ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH

1. Airey's Failure confirmed that there is no ether.
2. Star Trails rotate clockwise when looking North,  Anticlockwise when looking South.   Why you don't get this is beyond me.
3. Zigzag..  repeat after me the sun is really far away. 
4. No the moon does NOT reverse it's direction.  Whoever is telling you that is lying.

5. This is the one I asked you for several posts ago.  Try again and explain what these numbers actually are.

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/mi

I can't make head nor tail of what you are trying to show,  but some things jump out right away...

First,  you don't multiply degrees by radius to get arc length,  you have to convert to radians first.
Second,  what are you calculating  the circumference of?   

6. & 7.
Yes the earth does speed up slightly as it's orbit goes closer to the sun.   And yes it does orbit a little slower further away.   Not sure how this helps your argument.   The time from Equinox to Equinox is about the same.

8.A,B,C Yes,  but remember the air moves with us, the velocity varies with lattitude,  this generates weather patterns that are opposite in each hemisphere.  This doesn't help your argument.

INUIT argument,  the stars are a long way away,  but yes they move slightly when observed over thousands of years.

Other regurgitation of old, long debunked arguments ignored.

That's a long post covering a bunch of loosely-related (if it's related at all) topics. Let's break it up into digestible pieces.

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

The effect was orders of magnitude smaller than what Airy was expecting, due to the design of his experiment. The problem is described clearly in this paper. This was  brought to your attention seven months ago. Please stop bringing up the same old debunked arguments.

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

Several of those I'm familiar with were all looking for motion through the luminiferous Ether. They failed because the luminiferous Ether doesn't exist.

Regardless, your assertion that no experiment has detected the rotation of the Earth or its motion around the Sun is wildly incorrect.

Run-of-the-mill aircraft inertial navigation systems routinely detect the rotation of the Earth, as do other precision gyroscopes, Foucault Pendulums, gravimetry and geodesy. I think the accelerometers in common smartphones are even sensitive enough to detect the centrifugal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth, but you might want to check on that.

Planetary and stellar parallax are directly due to the motion of Earth in its path around the Sun. The current heliocentric model of the solar system explain both easily. Without that, the easily-seen apparent retrograde motion of the outer planets is very difficult or impossible to explain - remember epicycles? They never worked accurately to predict planetary motion accurately, even when allowed to become very complex, with epicycles around epicycles around epicycles...

[Edit] Fix initial quote block

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 this has been promoted back to "ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE" status again? Can you explain why you omitted the full circumpolar view from your video? Was that intentional or through ignorance? You never said.

Maybe you're confusing yourself with this left-right stuff. Facing north, the stars appear to move counterclockwise around the North Celestial pole since we're rotating clockwise, from west to east. Similarly, facing south, the stars appear to move clockwise around the South Celestial Pole[nb]Rayzor swapped the two directions, but is otherwise right. Why cikljamas has so much difficulty understanding this is beyond me, too. It seems like he goes out of his way to make this as confusing as possible, and succeeds mainly in thoroughly confusing only himself.[/nb]; we turned around, remember, so west to east rotation is now counterclockwise from our point of view. This is exactly what your video showed, even though you failed to include the half of the northern circumpolar sky that contained the right-to-left star motion you expected but then said didn't exist.

-- 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?

This still makes no sense whatsoever. How would stars "give out their trails in front of them"? The stars don't have trails - those are an artifact of long exposure photos[nb]or the simulation of long exposure by combining shorter-exposure frames.[/nb], but the trails exist in the photos only where the image of the stars have been - not where they are going to be.

The question is: why do you think the stars are moving in a way that is inconsistent with a rotating earth? They aren't.

More later... I have more important (and interesting) things to do for now.
 

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)!!!

Only if the Sun were nearby relative to the size of the Earth, which it's not. Because the Sun is not nearby, your argument is incorrect.

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

Your argument is rotten at the core, then. The zigzag phenomenon doesn't exist because the Sun is too far away for it to have any significance whatsoever. It's really as simple as that.

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

You can stress it until you're blue in the face; you'll still be wrong. The heliocentric model explains all this quite easily. Maybe one day you'll figure this out, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

Your saying this doesn't make it true. The earth-centered universe has too many problems - apparent retrograde motion of the planets just for starters - to be viable at all. To be the only plausible model, first it has to be plausible, so, fail. The current HC model accounts for all that and much more, very elegantly.

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),

No, you're confused again. For one thing, this is an entirely different argument.

Let's say you stand on the Arctic Circle at the summer solstice facing north for a full day, starting at your local solar noon. The Sun is behind you moving from your right (east) to your left (west). Six hours later, the Sun will be on your left, and move from behind you to in front, and from your left to your right (same as those star trails below the pole). At your local solar midnight, it skims the horizon directly in front of you from your left to your right, and slowly rises and continues this direction until it goes behind you six hours later. After that, it continues moving behind you from your right to your left to its starting point the following solar noon six hours later. If you're north of the Sun and facing it, it moves from your left to your right, always. If you are turned so that you're facing away from it, it moves (behind you) from your right to your left. Note that the Sun continues in the same direction across the sky regardless the direction you're looking, but the "handedness" it moves relative to you changes when you turn around.

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.

It's no different whether you're turning along with the Earth, and the Sun is fixed, or if the Earth is fixed and the Sun is circling. You can't tell from this alone.

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 [behind you], AND SECOND HALF OF THE CIRCLE FROM YOUR LEFT HAND TOWARDS YOUR RIGHT HAND!!!!!

This, by itself, is inconclusive. It's the same in both systems. We have to rely on other ways to tell who is stationary and who is accelerating.

The other ways say the Earth is spinning. From a couple of posts ago, we have

Run-of-the-mill aircraft inertial navigation systems routinely detect the rotation of the Earth, as do other precision gyroscopes, Foucault Pendulums, gravimetry and geodesy. I think the accelerometers in common smartphones are even sensitive enough to detect the centrifugal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth, but you might want to check on that.

Not to mention that the Sun must be quite distant since there's no appreciable change in apparent size even though you're thousands of miles closer to it at one point than another.

Add this to the refuted list. You really need to go easy with the "ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE" crap. This is too easy to debunk, and these unwarranted superlatives just make you look silly.

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

I'll see your link and raise you:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719721#msg1719721

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?

The only response you gave to this question was a couple of irrelevant and inane animated gifs.

So, what are you getting at?

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

I, too, am baffled about what this is supposed to mean. What do those angles represent? Why multiply them (and 113.4) by 96 km (60 statute miles)?

Whatever it is, it's not convincing at all. It looks like you're bashing random numbers together and hoping to come up with something (but... what?)

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

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652962#msg1652962

That's the very next post in the thread. Why do you refer back to these posts that have been answered and debunked long ago?

You seem to forget that the Equation of Time is a problem for you, not for the heliocentric model, which explains it quite elegantly.

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.

Why the pagan (Celtic?) names for those dates? What is special about them? Why is Jan 3 closer to Feb 2 (30 days) in the drawing than Dec 23 (11 days) is? Why is Aug 1 closer to Jul 3 (33 days) than Jul 3 is to Jun 23 (10 days)? You only spray painted 266 days of the year. What about the other 99?

In other words, WTF is this supposed to mean? I have no clue.

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!

You seem to forget that the Sun moves across the sky slowest (SLOW SUN!!) when the Earth moves fastest in its orbit.[nb]This is because the Earth rotates the same direction as its orbital motion. If you don't see why, go back and review the CWRU diagram provided earlier.[/nb] This may seem counterintuitive at first, but makes sense when you think about it. Try to spend more time thinking about this stuff and less time doctoring pictures in really loopy ways and pontificating. It will prove more productive.
 

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?

Yes, but this doesn't mean what you probably think it does.

Of course it is not reality^{[Citation needed]}, 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.

Negatory, good buddy! The apparent motion of celestial bodies is due to the change in angle between the line from the center of the Earth to you (which defines "up" and "down"), and the line from the center of the Earth to the object, which steadily changes due to earth's rotation (which is 360° in a day, regardless of what your latitude is, even at the pole), not the distance traveled (which is negligible compared with the distance to any celestial body).

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?

Nope, but the atmosphere is not independent from earth's daily rotation, so the question is moot.

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

No, if the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would exactly zero. That's what "along with" means, after all. The air is moving right along with with the ground, remember. Since the difference is zero, there is no flow. Why is this hard to grasp?

The difference in circumferential velocities at different latitudes does cause Coriolis effects which are commonly seen in large-scale weather systems, and these are more evidence the Earth is rotating.

Why'd you stop numbering your points?

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

Too many links. This website is too slow. Didn't read. I presume these are all yours, and if they're like the others you've cited here, they're chock full o' errors.

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.

Wrong. If we take, for illustration, the extreme case where the earth's axis was tilted so far that the Sun could be overhead as far as the poles, then when it was over one of the poles, the entire opposite hemisphere would receive zero sunlight, and be in darkness, while the near hemisphere would receive all the sunlight. That would be a major change in seasons. As it is, with the axis tilted "only" 23.5°, at the solstices, one hemisphere receives a disproportionate share of sunlight compared to the other. This causes the seasons.

Seriously, this is grade-school stuff. Did you sleep through your entire time in school?

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)^{[wanna bet?]} 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

Nah... this oversimplified scenario ignores two major points.

1) Weather systems and ocean currents on the real Earth tend to even out the uneven heat distribution somewhat.

2) More importantly - while the southern hemisphere gets its most concentrated sunlight at the time the Earth is also closest to the Sun, the Sun is south of the Equator correspondingly less time, because the Earth is moving in its orbit fastest when it's closest to the Sun. For example, the recent equinoxes were September 23nd, 2014 02:29 am UTC, March 20th, 2015 10:45 pm UTC, and September 23rd, 2015 8:20 am UTC[nb]http://www.observingstars.com/equinoxes_solstices.htm[/nb]. In that period the Sun was north of the Equator for 186d 9h 35m and it was south of the Equator for 178d 20h 16m, a difference of 7d 13h 19m[nb]Thank you, Excel.[/nb], or about 4%. Roughly the difference in the intensity.

INUIT ARGUMENT :

If the position of the Sun has changed so significantly due to the shift of the Earth's axis^{[Citation needed]}, then it must be the case with the stars, also.

Do you have any evidence that the position of the Sun has changed significantly, or did you just "hear it somewhere"?

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)!!!

If the Earth's tilt had changed. Do you have any evidence that it has? Precession is a well-known change in the direction of the axis, but it's amount of tilt doesn't change due to that. Other effects, such as nutation do affect the angle of tilt slightly, but are significantly smaller.

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

No, it's not, and no, they don't. Polaris lies close to the axis of rotation (which is what the stars do appear to rotate around) now, but is not on it, and the axis will get slightly closer to Polaris for the next few decades, then start to move away due to precession. Since Polaris is currently about 0.75° from the pole, it traces an arc in the sky about three times the diameter of the Moon each day. Further, Polaris hasn't always been as close to the Celestial Pole anyway. About 3000 years BCE, Thuban, a moderately bright star in Draco was even closer to the NCP than Polaris is now or will be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession for more information.

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!

That's an interesting idea, but it's wrong. The Sun moves across the sky slightly slower than the stars simply because we're orbiting around it. Period.

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^{[Citation needed]}.

Precession doesn't affect the tilt of the Earth's axis wrt the ecliptic, just the direction.

... more later.
 

I have never seen so much stupidity in one place. Alpha, you must have been totally drunk while you were writing these utterly stupid posts! I would have never expected so much bullshit from you, but of course, no one can be heliocentrist and a sane person in the same time, so no marvel that whatever you say (regarding astronomy) is utter stupidity, that is absolutely logical, after all. Goodby Alpha! I wish you the best life!

I have never seen so much stupidity in one place. Alpha, you must have been totally drunk while you were writing these utterly stupid posts! I would have never expected so much bullshit from you, but of course, no one can be heliocentrist and a sane person in the same time, so no marvel that whatever you say (regarding astronomy) is utter stupidity, that is absolutely logical, after all. Goodby Alpha! I wish you the best life!

So,  Alpha2Omega  points out logical flaws and factual errors in your arguments  ( and there are too many to count ),  you response predictably is to resort to insults, and run away.   Fly back to the flock. 

I'll ask again... 

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

Before you go,  please explain what this was supposed to prove?

I have never seen so much stupidity in one place. Alpha, you must have been totally drunk while you were writing these utterly stupid posts! I would have never expected so much bullshit from you, but of course, no one can be heliocentrist and a sane person in the same time, so no marvel that whatever you say (regarding astronomy) is utter stupidity, that is absolutely logical, after all. Goodby Alpha! I wish you the best life!

Does this mean you aren't even going to try to defend your claims? I'm fine with that.

I'll answer the rest of them soon. Have a nice day!

Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?

This is getting stale. You already asked this six months ago and had it answered. The answer hasn't changed.

Quote from: cikljamas on March 22, 2015, 08:41:21 AM

Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?

Because they have no reason to. The heliocentric model explains and predicts what we see very reliably and accurately; it beats every other model by 1.61 km. It certainly beats yours, which can't even explain daily phenomena like sunsets.

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:

<quotes out of context>

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.

Again, from the same reply...

Quote from: cikljamas on March 22, 2015, 08:41:21 AM

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words.

<several quotes taken out of context>

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment.

Your calling the heliocentric model of the solar system dogma doesn't mean it is. The meaning of 'dogma' in the pejorative way you apply it is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds." This clearly doesn't apply because there are very adequate grounds in the form of centuries of carefully-made and recorded observations and accurate predictions, including interplanetary spacecraft trajectories. A scientist who proposes using another model would be expected to demonstrate how this other model fits the things we already see, measure, and accurately predict (things like retrograde apparent motion of the planets, orientation of the rings of Saturn, stellar parallax, etc.) better or more simply. If the answer is "I just know", then his "cred" in the scientific community would, justifiably, suffer.

Quote

As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

If textbooks say something that is clearly at odds with what can be seen and experienced it will be noticed by enough people to be questioned. "The masses", by which you obviously mean "everybody who does not agree (perhaps secretly) with me", are not as universally stupid as you think they are.

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

The very next post after that one from more than half a year ago are where those quotes included here came from. Why are you bringing this old crap up again? Bored? Did you think the answers would be different?

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

Again, already answered:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650512#msg1650512

In short, the ocean floors are convex - they're about parallel to a convex datum. When plotted as depth below datum (datum is a straight line), the ocean basins are, of course, concave upward. Nothing new to see here, folks.

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

If anyone wants to look at any of these and summarize them here, that would be nice. Be advised that the stuff cikljamas posts on energeticforum makes no more sense than what he posts here, so it's likely a waste of time.

.

The 8" times distance in miles squared approximation works pretty well up to a distance of a few hundred miles. After that, it breaks down and a more accurate formula is needed. One mistake most flat-earthers make when determining when something should not be visible is to ignore the distance from F to the tangent point - the distance from observer to horizon due to the height, EF, of the observation in the figure above. You need to calculate this distance from height EF, and then the remaining distance from the tangent point to object separately.

The whining in the second paragraph of the narrative, about the direction to measure from the object to the reference level, sounds incorrect since heights are measured radially out from the center of the circle, rather than straight down the page (which has no physical meaning on the Earth), but since it's referring to a different figure (Fig. 11) than the one shown[nb]Or, "shewn", to use a quaint Rowbothamism.[/nb] (Fig. 14), it's kind of hard to tell. This really doesn't amount to much difference if the distances are kept to a few hundred miles or less, anyway, where the approximation is reasonably good, anyway.
 

1) Motion is Relative.  Like if a stationary person is watching a car go by at 60 mph vs being inside the car watching the person go by at 60 mph. The motion is relative to your reference point that can be swapped or changed.

2) If you spin a basketball (sphere) on your finger, your finger defines the S. Pole. If you look from above the ball, you will see the N. Pole. The N. and S. Poles define the axis of spin of the ball. This is what it looks like to a stationary person with the ball spinning.  If the ball is stationary (swapping/changing the reference point), the person and world appear to be rotating around the ball. Both views are absolutely correct. The person and world appear to spin around the N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) that are extensions in the sky of the N. and S. Poles on the sphere. The NCP and SCP are the 2 points in the sky that everything appears to spin around (the center of the star trails).

3) A disk is a sphere that has been squished a lot. Everything in (2) totally applies to a disk but... You can ONLY see the SCP from the edge or bottom of the disk.  You CAN NOT see it from the top of the disk!!  A picture of star trails around the SCP taken from the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia in the S. Atlantic (lat -54.3667, long -36.5333) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/) would be impossible from a disk. Furthermore, the SCP in the S. Georgia Island image is 54 degrees up, which corresponds EXACTLY where it should be on a sphere earth.  This in essence disproves a Flat Earth model - irrefutably.

4) ANY arguments of what you can/can't, will/won't see from any place on the Earth (sphere or flat) can be demonstrated easily and directly.  All you need is a globe (sphere), a bicycle wheel (disk), cell phone and like Silly Putty.  Simply set the cell phone on Movie mode to take like 10 sec movies. Then, using the Silly Putty, put the cell phone anywhere you want on the globe or disk (e.g. N. Pole (+90 deg), Arctic circle (+66.6 deg), equator, South Georgia Island (-54 deg), S. Pole (-90 deg)) and at any angle you want (vertical, horizontal, whatever).  Then, start the movie and simply spin the globe/wheel back and forth.  You will see what will appear in the sky to a person standing at that place on the sphere/disk looking up at that angle. No guessing. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".