-zag" you'd see. I thought we'd already cleared that up. Oh well.

As for the star trails part, can you write out what you were trying to say about the direction of the trails and how it's opposite the way you think they should be? It didn't make any sense when watching - I even skipped back once to hear it again, and I don't want to waste any more time. That's one of the reasons why I don't like videos for this type of thing: unlike text, it's not easy to refer back to (and carefully parse out, if necessary) what's been said earlier to compare with what's said later.

Hi Alpha!

1. How come that you are the only person who didn't understand my STAR-TRAILS argument?

When you are out of options, playing stupid is an option again? Good old Alpha's tactic, but it doesn't help you to dispel obviousness of the veracity of my absolutely irrefutable STAR-TRAILS argument, does it?

Have you overlooked this explanation (of the STAR-TRAILS argument) which i put below my video:

Published on Sep 14, 2015

In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :

If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

Hi Alpha!

1. How come that you are the only person who didn't understand my STAR-TRAILS argument?

How do you know? Has anyone even said anything about it? Don't you remember saying this:

i haven't noticed any attempt of refuting my STAR-TRAILS argument so far. How come? Let me guess? There is no possible way of refuting such mind boggling irrefutable argument? Not even one lousy attempt?

More likely it's because no one knew what the heck the argument was.

When you are out of options, playing stupid is an option again? Good old Alpha's tactic, but it doesn't help you to dispel obviousness of the veracity of my absolutely irrefutable STAR-TRAILS argument, does it?

Have you overlooked this explanation (of the STAR-TRAILS argument) which i put below my video:

I didn't dig through the commentary below the video. Thanks for the transcript.

Quote

Published on Sep 14, 2015

In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :

If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?

Yeah, that's pretty much the gibberish I remembered. It still doesn't make much sense. At least looking at it, it's possible to read and re-read what you said to try to make some sense of some of it.

"If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!" Which they do when looking south, like at 6:44 in the video. The Earth is turning toward your left when you are facing south.

"If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!" This is what you would see if you were looking north at the meridian, but for whatever reason, you have avoided showing this part of the sky. Why? You never answered that question.

You do show the part of the northern circumpolar sky below the pole (6:58 is a good example of this). There is a time when some of the circumpolar sky just above the pole is shown briefly in the zoom out sequence ending at around 7:12. Why cut it off so soon and not show the expected right to left motion above the pole? Are you trying to hide this because it blows your idea out of the water? That's dishonest.

"So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?"

What are you even talking about here? The "bright stars with fading trails" is an effect created in the process of making the video by stacking some number of exposures with partial opacity so that the newest one is "on top" of the older ones, and, thus, brightest, with progressively older exposures becoming dimmer and dimmer. In the next frame of the video, a new exposure (slightly later in time) is added to the top and the oldest exposure is removed; by doing this frame after frame, you get the "bright star with a dimming fixed-length trail" effect. It would be just as easy to have the newest image the bottom of the stack and the oldest at the top, so you would have the effect you describe, the trail ahead of the star, which would indeed look odd. This is just a production effect to make pretty pictures and videos, however, and has no real meaning in the world.

But that's beside the point. Why do you think "the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them"? This makes no sense. The stars appear to move through the sky - they don't "give out trails". Star trails are the result of long exposures with a fixed camera (or the simulation of same created by stacking a number of shorter exposures) due to the rotation of the Earth. IOW, what the heck are you talking about?

The upshot is that the star trails videos you present show exactly what would be expected from a spinning earth and distant stars. There's nothing new here at all. Sorry.

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument)

Just how much parallax do you think you'd get moving side to side by 6,000 km when looking at an object 150,000,000 km away (using geodetective's numbers)? Here's a clue: it's really small.

just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

How about providing a transcript of your point, or at least describing what your point is, so there's no need to wade through another, probably completely useless, video.

[Edit] Fix last quote block.

Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.

ONCE AGAIN:

Published on Sep 14, 2015

In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :

If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.

ONCE AGAIN:

Quote

Published on Sep 14, 2015

In this video i present to you one equally compelling proof against the rotation of the earth (in relation to my other and already widely known (ZIGZAG) argument), only this NEW proof (let's call it "STAR TRAILS" argument) is even simpler than my ZIGZAG argument, and it's SIMPLICITY and OBVIOUSNESS is just going to blow everyone's mind. This staggering IRREFUTABLE proof against the rotation of the earth is so stunning, so simple, and so undeniable that i don't believe that there's anyone who is gonna come forward in order to even try to refute it. -- This is the essence of my "STAR TRAILS" argument :

If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

It's obvious from your ridiculous posts, that you simply do not understand the subject matter - you should go back to your Lego blocks and leave the technical subjects to those that actually know what they are talking about, and CLEARLY, that does NOT include YOU.

...puking out some fucking nasty ass shit...

Dude, would you be so kind and do a favor for humanity? Go have fun!

Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.

ONCE AGAIN:

Quote

<repeat of earlier quote.>

I can read the earlier post, simply repeating it doesn't clarify anything. It's still gibberish.

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

No further information? How about a written synopsis of what that video is supposed to show?

http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg

There are blue streaks in both of those photos. You can't tell which way the camera or light was moving just looking at the photos. They're just streaks.

Kind of like this:


Which way are the stars rotating in this photo? If you weren't familiar with the night sky, you wouldn't know. They're just streaks.

You still haven't answered this question:

"If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!" This is what you would see if you were looking north at the meridian, but for whatever reason, you have avoided showing this part of the sky. Why? You never answered that question.

You do show the part of the northern circumpolar sky below the pole (6:58 is a good example of this). There is a time when some of the circumpolar sky just above the pole is shown briefly in the zoom out sequence ending at around 7:12. Why cut it off so soon and not show the expected right to left motion above the pole? Are you trying to hide this because it blows your idea out of the water? That's dishonest.

So what's the story? Was this a deliberate (failed) attempt at deception, or just ignorance about what you're arguing about?

Quote from: cikljamas on September 22, 2015, 03:37:02 PM

Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.

ONCE AGAIN:

Quote

<repeat of earlier quote.>

I can read the earlier post, simply repeating it doesn't clarify anything. It's still gibberish.

Quote

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

No further information? How about a written synopsis of what that video is supposed to show?

Quote

http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg

There are blue streaks in both of those photos. You can't tell which way the camera or light was moving just looking at the photos. They're just streaks.

Kind of like this:


Which way are the stars rotating in this photo? If you weren't familiar with the night sky, you wouldn't know. They're just streaks.

1. Alpha, are you alluding that i have faked the results of this experiment?

If so, why don't you try this experiment yourself and show us how and why this experiment is a scam?

Anyone can verify validity of this experiment, ANYONE!!! - Come on guys, do it yourself if there is a shred of doubt in your mind about the correctness of the performance (or about the correctness of an interpretation of it's results) of this experiment!

It is already obvious that you don't have an answer to this ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!!!

2. Alpha, i am offering to you something else to crack:

I will show you that the motion of the Moon is the proof in itself AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!

But, before i do that i am challenging you to show us ONE SINGLE PROOF (of ANY KIND whatsoever) that the Moon travels in an OPPOSITE direction of her "apparent" motion in the sky!!!

ONE SINGLE PROOF, that is all we ask of you!

Can you do that?

Talk about making something simple mindbogglingly confused,    let me see if I can help.   

1.  The sun rises in the EAST and sets in the WEST,   so the earth is rotating from WEST to EAST.     Got it !! 

2.  The moon orbits  around the earth the same way as the earth rotates,   each orbit the moon makes around the earth takes 28 days.

Now what was your point?   

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 22, 2015, 06:06:43 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 22, 2015, 03:37:02 PM

Alpha, you are the greatest pretender i have ever met. But your acting wont help your cause! You just humiliate yourself, that's all you can achieve with your silly conduct.

ONCE AGAIN:

Quote

<repeat of earlier quote.>

I can read the earlier post, simply repeating it doesn't clarify anything. It's still gibberish.

Quote

2. As for a "SMALL PARALLAX" idiocy (in the context of my ZIGZAG argument) just watch this quote (you will be surprised when you see whose words i had cited here)  : http://i.imgur.com/LHOOWLF.jpg

No further information? How about a written synopsis of what that video is supposed to show?

Quote

http://i.imgur.com/qBvjNzh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eKHxeof.jpg

There are blue streaks in both of those photos. You can't tell which way the camera or light was moving just looking at the photos. They're just streaks.

Kind of like this:
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/northpole_malin.jpg

Which way are the stars rotating in this photo? If you weren't familiar with the night sky, you wouldn't know. They're just streaks.

1. Alpha, are you alluding that i have faked the results of this experiment?

I'm stating that you omitted footage from that video that show your assertion is wrong. Whether that was intentional or not is the question.

If so, why don't you try this experiment yourself and show us how and why this experiment is a scam?

Anyone can verify validity of this experiment, ANYONE!!! - Come on guys, do it yourself if there is a shred of doubt in your mind about the correctness of the performance (or about the correctness of an interpretation of it's results) of this experiment!

What experiment? I've taken star trail pictures before, if that's what you're talking about. I've also spent enough time under the stars to know which direction the stars move. Hint: it's always consistent with the Earth rotating west to east. Always.

It is already obvious that you don't have an answer to this ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!!!

Your argument is entirely refutable. Go out and watch the stars for a few hours.

2. Alpha, i am offering to you something else to crack:

I will show you that the motion of the Moon is the proof in itself AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!

But, before i do that i am challenging you to show us ONE SINGLE PROOF (of ANY KIND whatsoever) that the Moon travels in an OPPOSITE direction of her "apparent" motion in the sky!!!

ONE SINGLE PROOF, that is all we ask of you!

Can you do that?

The Moon moves across the sky from east to west due to the rotation of the Earth from west to east. At the same time, it is more slowly moving from west to east in its orbit, so it moves from west to east against the stars. That's the reason each moonrise is about 50 minutes later than the last. Not "proof" of anything[nb]See other recent threads for the discussion about why science doesn't traffic in "proofs".[/nb], but that's as close as you're going to get.

At any rate, try as you might, you're not going to be able to prove that the Earth doesn't rotate, because 1) it isn't possible to "prove" such a thing, and, more importantly, 2) the Earth does rotate. The latter is quite obvious, even if it's not "proven". But go ahead and try. Let's see what you think you've got.
 

1. No marvel that you have no answer to my STAR-TRAILS argument.
2. No marvel that you have no sane answer ("small parallax" is not an answer to the question at all) to my ZIGZAG argument.
3. No marvel that you have no answer to my challenge to show us ONE SINGLE PROOF that there is any justification for unnaturally-artificially reversing direction of Moon's motion in the sky to West-East (instead of East-West direction).
4. Following quotes will explain why the Moon can't be stationary or travel East-West (daily) within HC theory :

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

5. Following illustrations will explain why the Moon can't travel in an opposite direction (monthly), also:




I had presented this problem in my video THE FLAT EARTH - THE MOON - part 1 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

1. No marvel that you have no answer to my STAR-TRAILS argument.

I can't even tell what your "star-trails argument" is. Can you describe succinctly and coherently what it is the stars are doing that you think is contrary to a rotating earth and distant stars?

Are you going to answer the question why you refused to show the circumpolar stars as they cross the meridian? I'm beginning to believe the omission was deliberate - which means you're being dishonest.

2. No marvel that you have no sane answer ("small parallax" is not an answer to the question at all) to my ZIGZAG argument.

Sorry you don't like the answer. It is what it is, though, whether you like it or not. The Sun is simply too far away to exhibit enough parallax to overcome the diurnal motion across the sky (or around the sky in the polar regions).

3. No marvel that you have no answer to my challenge to show us ONE SINGLE PROOF that there is any justification for unnaturally-artificially reversing direction of Moon's motion in the sky to West-East (instead of East-West direction).

Artificial? You can see the Moon moving from west to east among the stars[nb]Well, you can see it if you'll actually look.[/nb], same as it always has. No one has reversed the direction of the Moon.

4. Following quotes will explain why the Moon can't be stationary or travel East-West (daily) within HC theory :

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

Who are those people? How do they think anyone was able to "reverse the direction of the Moon" and change its speed, anyway?

You do realize that just because someone says something, it's not necessarily correct, don't you? It would pay to actually observe easy-to-see phenomena like this for yourself.

5. Following illustrations will explain why the Moon can't travel in an opposite direction (monthly), also:

http://i.imgur.com/lfq6UXW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/D0irxSJ.jpg

I don't see how either of those drawings has anything to do with the rotation of the Earth. It looks like they're concerned with the position of the Moon with respect to the Earth in its orbit. Even so, what are you getting at?

I had presented this problem in my video THE FLAT EARTH - THE MOON - part 1 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'd rather read about it. Can you give a summary of what it is you're trying to say in the video?
 

<silly animated gif>
<another silly animated gif>

No answers? Got it!

Quote from: cikljamas on September 23, 2015, 03:01:52 PM

<silly animated gif>
<another silly animated gif>

No answers? Got it!

He arbitrarily reverses left - right,  north-south,  clockwise-anticlockwise  so that his arguments are deliberately obfusticated,  then he leaps out of the shadows shouting the earth doesn't rotate.   What a jerk!

It's like playing chess with pigeons.     
They strut about squarking and preening knocking pieces over, before crapping all over the board and fly back to the flock claiming victory. 

He won't make his argument clearer,  simply because that would make it obvious that it's wrong.

Now he's started quoting lies from Eric Doobuymystuff.    And we know already Eric has trouble understanding the moon.

Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :

Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.

Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?

Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :

Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.

Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?

That thinking is so brain damaged my head hurts trying to understand how you could ever think that.,   but I'll try and keep my answer simple and direct.   

Tell me what time of the year, and in what place is the solar day is NOT 24 hours.

Take your time.   I'll wait... 

Quote from: cikljamas on September 24, 2015, 02:01:34 AM

Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :

Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.

Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?

That thinking is so brain damaged my head hurts trying to understand how you could ever think that.,   but I'll try and keep my answer simple and direct.   

Tell me what time of the year, and in what place is the solar day is NOT 24 hours.

Take your time.   I'll wait...

You don't have to wait, because your question is stupid which is perfectly in accordance with your IQ. On top of that you are a rude jerk, so even if your question made some sense i wouldn't answer to that question, because you don't deserve my answer in the first place. Firstly, you have to learn how to behave as a civilized, decent person, then you can begin to dream of making conversation with intelligent, and well educated people...

In addition:

If you can’t be bothered to be a witty, sarcastic jerk, you can just be a regular, mean jerk. This kind of jerk is intolerant and impatient (to a higher degree than the other type of jerk), rude, and unsarcastically mean. The next time someone gives you something or does something for you, don’t say thank you or show gratitude; you should even go so far as to complain about what they gave you or how they should accomplish things faster. Don’t be grateful; if you are grateful, people will think that they can win your favor with good deeds; that’s manipulation. You can’t let anyone win your favor; that would show weakness, and you have to be strong to show that you are of great importance. Be disrespectful to everyone, and elders and authority figures especially. Respect can also be linked to weakness, since respecting someone can be taken as giving in and obeying that person. Don’t obey; you are your own person, and you should play by your rules alone. This form of jerk is harder to achieve, since a lot of people will end up disliking you, and this type of jerk is more rotten to the core, but accomplish it and it will make you feel in complete control of your life. There is no one above you.

Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :

Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.

That old thing is so mind-bogglingly simple to explain that I'm surprised you even bring it up again.


Image courtesy Case Western Reserve University

Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity),

Problem? It's a problem for you, not the HC model, which explains it easily.

which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth,

You forgot the tilt of the Earth's axis wrt the Ecliptic as a factor, too. That's a bigger factor than the slight variation in orbital motion.

different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe".

Nope. The rotation speed of the Earth is, of course, fixed. The difference in the apparent speed of the Sun through is due to the factors already mentioned. Don't you pay attention to your own arguments?

So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Because the Earth's orbital speed changes throughout the year due to its elliptical (not circular) orbit and because its axis is not perpendicular  to the orbital plane. We've discussed this before. Don't you remember?

Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?

Not only easier, but already answered. Both of these are entirely consistent with the very simple and elegant heliocentric model.

So, getting back to the "star-trails argument", can you describe succinctly and coherently what it is the stars are doing that you think is contrary to a rotating earth and distant stars? Or have you realized that you were caught omitting relevant data and that there is no "star-trails argument". If that's it, just say so and we can let this thread die.

Quote

So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Because the Earth's orbital speed changes throughout the year due to its elliptical (not circular) orbit and because its axis is not perpendicular  to the orbital plane. We've discussed this before. Don't you remember?

Let's clarify something :

1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 24, 2015, 08:11:43 AM

Quote

So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Because the Earth's orbital speed changes throughout the year due to its elliptical (not circular) orbit and because its axis is not perpendicular  to the orbital plane. We've discussed this before. Don't you remember?

Let's clarify something :

1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!

But this is the EoT, and its cause is logical, well understood, and easily explained in the heliocentric solar system. We already discussed this at great length, remember?

1. Referring back to the CWRU illustration from a couple of posts ago, and presuming for the sake of discussion the 1° and 4 minutes shown are the average values over a year (they're really about 2% less, but for the purpose of this discussion, those numbers are easier to work with and close enough), then at the times the Earth is slightly closer to the Sun and moving faster in its orbit, that angle shown will be actually a little greater than 1°, and the additional rotation needed will be slightly longer than 4 minutes, meaning the Sun is moving ever so slightly more slowly across the sky during that day than the average. When the Earth is further from the Sun and, thus, moving more slowly, the angle will be slightly less than 1°, and the additional rotation to bring the Sun back to the meridian would take slightly less than 4 minutes; the Sun appears to be moving (very slightly) faster.

2. This is a little trickier to visualize, but at the time of the solstices, the position of the Sun in the sky is not moving north or south at all - all of the parallax from one day to the next is in an eastward direction, slowing the apparent diurnal motion by the maximum amount. At the equinoxes, part of the motion is northward (March) or southward (September), and less of it is eastward, so the slowing of the apparent diurnal motion is slightly less at those times.

These slight changes in the length of the apparent solar day add up to the EoT.

I guess this means you have given up on the star trails as "irrefutable proof"[nb]Good idea![/nb] and are falling back on the old already discredited notion that the EoT somehow disproves the heliocentric model of the solar system. Nothing has changed since last year[nb]Wow! Has it really been 11 months since we were discussing this last time. How time does fly![/nb]; you're still wrong. Perhaps you forgot about this - maybe you should use the site's search function, and also take notes about the gist of various conversations. That will save both of us time and effort, and you some humiliation.
 

Quote from: Rayzor on September 24, 2015, 02:33:25 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 24, 2015, 02:01:34 AM

Alpha, there is one proof against the rotation of the earth which is even SIMPLER than the STAR-TRAILS argument, you wont believe how mind boggling SIMPLE this one is :

Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.

Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe". So, how can the sun travel with different speeds above ("around") the earth if the rotational speed of "a globe" is FIXED?

Does it seem to you that this time i have put forward an easier question to you?

That thinking is so brain damaged my head hurts trying to understand how you could ever think that.,   but I'll try and keep my answer simple and direct.   

Tell me what time of the year, and in what place is the solar day is NOT 24 hours.

Take your time.   I'll wait...

You don't have to wait, because your question is stupid which is perfectly in accordance with your IQ. On top of that you are a rude jerk, so even if your question made some sense i wouldn't answer to that question, because you don't deserve my answer in the first place. Firstly, you have to learn how to behave as a civilized, decent person, then you can begin to dream of making conversation with intelligent, and well educated people...

In addition:

If you can’t be bothered to be a witty, sarcastic jerk, you can just be a regular, mean jerk. This kind of jerk is intolerant and impatient (to a higher degree than the other type of jerk), rude, and unsarcastically mean. The next time someone gives you something or does something for you, don’t say thank you or show gratitude; you should even go so far as to complain about what they gave you or how they should accomplish things faster. Don’t be grateful; if you are grateful, people will think that they can win your favor with good deeds; that’s manipulation. You can’t let anyone win your favor; that would show weakness, and you have to be strong to show that you are of great importance. Be disrespectful to everyone, and elders and authority figures especially. Respect can also be linked to weakness, since respecting someone can be taken as giving in and obeying that person. Don’t obey; you are your own person, and you should play by your rules alone. This form of jerk is harder to achieve, since a lot of people will end up disliking you, and this type of jerk is more rotten to the core, but accomplish it and it will make you feel in complete control of your life. There is no one above you.

Funnily enough I agree with most of what you said,  except  it's you are actually the one behaving like a jerk.    I realise that you can't answer the question I asked,   and that's why you have to resort to insults. 

I'm sorry for you that you are shown to be wrong time and time again,  it must hurt your ego after a while, and that's why you resort to insults and lies. 

Alpha, i am absolutely sure that you are absolutely sure that the earth is flat!

It is more than obvious (and it has been obvious for a long period of time) that everything you say has very concrete purpose : to intentionally mislead, deceive and derail honest thinkers. That is why there is no doubt (in my mind at least) whatsoever what kind of a game you are playing.

You didn't answer (again) CONCRETELY to any of my very plain and simple questions that i have put forward to you in this thread.

Since you are very intelligent and very good educated person, there is no possibility that you do what you do unintentionally/accidentally. No, no, no, this is purely intentional behavior, and i don't believe that you ever thought (not even for a moment) i could be so stupid not to realize such an obvious fact.

Did you miss these (bolded) words :

Let's clarify something :

1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!

P.S. Yes, time flies, and you still sing your deceitful song!

I dedicate my brand new video to you (and all your colleagues - NASA shills) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Enjoy the truth, and don't forget : Time is short, and eternity is long!

"For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." - 2 Corinthians 17

I dedicate my brand new video to you (and all your colleagues - NASA shills) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Wow,  you really are a know nothing clown.   Do you know how altimeters in aircraft work?   Have you never heard of GPS or Inertial Navigation Systems..   

Let me enlighten you,  Altimeters work either by ground radar or by atmospheric pressure,   the pilot flies by the altimeter, and the artificial horizon which tells him if he is climbing or diving,  in gliders this is called a vario, in other aircraft it's rate of climb indicator,  or vertical speed indicator. 

Inertial Navigation Systems  (INS) require to be corrected for the earth's rotation,  look it up if you don't believe me. 

GPS you already know about.   Those systems are firmly satellite based on the fact that the earth is a globe,  look up WGS-84.

You video just shows how absolutely dumb and ignorant you really are.   Go and study a bit before making yourself look a complete fool.   You are single handedly making all flat earthers a laughing stock.

PS.  Still waiting for you to tell me the place on earth where the solar day is not 24 hours....

You don't honestly think that this guy will understand the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day do you?

He barely understands parallax....

Alpha, i am absolutely sure that you are absolutely sure that the earth is flat!

Since that's in keeping with every other thing you are "absolutely sure" about, but are completely wrong, this is no surprise.

It is more than obvious (and it has been obvious for a long period of time) that everything you say has very concrete purpose : to intentionally mislead, deceive and derail honest thinkers. That is why there is no doubt (in my mind at least) whatsoever what kind of a game you are playing.

Hey... you're the one that carefully excluded data that conflicts with the point you were trying to make, not me! Just because you engage in this sort of dishonesty doesn't mean someone who disagrees with you does.

You didn't answer (again) CONCRETELY to any of my very plain and simple questions that i have put forward to you in this thread.

I didn't? Can you explain what you don't understand about the answers given? Go back and review the thread from last year for more detail, first, though - that will save both of us a lot of time.

Since you are very intelligent and very good educated person, there is no possibility that you do what you do unintentionally/accidentally.

Aw, shucks... thanks!

No, no, no, this is purely intentional behavior, and i don't believe that you ever thought (not even for a moment) i could be so stupid not to realize such an obvious fact.

You are pretty cavalier about what you believe I know and think.

Did you miss these (bolded) words :

Quote

Let's clarify something :

1. What earth's alleged orbital speed has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

2. What earth's alleged tilt has to do - EXACTLY - with an "apparent" speed of the sun across the sky?

I am not asking you about the EoT-HC-dead end, which is a separate issue because it depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the alleged rotational speed of the earth (AND the alleged tilt of the earth), i am asking you about the "apparent" speed of the sun (which we can measure within a short period of time, let say between 12 pm and 1 pm, every day) which depends solely on the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe"!

I thought I had addressed them clearly. Maybe the previous answer was too complicated for you to understand. Let's try again, using specific examples this time:

Here are the lengths of the shortest and longest apparent solar days[nb]Jean Meeus (1997), Mathematical astronomy morsels (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell) 346. ISBN 0-943396-51-4 (as cited in Wikipedia)[/nb]:

Date		Duration in mean solar time
September 16		24 hours − 21.3 seconds = 23h 59m 38.7s
December 22		24 hours + 29.9 seconds = 24h 00m 29.9s

Since the apparent solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same meridian, it's moving across the sky more quickly throughout the day around Sept 16 (the apparent solar day is shortest then) than it is around Dec 22 (apparent solar day is longest then). Since the Sun travels 360° around the sky in a solar day, it travels 15.0037° per hour on the shortest day and 14.9948° per hour on the longest, a 0.0089° per hour difference - not much, but that's not the point. Is that any clearer for you?

P.S. Yes, time flies, and you still sing your deceitful song!

No deceit, just facts. Remember, you're the one that carefully excluded data that conflicts with the point you were trying to make, not me! Just because you engage in this sort of dishonesty doesn't mean someone who disagrees with you does.

In short, your "absolutely irrefutable argument" is easily refuted. Them's the facts. Sorry if that bothers you, but it doesn't mean I'm lying, only that you're wrong.
 

I dedicate my brand new video to you (and all your colleagues - NASA shills) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

No, thanks. I don't watch youtube videos unless there's some compelling reason. Don't you remember that?

Enjoy the truth

I do, very much, and more than you appear to.

and don't forget : Time is short, and eternity is long!

I don't forget it. That's why I try to minimize wasting precious time on tedious superstitious rituals. Some people enjoy and draw comfort from them - I don't.

<irrelevant biblical quote>

You don't honestly think that this guy will understand the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day do you?

He barely understands parallax....

Not really, but others who are actually curious that happen by might do better.
 

Here are the lengths of the shortest and longest apparent solar days[nb]Jean Meeus (1997), Mathematical astronomy morsels (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell) 346. ISBN 0-943396-51-4 (as cited in Wikipedia)[/nb]:

Date		Duration in mean solar time
September 16		24 hours − 21.3 seconds = 23h 59m 38.7s
December 22		24 hours + 29.9 seconds = 24h 00m 29.9s

Since the apparent solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same meridian, it's moving across the sky more quickly throughout the day around Sept 16 (the apparent solar day is shortest then) than it is around Dec 22 (apparent solar day is longest then). Since the Sun travels 360° around the sky in a solar day, it travels 15.0037° per hour on the shortest day and 14.9948° per hour on the longest, a 0.0089° per hour difference - not much, but that's not the point. Is that any clearer for you?

All correct of course,  but I'm pretty sure cikljamas was alluding to another zigzag variation.    But he is so confused it's hard to know what he is saying half the time.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 25, 2015, 10:42:04 AM

Here are the lengths of the shortest and longest apparent solar days[nb]Jean Meeus (1997), Mathematical astronomy morsels (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell) 346. ISBN 0-943396-51-4 (as cited in Wikipedia)[/nb]:

Date		Duration in mean solar time
September 16		24 hours − 21.3 seconds = 23h 59m 38.7s
December 22		24 hours + 29.9 seconds = 24h 00m 29.9s

Since the apparent solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same meridian, it's moving across the sky more quickly throughout the day around Sept 16 (the apparent solar day is shortest then) than it is around Dec 22 (apparent solar day is longest then). Since the Sun travels 360° around the sky in a solar day, it travels 15.0037° per hour on the shortest day and 14.9948° per hour on the longest, a 0.0089° per hour difference - not much, but that's not the point. Is that any clearer for you?

All correct of course,  but I'm pretty sure cikljamas was alluding to another zigzag variation.    But he is so confused it's hard to know what he is saying half the time.

I've lost track of what he thinks he's alluding to. He denies it's the EoT (the Equation of Time) immediately after referring to orbital speed and axial tilt, which, of course, cause the EoT to be what it is. At any rate, the net effect of his "zigzag" (diurnal solar parallax) is still very much nada.

He does seem to have abandoned the star trails "ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT" entirely and without comment. So much for another "irrefutable" argument. 

ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH :

1. The test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711 -1787). READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480

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.

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." READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899

2. STAR-TRAILS ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT :

If the earth were a spinning globe what kind of effect would we see in our long-exposure photographs of the stars? If we rotated to the LEFT the stars would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the RIGHT, ALSO!!! If we rotated to the RIGHT the stars would seem as if they move to the LEFT, but the star-trails would seem as if they move to the LEFT, ALSO!!! -- So, basically, the stars would apparently give out their trails in front of them which effect would be something completely contrary to what we can see in all video clips (which have been made out of many long exposure photographs of the stars) of the moving stars. - The stars would seem as if they emanate their trails ahead of them, instead of leaving their trails behind them (AS IT IS IN REALITY). That would be some spectacle, wouldn't it?

3. ZIG-ZAG ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT :

The path of the sun in the sky always describes arcs in one direction. This very fact (the sun circles exclusively in one direction) has been perfectly clearly demonstrated and very strongly emphasized in Rory Cooper's animation of my ZIGZAG argument.

This very fact is the proof of the correctness of my argument, because if the earth were spinning globe we would witness a ZIGZAG phenomena (which doesn't exist in reality)!!!

A blatant fact that ZIGZAG phenomena doesn't exist constitutes the core of my proof (ZIGZAG argument)!!!

How many times i have to stress this before all heliocentrists become able to figure this out?

Only one scenario can account for all that : the earth centered universe!

In order to make this simple geometrical concept more understandable for you, i suggest you to concentrate to the second scenario-explanation (so that you don't have to take into account those 180 degrees turns (which observer has to make (gradually) every time after reaching each turning point) of an observer at the edge of the Arctic circle :

Our second scenario is this, i repeat :

Just imagine that you are at the edge of the Arctic circle, looking towards (let's say) NORTH and maintain your position (looking straight to the NORTH, all the time) for 24 hours.

If the earth rotated, the sun would seem to go continually from your right side (hand) towards your left side (hand), but if the sun circled around you (as it is in reality), then you would see the sun going first half of the circle from your right hand towards your left hand, and second half of the circle from your left hand towards your right hand.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SEE AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE IF YOU MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION (LOOKING STRAIGHT TO THE NORTH) FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS :

THE SUN IS GOING FIRST HALF OF THE CIRCLE FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TOWARDS YOUR LEFT HAND, AND SECOND HALF OF THE CIRCLE FROM YOUR LEFT HAND TOWARDS YOUR RIGHT HAND!!!!!

4. THE MOTION OF THE MOON IS THE PROOF IN ITSELF AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH :

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719693#msg1719693

5. Different speeds of the sun above the earth (measuring from the same place in different times of the year) is the proof in itself against the rotation of the earth.

Unlike EoT problem (which is also one of the best proofs against the HC stupidity), which depends on earth's alleged orbital motion AND the rotational speed of the earth, different speeds of the sun above the earth are determined solely by the (FIXED) rotational speed of "a globe".

THE SPEED OF THE SUN :

66,6 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 6393,6 km
6393,6 * 2 * 3,14 = 40151 km / 24 = 1672 km/h = 27,88 km/min

90 degrees * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 8640 km
8640 * 2 * 3,14 = 54259 km / 24 = 2260 km/h = 37,67 km/min

113,4 * 96 km (60 statute miles) = 10886,4 km
10886,4 * 2 * 3,14 = 68366 km = 2848 km/h = 47,47 km/min

6. EOT PROBLEM : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935

7. EOT PROBLEM NO 2 :



Should the earth travel at slower or faster (in her alleged orbit around the sun) in order to pass longer distance in the same period of time (133 days)? Other way around, should the earth travel at slower or faster speed (in her alleged orbit around the sun) in order to pass shorter distance in the same period of time (133 days)?

The correct answer to the first question : The earth should travel at greater orbital velocity in order to pass longer distance in the same period of time!!!

The correct answer to the second question : The earth should travel at slower orbital velocity in order to pass shorter distance in the same period of time.

But, according to HC theroy the earth travels slower when passing longer distance (SLOW SUN), and when passing shorter distance the earth travels at greater speed!

8. If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?

Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.

If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.

A) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?

B) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html


ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED TILT OF THE EARTH :

1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480
2. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899
3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101
4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224


If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t

INUIT ARGUMENT :

If the position of the Sun has changed so significantly due to the shift of the Earth's axis, then it must be the case with the stars, also.

How do we know that it hasn't happened in that way (a change of the Sun's path in the North, and a possible change of the position of the stars)?

There is a very simple method of verification:

If the Earth's tilt had changed, then the northern center of the rotation of the stars could not have remained (any longer) in the same place (within HC theory)!!!

But Polaris is still in the same place, and all the stars still rotate around Polaris, don't they?

So, i would say that this is a really good way how we can corroborate that the motion of the Stars, and the motion of the Sun, are two different, separate and independent motions!


On top of that, if the earth's axis had shifted then the same consequence would have occured within Antarctic circle (temperature would have increased during the southern summer) as well. But what we see is that in the Arctic circle temperature rises, but on the edge of the Great South Wall temperature decreases.


Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"

His great contemporary Henri Poincare confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”

In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the ?rst to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the ?rst against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075
****************************************************************************************


A) OCEAN BEDS argument: Not only that the Ocean Basin/Floor is not CONVEX shaped, it is not even FLAT shaped, but CONCAVE, exactly as we would expect from something that we call A BASIN!!! Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807

B) LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html 

C) PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

D) SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329

E) GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185