How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?

  • 62 Replies
  • 16075 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« on: February 25, 2016, 07:11:40 AM »
I HATE TO DO THIS (since this is not in favor of Flat Earth Theory), BUT I HAVE TO do that no matter what consequences might follow from this :

QUESTION :

How did they know?

Appropriate since it's the centennial of Amundsen's arrival...

First, how did Amundsen know he'd reached the south pole? As you describe, the magnetic pole is far away so a magnetic compass wouldn't help. I looked up gyro compass but it doesn't seem to imply it was used to navigate to either pole (doesn't mention being used by Peary, Scott or Amundsen) and it was a fairly new gadget in 1911, by the sound of it. And Scott must have used the same method or trusted that Amundsen's flag was on the right spot.

Second, by what "time zone" (they had been in use for a couple of decades by 1911) did Amundsen run his expedition? New Zealand time? December 14 by his time, but still December 13 by the western hemisphere time zones.

Third, how did these early explorers navigate back out to the coast without getting lost? I'd expect the wind to obscure their footprints, so did they leave sticks in the ice every few miles and watch for them? Are there distinctive landmarks... or is the mountain range they crossed visible at the pole?

ANSWER :

In terms of knowing whether you're at the south pole, with 1911 technology, I think the best bet would be looking at the angle of the sun. When you are at the exact South Pole, the sun's height above the horizon doesn't change throughout the day, since you are at the exact axis of rotation (well, there would be tiny motion due to the seasons, but very small). So you could measure the angle of the sun above the horizon several times a day, and when you get the same measure each time, voila!

Using such a technique, Amundsen's team of expert navigators took repeated rounds of measurement, getting a little closer to the pole each time. While there is always uncertainty in any scientific measurement, upon his return, he submitted his data for verification and the conclusion was that he had gotten within half a mile of the actual geographic south pole. Not bad!

WIKI :

On 8 December the Norwegians passed Shackleton's Farthest South record of 88° 23′.[132] As they neared the pole, they looked for any break in the landscape that might indicate another expedition had got there ahead of them. While camped on 12 December they were momentarily alarmed by a black object that appeared on the horizon, but this proved to be their own dogs' droppings off in the distance, magnified by mirage.[133] Next day they camped at 89° 45′ S, 15 nautical miles (28 km) from the pole.[134] On the following day, 14 December 1911, with the concurrence of his comrades Amundsen travelled in front of the sledges, and at around 3 pm the party reached the vicinity of the South Pole.[135] They planted the Norwegian flag and named the polar plateau "King Haakon VII's Plateau".[136] Amundsen later reflected on the irony of his achievement: "Never has a man achieved a goal so diametrically opposed to his wishes. The area around the North Pole—devil take it—had fascinated me since childhood, and now here I was at the South Pole. Could anything be more crazy?"[137]

For the next three days the men worked to fix the exact position of the pole; after the conflicting and disputed claims of Cook and Peary in the north, Amundsen wanted to leave unmistakable markers for Scott.[138] After taking several sextant readings at different times of day, Bjaaland, Wisting and Hassel skied out in different directions to "box" the pole; Amundsen reasoned that at least one of them would cross the exact point.[139] Finally the party pitched a tent, which they called Polheim, as near as possible to the actual pole as they could calculate by their observations. In the tent Amundsen left equipment for Scott, and a letter addressed to King Haakon which he requested Scott to deliver.[139]
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 07:13:11 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2016, 10:13:04 AM »
2. I would think they used whatever timezone they were in when they arrived at the coast. 
3. Perhaps they navigated using the same method they used to reach the pole.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2016, 10:39:58 AM »
Iguess they used a sextant. It is easy to determine your latitude.

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2016, 01:55:39 PM »
A sextant cannot be used on land, the sea horizon is needed tot determineren the single.

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2016, 02:14:00 PM »
A sextant cannot be used on land, the sea horizon is needed tot determineren the single.

Not necessarily.

An artificial horizon is useful when the horizon is invisible, as occurs in fog, on moonless nights, in a calm, when sighting through a window or on land surrounded by trees or buildings. Professional sextants can mount an artificial horizon in place of the horizon-mirror assembly. An artificial horizon is usually a mirror that views a fluid-filled tube with a bubble.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 24905
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2016, 03:31:58 PM »
Iguess they used a sextant. It is easy to determine your latitude.
No need to guess, go read all about it! Yes, Amundsen did use sextants and Scott used theodolites, which are more accurate, but heavier than sextants.

As noted elsewhere, on land a sextant can use a reflective artificial horizon, which doubles the angle read.

Best read up on it yourself in http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html. Here is a little bit:
Quote from: Amundsen's original South Pole Station
Roald Amundsen arrived in the general vicinity of Pole on the afternoon of 14 December 1911, traveling from grid south (he was using the local time of Framheim, which would have been approximately GMT-11; some accounts, including Amundsen's original field notes, use time on the west side of the Date Line which Scott was using, this would make the date 15 December). When their sledge meters indicated they should be at the right place, they stopped at the location marked "Sledge" on the map at right (from The South Pole) to determine their position more accurately from sun shots.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2016, 06:13:39 AM »
1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up! In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

On top of that :

A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-3) THE FINAL BLOW : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-4)  STAR-TRAILS argument (against the rotation of the earth) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-5) THE SUN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

B) Can anyone disprove RAIL GUN argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - THE FINAL NAIL IN RE COFFIN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

C) Can anyone disprove UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS argument (against the curvature of the earth)?
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 1 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

D) Can you disprove GYRO argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

E) Can anyone disprove that all the water on the earth always finds it's own LEVEL?
F) Can you disprove that there are no adjustments for the curvature of the earth when building canals, bridges, tunnels, railways etc...?

G) Can you disprove that if the earth rotated we would never be able to reach any eastern destination by flying in a direction (WEST-EAST) of the supposed rotation of the earth because the rotation of the earth would be faster than most airplanes? Can you disprove that aviation wouldn't work on a spinning globe? - Flat Earth - AVIATION & SEA LEVEL - part II : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

H) Can you disprove that the horizon is always flat no matter how high we fly? - FLAT EARTH VIEW FROM 317 000  FEET - 96 KM (NASA FOOTAGE) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I) Can you disprove that rocket men (Don Quixote) don't take into account the rotation of the earth hypothesis or the supposed curvature of the earth when lunching long range missiles?
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 1 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

J) Can you disprove ALBATROS ARITHMETIC argument (Mutiny on the Bounty)? - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 06:15:17 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2016, 09:57:20 AM »
In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
It's not a "hotspot", it's a reflection, and I see you don't realize the difference between jumping around with the camera in a hallway vs the balloon being somewhat stationary and simply aiming around.  I also see you haven't figured out how to add text to an image and make it readable.  Add in someone else playing with angles, with no explanation of what they're doing, so long as they come up with a number you're looking for.  You have no proof here Cikl.

Quote
On top of that :
I take it you don't like the way your thread is going, so (as usual) you're going to derail it with multiple pointless arguments.

Quote
A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-3) THE FINAL BLOW : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-4)  STAR-TRAILS argument (against the rotation of the earth) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-5) THE SUN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">



1.  Your zigzag bull-mess has been proven false already.
2.  see above
3.  I didn't watch this yet.
4.  Proven false.  You don't understand the differences in time-lapse, long exposure, and image stacking.
5.  It remains the same size between noon and sunset (with the exception of severe smoke or dust conditions).  Use a #12-14 welding lens or telescope sun filter instead of some idiot's footage of it going behind more pollution, clouds, and overexposed settings.

Not much point in going over anything else.  You usually don't read and comprehend replies anyway.

One tip however regarding your videos.... pick "a" subject, make the text readable when added to images, get to the point.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2016, 10:21:28 AM »
One tip however regarding your videos.... pick "a" subject, make the text readable when added to images, get to the point.

My point is this : put your money on the table or just shut up! (regarding ZIGZAG argument)
As for the final answer regarding the shape of the earth i still think that the earth is flat or flattish (and i can stand for that with 98 % certainty), but until i am not 100 % sure, i won't bet on it. As for the immobility of the earth issue i am 100 % sure that the earth is stationary, and i am ready to bet on that (anytime) with you or with anyone else in the world. So what is going to be, will you shut up already or you will put your money on the table?
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2016, 12:18:54 PM »
Oh, dear... after that first post, which was factually correct and reasonably coherent, I see the ol' zig-zag and geocentric-universe-static-flat-earth nonsense again.

Well, welcome back, anyway, cikljamas.

1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
Being convinced you're right and actually being right are entirely different things.

Quote
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round
Very true, although saying there are  "some" reasons is very much an understatement.

Quote
but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h.
Well, there's another possibility: the Earth is spinning and, in this system, the Sun would only have to complete one full circle around the Earth YEARLY. In that case, the orbital speed of the Sun (using your numbers) would be "only" 3,582 km/hr. Not that this really makes any difference.

Further, the spinning Earth also explains nicely the observed cosine of latitude term when reconciling observed variations of the strength of gravity at Earth's surface. The sheer variety of different types of observations, all elegantly explained by the simple conclusion that the globe is spinning, is what makes that such a compelling conclusion. The assumption that the Earth is entirely static and the entire Universe whirls around it may be comforting to you, but, as you see, quickly produces many difficult-to-accept results.

Quote
In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up!
By George, he's got it!! It makes much more sense for the Earth to be orbiting around the Sun than the other way around. That (and other reasons) is why the Geocentric model has fallen completely out of favor (except for a few people with suspect reasoning skillz on the fringe).

Quote
In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Once again, since these things end up as a complete waste of time, can you just spell out your argument without making another useless youtube video?

Quote
On top of that :

A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


Most recently on the whole zig-zag nonsense:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1720290;topicseen#msg1720290

Follow the thread backwards for more.

Quote
<lots 'n' lots of more o' the same as always>
Can you please describe at least the gist of the videos here? I've found without exception that the youtube links you post are a complete waste of time.

Quote
K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).
I can't argue with this. The Earth is obviously spherical; what you conclude from that vis-ā-vis God and the Bible is your own business.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 24905
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2016, 04:40:43 PM »
. . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . stacks of biased inflammatory material . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).
  • What on earth are you posting a diatribe like this in a thread on
    HOW AMUNDSEN KNEW HE WAS ON THE SOUTH POLE?
    Yes, I know it is your thread and I guess we should have seen the trap!
  • You post pages of material "supported" by you videos, most so easily debunked it is laughable, but there is so much of it that it becomes a marathon effort for anyone to take it on!
I will try to tackle bits of it, but
why not go make a thread with this topic, instead of starting with a completely unrelated one.

So, on with the Motley, as they say in the classics:
In you (K) you claim "NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC)"

Well I guess you have set yourself against 99% of Christians (though admittedly many do not question either way).

You would, I think, have consider the site url=http://creation.com/[/url] to be a very conservative group, yet in
 http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism they say:

Quote from: Jerry Bergman
The flat-earth myth and creationism
The idea that Christians once commonly believed in a flat earth for theological reasons is a myth. The story was invented to promote the claim that Christians have widely resisted scientific advancement due to doctrinal constraints. A major motivating factor behind propagating this myth has been to bolster the Darwinian worldview and to further the goal of displacing the biblical worldview. No evidence exists to support the common claim that scientists were once persecuted for opposing the flat-earth belief or advocating the spherical earth view, which has been commonly accepted for millennia.

Your saying that you "HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC)"
shows the type of person you are and NOTHING about you material.

*

rabinoz

  • 24905
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2016, 06:01:14 PM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D) Can you disprove GYRO argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes, easily! It's just long and tedious.
The whole video is too much for one post, but I will simply state this:
The Toy Gyroscopes (even the aircraft ones) are simply NOT stable enough to show the rotation of the earth! More on this later.

I will comment on the Aircraft Attitude Indicator and Gyroscopic Compasses here.
  • Aircraft Attitude Indicators
    Have you ever investigated HOW an aircraft attitude indicator really works
    and not just a training video for rookie pilots?

    I would suggest that this would be a good move BEFORE you start making pronouncements and a video. You could look up one of the numerous references, because many pilots ask a similar questions.
    Look in here:http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16376/how-are-attitude-indicators-kept-accurate
    Quote
    "A gyroscopic AI has an erection mechanism, which continuously corrects the AI to be upright based on the local level, or downward acceleration vector. The correction rate is generally 3-5 degrees per minute. The way that the AI corrects itself is a system of pendulous vanes. When the gyro is not upright relative to the local level, centrifugal force pushes open vanes on the gyro's case. Air escapes through the uncovered holes, applying a force to the case, and correcting for precession.
    This is shown in:

    Note that modern instruments are fully "solid state", but operate in a similar way.
    Quote
    The second half is somewhat counter-intuitive, but flying in a coordinated turn will not continuously increase the error in the AI. For the first half of the turn, the AI will add error; in the second half, it removes the error. After a 360 degree turn, the precession error will be removed completely.
    Note the important feature is the explanation:
    Quote
    corrects the AI to be upright based on the local level, or downward acceleration vector. The correction rate is generally 3-5 degrees per minute.

  • Aircraft Gyro Compass
    Aircraft also have a Gyro Compass. This is simply to stabilise the reading of the magnetic compass from variations due to aircraft maneuvering. The Aircraft Gyro Compass provides no long term direction reference.

  • Marine Gyro Compass
    See in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass
    Quote
    A gyrocompass is a type of non-magnetic compass which is based on a fast-spinning disc and rotation of the Earth (or another planetary body if used elsewhere in the universe) to automatically find geographical direction. Although one important component of a gyrocompass is a gyroscope, these are not the same devices; a gyrocompass is built to use the effect of gyroscopic precession, which is a distinctive aspect of the general gyroscopic effect. Gyrocompasses are widely used for navigation on ships, because they have two significant advantages over magnetic compasses:
    they find true north as determined by Earth's rotation, which is different from, and navigationally more useful than, magnetic north, and
    they are unaffected by ferromagnetic materials, such as ship's steel hull, which change the magnetic field
    Be a bit tough getting a Marine Gyro Compass to work on a stationary earth!
    And no, NASA had nothing to do with their development!
    See in: http://www.raytheon-anschuetz.com/company/history/
    Quote
    A Pioneer in Navigation Technology
    Around the turn of the 20th century a classic problem of high-seas navigation was reliable course-keeping, especially near the poles. Since the magnetic compass does not work properly near a pole, the young Dr. Hermann Anschütz-Kaempfe was obsessed with finding a suitable course-keeping instrument and concentrated on locating the geographical north direction with the help of a gyro. In 1904 he invented the world's first gyro compass which could be used on board a ship. This was the starting point for a history full of maritime innovations and - for the history of Raytheon Anschütz.
By the way there are now "ring laser gyroscopes" that can easily measure the earth's rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser#Practical_rings (I used Wiki for a low level discussion!)
Quote
Currently ring lasers are used most frequently as gyroscopes (ring laser gyroscope; (figure 2)) in moving vessels like cars, ships, planes, and missiles. The world's largest ring lasers can detect details of the Earth's rotation.
It really would be a good idea for you to learn about your topics before spouting forth!

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2016, 04:57:44 AM »
The concept is NOT that the earth is Flat per se....BUT that it is laid out in a horizontal plane & NOT in a sphere. ( Heliocentric ) Of course the earth has elevation etc ( mountains ) ....but WHEN ANY demonstrations of proving a natural curvature of the earth ( by lining up points of reference - and in doing so - IF the earth was a sphere, ANY absolute straight line - would by using common sense, show natural drop off curvature - ( Earth radius of 3,959 mi) - == Natural Drop off to accomodate the earths curvature would be approx over a distance of 10 miles = 66 feet - rising exponentially 1000ft over a distance of 40 miles - This has NEVER been proved to happen in any test ( building railway lines - Canals etc - ALL have been built NEVER having to take the Earths curvature into consideration - as it doesnt exist. We live on a flat plane - not on a spinning ball.

But any way I don"t ignore the physics, Science, or the geometry. I don't ignore God either.

Isaiah 44:24 ..... I AM THE LORD who made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens,who "spread abroad" the earth by Myself.

Definition of spread abroad = Flatten

Genesis 1: 16 .... God made "two" lights the sun, and the moon and

Joshua 10:12 .... God stopped those two lights, and thousands reported it Not just in the Bible either..all the ancient cultures recorded the event.

The Reason it takes 3 years and over 50,000 miles to Circumnavigate Antarctica? Job 26:10....He hath COMPASSED the Waters with BOUNDS, until the Day and Night come to an END.......... there are over 50 verses referring to the sun's Circuit. (Still, Stable, Immovable)

1st Chronicles 16:30 ..... The world also shall be stable, That it Not Be Moved.

Psalm 96:10 ...... The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.

Psalm 93:1 .... The world also is established that IT CANNOT BE MOVED. Not spinning, not orbiting, not on an imaginary axes just because 500 million men say so. God says it Shall Not EVER Move.

But as Jesus said , wisdom of this world is foolishness. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Believe what ever you want.. But . He is watching, Ezekiel 1: 25, 26 .. look up and wave.

IF YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE JUST ASK AND YOU WILL GET IT!!!

UNTIL YOU ASK FOR MORE FLAT-EARTH-BIBLICAL EVIDECE READ THIS, ALSO:

All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.


It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over!

READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413

ON TOP OF THAT - FROM BOOK OF ENOCH :

18:2   I saw the cornerstone of the earth; I saw the four winds which bear the earth as well as the firmament of heaven.
18:3   I saw how the winds ride the heights of heaven and stand between heaven and earth: These are the very pillars of heaven.
18:4   I saw the winds which turn the heaven and cause the star to set -the sun as well as all the stars.
18:12   And on top of that pit I saw a place without the heavenly firmament above it or earthly foundation under it or water. There was nothing on it -not even birds -but it was a desolate and terrible place.
18:14   Then the malak said to me, “This place is the ultimate end of heaven and earth.

IN ADDITION :

CALVIN & LUTHER - QUOTES : http://i.imgur.com/HCH4g4N.jpg
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2016, 05:10:35 AM »
Read this correspondence :

---"In fact, didn't he prove that the earth rotated via the gyroscope??"

MY ANSWER :
---No, he didn't : Flat Earth and the Gyroscope Myth (by Rob Durham) - MIRROR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Gyroscope doesn't know the curve of any kind (of any degree)!!! - This is really strong argument in favor of Flat Earth, and amazingly Round Earthers have been using one similar fraudulent experiment (Foucault's pendulum), and even Foucault's another invention (a gyrosope) more than 150 years in order to prove that the earth rotates... Well, we have silenced them for good (using their own weapon)

You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours. It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
Many "astronomers" cite the Foucault pendulum experiment that was carried out in Paris in 1851 as PROOF that the earth turns. It's a pity that the NASA space program has not provided them with more recent proof.
READ MORE (you really shouldn't skip this !!!) : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881
FOURTHLY : How come they cite the FOUCAULT PENDULUM EXPERIMENT as PROOF that the earth turns INSTEAD OF one another FOUCAULT's EXPERIMENT (A GYRO EXPERIMENT) which allegedly provided us with another proof that the earth turns on it's axis?

ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075

ZIGZAG argument video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
STAR TRAILS argument video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

If the axis of the gyroscope changes its orientation to the earths surface as time goes on, the earth is most likely rotating. If the axis changes 90 degrees in 6 hours, the globe earth advocates should throw a celebration party, they have very strong evidence. But, if within that 6 hours, there is no significant change, the globe earth advocates have no choice but to give it up, or form a blind faith based religion called Globism. However, the reverse is true for flat earth advocates. What a simple but powerful evidence for one or the other.

The spinning rotor remains in it's original attitude while the gimbals and base move around it. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! This is the proof in itself that gravitation doesn't exist. So, if gravitation doesn't exist someone has to explain the mechanics (or/and the principle) of "Artificial Horizon" "adjustments" (for a supposed curvature of the earth)...The truth is that there are no adjustments in relation to the supposed curvature of the earth, because the earth is flat, otherwise we should forget about perfect functioning of today's very-frequent air traffic, super sonic jets and an aviation as a whole...

1. The best proof that the so called "Earth Rate Correction" is a notorious hoax is the ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT that the earth is at rest. I repeat : ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT!!!

2. The true (hidden) meaning (which is of a great importance regarding the essence of our discussion) of "a cross check procedure" in an airplanes is this : All the instruments which pilots use for their (blind) orientation in the cockpit of an airplane are totally independent devices, so that they can rely on other instruments in the case of emergency (if certain failure in functioning of any particular instrument in the cockpit of an airplane occurred)!

3. If the earth were a globe VSI data would NEVER match Artificial Horizon indications!!! In a very short period of time (within a few seconds - depending on the speed of the aircraft) any attempt to fly STRAIGHT AND LEVEL would be obstructed in a following manner : Artificial Horizon would permanently indicate that an aircraft is climbing up, although VSI would never show any change at all, since there would be no difference in air pressure while aircraft SOMEHOW manages to maintain the same altitude!!! In other words Artificial Horizon would be of no use whatsoever!!!

4. IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a gyroscope is set SPINNING ON THE EQUATOR with its spinning axis horizontal in an EAST and WEST direction it will appear to make one revolution a day about an axis at right angles to the spinning axis.

At the end of 12 hours the gyroscope would appear to have reversed ends, though actually it would continue to point just as it did at the start, only the earth would have made a half revolution.

Also, IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a spinning gyroscope WERE CARRIED AROUND the earth along a north and south meridian, passing over the two poles, it would constantly change its angle so that the horizontal spinning axis would always be at right angles to a vertical line from the earth's center.

Had heliocentrist's claim(s) been right they would have demonstrated a long ago A GYRO PROOF for the rotation of the earth by performing an experiment which we could call : "A GYROSCOPE AT THE EQUATOR experiment". Quite suitable name for such a decisive proof for the alleged rotation of the earth (wouldn't you say?) : http://i.imgur.com/ovEAXPW.jpg

I am absolutely sure that they would have
even installed at the EQUATOR(long time ago)
one big gyroscope made out of pure gold
which would  permanently (EVERY DAY)
make one revolution a day about an axis
at right angles to the spinning axis of
the spinning earth-globe, so that everyone
in the world can visit (at least once
in his/her lifetime) HC sanctum where
such a perfect proof  for the rotation of the
earth hypothesis would be at disposition
24 hours a day to every single flat earther
who would ever dare to doubt that the
earth spins like a hell since the first day
of creation.

THE FLAT EARTH - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Ibrahim Muņoz
I used to run tests on gyros for the C-5 and C-141 airplanes in the military. The tests usually ran for 4 hours. I had to make sure it could stay precise an all the axes. (Pitch Yaw and Roll) there was only one allowance made for the rotation of the earth. 15 degrees for every hour. Now this only affects the heading in terms of longitude position . But , there was NEVER I mean NEVER any mention or allowance for pitch or altitude adjustment for the curvature of the earth. If a plane is going 500 MPH, after a1/2 an hour it would have traveled 250 miles. That means the plane would be 7.89 miles higher. Those gyros are very sensitive and precise. This is proof the earth is flat. For me that is the final nail in the coffin for round earth?


Ibrahim Muņoz
+Rab Downunder The gyros I worked on were in a vacuum case and they sat on a fixed place in the plane. There was nothing to correct except for the 15 degrees per hour of the earths supposed "rotation". This is related to longitude position or East west movement in relation to magnetic north. For coordinated turns and smooth flight , accelerometers are used. But these do not affect the gyro. So, as far as I remember, the gyro did not receive any correction for the curvature of the earth.?

Ecco Sabanovic
..all i can say is that, i have performed similar tests with gyro, aligned north/south and left spinning on my work desk(electrically powered) from 7AM to 3PM..no offset at all on gimbal..so if earth is spinning, offset should be visible..tests performed in Singapore which is basically equator, so if earth is indeed spinning, offset should be easy visible in 8 hr of gyro spinning here..?

********************************************

600 mph / 60 min = 10 miles/min = 66,6 feet/min = 1,11 feet/ sec = 0,33 m/sec
1500 mph (MACH 2) / 60 min = 25 miles/min = 416 feet/min = 6,9 feet/sec = 2,1 m/sec
5250 mph (MACH 7) / 60 min = 87.5 miles/min = 5104 feet/min = 85 feet/sec = 25.7 m/sec

So, i repeat the question : Now, tell me JUST HOW SLOW erection mechanism acts in an aircrafts which fly at such speeds?

The only way how erection mechanisms could produce any result whatsoever would be if the speed of their reaction were instantaneous. Flying at speed MACH 2 we would gain altitude = 6,9 feet PER SECOND!!! Flying at speed MACH 7 we would gain altitude = 447 feet PER SECOND!!! Don't you realise that there is no time for even VERY FAST reaction of your erection mechanism, let alone VERY SLOW reaction of the same mechanism!!! 447 feet PER SECOND!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! YOUR ARGUMENTATION IS HILARIOUS!!! The only way how your argumentation could have any sense at all would be if you could (inter)change the meanings of the words VERY SLOW & INSTANTANEOUS!!!

If i could give you an advice it would be something like this : Just stop embarrassing yourself more than you already did!

ICE WALL : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
**********************************************************

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, you climb up 126 meters every minute, now your erection mechanism SLOWLY (within minutes) reacts and compensates the difference in altitude, but while your erection mechanism does what it allegedly does you again and again (after every single SLOW adjustment) climb up next 126 meters. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what? If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilots in X-15 aircraft have managed not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?
ON TOP OF THAT :  How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?
*******************************************************************************

You are dodging all of my VERY IMPORTANT questions (unlike my questions, your questions are really funny and naive, and you know that for example your last question was : "When you jump up, why do you come down?" lol ...you see, there is a big difference between my questions and your questions, you can't deny that, can you?) So i am going to repeat my VERY IMPORTANT questions once again:

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, after 1 min you climb up 126 meters per minute, now your erection mechanism SLOWLY reacts and compensates this difference in altitude, but while your erection mechanism does what it does you climb up next 126 meters again. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already.

1. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what?

2. If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilot in X-15 aircraft manages not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?

3. How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?

4. How about attitude indicators embedded in i-phones, how come that these indicators perfectly match those attitude indicators equipped with erection mechanisms?

5. Artificial horizon was invented in 1929. by Jimmy Doolittle, and the first mention of a so called "erection mechanisms" took place at the end of the WWII...So, how artificial horizons had worked before someone came up with this idea?

6. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> ,should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?

**************************************************************

 blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

blk jet 9 minutes ago
+odiupicku I don't think he will answer your questions. I worked on C-141, A-10, A-7, F-117, F-16, and B-1B aircraft as well as trained on F-111 and B-52 systems. None of those aircraft had ANY pitch down commands to account for the curvature of the earth. None, Not a single one.?
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: HOW AMUNDSEN KNEW HE WAS ON THE SOUTH POLE?
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2016, 10:46:24 AM »
<So many words. So few facts.>
What do you think any of this has to do with how Amundsen navigated to and located the South Pole?

Reply is split into two parts to keep the post size [more] manageable.

Quote
Read this correspondence :

---"In fact, didn't he prove that the earth rotated via the gyroscope??"

MY ANSWER :
---No, he didn't : Flat Earth and the Gyroscope Myth (by Rob Durham) - MIRROR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Can you please make your arguments here instead of only pointing to inane youtube postings with "here... watch this"?

Quote
Gyroscope doesn't know the curve of any kind (of any degree)!!!
This much is true. So?

Quote
This is really strong argument in favor of Flat Earth
How does that follow? If it "doesn't know" about curvature at all, how can it provide anything meaningful about it?

Quote
and amazingly Round Earthers have been using one similar fraudulent experiment (Foucault's pendulum), and even Foucault's another invention (a gyrosope) more than 150 years in order to prove that the earth rotates... Well, we have silenced them for good (using their own weapon)
Something more than an empty boast about this might make it more convincing. First, it needs to be at least plausible.

Quote
You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours.
The Britannica is an excellent general-purpose encyclopedia; it's not the "final authority on all scientific matters". 

More about "proof" in science.

Quote
It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
The scientific community values models that make sense, are internally consistent, explain observations well, and produce verifiable predictions. If they're also elegant they're even more convincing. Actively pushing an obviously flawed and complicated model that still doesn't adequately explain what we see every day, much less make useful predictions, in favor of a model that is much simpler, better explains everything, and makes useful and verifiable predictions, would cast your reasoning skills into doubt - for good reason.

Quote
Many "astronomers" cite the Foucault pendulum experiment that was carried out in Paris in 1851 as PROOF[It's evidence, not proof] that the earth turns. It's a pity that the NASA space program has not provided them with more recent proof[citation needed, but see the above about proof].
READ MORE (you really shouldn't skip this !!!) : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881
FOURTHLY : How come they cite the FOUCAULT PENDULUM EXPERIMENT as PROOFevidence that the earth turns INSTEAD OF one another FOUCAULT's EXPERIMENT (A GYRO EXPERIMENT) which allegedly provided us with another proof that the earth turns on it's axis?

ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075

ZIGZAG argument video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I'll save you the search for the answer to this. The link to this video was first posted almost half a year ago by you in a thread called "ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH". Ironically, despite the rather bombastic title (even using all-caps), every point in that "argument" was easily and thoroughly refuted. Enjoy the trip down memory lane if you forgot you already tried that.

Quote
STAR TRAILS argument video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I'll save you the search for the answer to this; it's in the same thread as the above.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719316#msg1719316

Quote
If the axis of the gyroscope changes its orientation to the earths surface as time goes on, the earth is most likely rotating. If the axis changes 90 degrees in 6 hours, the globe earth advocates should throw a celebration party, they have very strong evidence. But, if within that 6 hours, there is no significant change, the globe earth advocates have no choice but to give it up, or form a blind faith based religion called Globism. However, the reverse is true for flat earth advocates. What a simple but powerful evidence for one or the other.

The spinning rotor remains in it's original attitude while the gimbals and base move around it. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!!
So it does show the Earth is spinning. Is that your point?

Quote
This is the proof in itself that gravitation doesn't exist. [???] So, if gravitation doesn't exist someone has to explain the mechanics (or/and the principle) of "Artificial Horizon" "adjustments" (for a supposed curvature of the earth)...
"If gravitation doesn't exist". Unfortunately (for you) it does exist, so there is no need to explain any of that beyond what is already available.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2016, 10:55:35 AM »
Continued...

The truth is that there are no adjustments in relation to the supposed curvature of the earth, because the earth is flat, otherwise we should forget about perfect functioning of today's very-frequent air traffic, super sonic jets and an aviation as a whole...
What adjustments do you think should be necessary? You do realize that elevation (or altitude) is measured with respect to a curved datum, don't you?

Quote
1. The best proof that the so called "Earth Rate Correction" is a notorious hoax ...
???
Quote
... is the ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT that the earth is at rest. I repeat : ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT!!!
Only in your mind.

Quote
2. The true (hidden) meaning (which is of a great importance regarding the essence of our discussion) of "a cross check procedure" in an airplanes is this : All the instruments which pilots use for their (blind) orientation in the cockpit of an airplane are totally independent devices, so that they can rely on other instruments in the case of emergency (if certain failure in functioning of any particular instrument in the cockpit of an airplane occurred)!

3. If the earth were a globe VSI data would NEVER match Artificial Horizon indications!!! In a very short period of time (within a few seconds - depending on the speed of the aircraft) any attempt to fly STRAIGHT AND LEVEL would be obstructed in a following manner : Artificial Horizon would permanently indicate that an aircraft is climbing up, although VSI would never show any change at all, since there would be no difference in air pressure while aircraft SOMEHOW manages to maintain the same altitude!!! In other words Artificial Horizon would be of no use whatsoever!!!
Don't be so sure about that. Are you a pilot or avionics tech? How familiar with these instruments and how they work are you?

Quote
4. IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a gyroscope is set SPINNING ON THE EQUATOR with its spinning axis horizontal in an EAST and WEST direction it will appear to make one revolution a day about an axis at right angles to the spinning axis.

At the end of 12 hours the gyroscope would appear to have reversed ends, though actually it would continue to point just as it did at the start, only the earth would have made a half revolution.

Also, IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a spinning gyroscope WERE CARRIED AROUND the earth along a north and south meridian, passing over the two poles, it would constantly change its angle so that the horizontal spinning axis would always be at right angles to a vertical line from the earth's center.

Had heliocentrist's claim(s) been right they would have demonstrated a long ago A GYRO PROOF for the rotation of the earth
And you would happily ignore it, as you're doing now.

In the meantime, maybe you could do it yourself... How to track the Earth’s rotation with a PlayStation Move controller. You don't even need to be at the Equator!

Quote
by performing an experiment which we could call : "A GYROSCOPE AT THE EQUATOR experiment". Quite suitable name for such a decisive proof for the alleged rotation of the earth (wouldn't you say?) : http://i.imgur.com/ovEAXPW.jpg

I am absolutely sure that they would have
even installed at the EQUATOR(long time ago)
one big gyroscope made out of pure gold
which would  permanently (EVERY DAY)
make one revolution a day about an axis
at right angles to the spinning axis of
the spinning earth-globe, so that everyone
in the world can visit (at least once
in his/her lifetime) HC sanctum where
such a perfect proof  for the rotation of the
earth hypothesis would be at disposition
24 hours a day to every single flat earther
who would ever dare to doubt that the
earth spins like a hell since the first day
of creation.

THE FLAT EARTH - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Why bother? That might be an interesting display but it would be expensive to build and to maintain, and for 99.999...% of the literate population, no further evidence is needed. For the handful of others, no evidence is sufficient. Remember the mantra of the flat earth proponent when presented with obvious evidence that he's wrong? "It's fake."

Quote
Ibrahim Muņoz
I used to run tests on gyros for the C-5 and C-141 airplanes in the military. The tests usually ran for 4 hours. I had to make sure it could stay precise an all the axes. (Pitch Yaw and Roll) there was only one allowance made for the rotation of the earth. 15 degrees for every hour. Now this only affects the heading in terms of longitude position . But , there was NEVER I mean NEVER any mention or allowance for pitch or altitude adjustment for the curvature of the earth. If a plane is going 500 MPH, after a1/2 an hour it would have traveled 250 miles. That means the plane would be 7.89 miles higher. Those gyros are very sensitive and precise. This is proof the earth is flat. For me that is the final nail in the coffin for round earth?
It's far more likely proof that whoever made this statement doesn't know all the details how these systems work and what they do.

Quote
Ibrahim Muņoz
+Rab Downunder The gyros I worked on were in a vacuum case and they sat on a fixed place in the plane. There was nothing to correct except for the 15 degrees per hour of the earths supposed "rotation". This is related to longitude position or East west movement in relation to magnetic north. For coordinated turns and smooth flight , accelerometers are used. But these do not affect the gyro. So, as far as I remember, the gyro did not receive any correction for the curvature of the earth.?
So longitude is measured with respect to magnetic north? This may be a inadvertent error by the author, or it may reveal a deeper lack of understanding of navigation in general.

Quote
Ecco Sabanovic
..all i can say is that, i have performed similar tests with gyro, aligned north/south and left spinning on my work desk(electrically powered) from 7AM to 3PM..no offset at all on gimbal..so if earth is spinning, offset should be visible..tests performed in Singapore which is basically equator, so if earth is indeed spinning, offset should be easy visible in 8 hr of gyro spinning here..?
Not if it's aligned north and south. Oops...

Quote
600 mph / 60 min = 10 miles/min = 66,6 feet/min = 1,11 feet/ sec = 0,33 m/sec
1500 mph (MACH 2) / 60 min = 25 miles/min = 416 feet/min = 6,9 feet/sec = 2,1 m/sec
5250 mph (MACH 7) / 60 min = 87.5 miles/min = 5104 feet/min = 85 feet/sec = 25.7 m/sec

So, i repeat the question : Now, tell me JUST HOW SLOW erection mechanism acts in an aircrafts which fly at such speeds?
Dunno. How about looking it up and telling us. Meanwhile, do you know what instrument the "erection mechanism" is used for? You seem confused about this.

Quote
The only way how erection mechanisms could produce any result whatsoever would be if the speed of their reaction were instantaneous[citation needed]
. Flying at speed MACH 2 we would gain altitude = 6,9 feet PER SECOND!!! Flying at speed MACH 7 we would gain altitude = 447 feet PER SECOND!!! Don't you realise that there is no time for even VERY FAST reaction of your erection mechanism, let alone VERY SLOW reaction of the same mechanism!!!
Yep... you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote
447 feet PER SECOND!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! YOUR ARGUMENTATION IS HILARIOUS!!! The only way how your argumentation could have any sense at all would be if you could (inter)change the meanings of the words VERY SLOW & INSTANTANEOUS!!!
Calm down.

Your argument might have merit if the "erection mechanism" applied to the Variometer (Vertical Speed Indicator) instead of the Attitude Indicator (artificial horizon). Oops... I gave the answer away.  :-[

Quote
If i could give you an advice it would be something like this : Just stop embarrassing yourself more than you already did!
Right back atcha!!

Quote
ICE WALL : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
**********************************************************

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, you climb up 126 meters every minute, now your erection mechanism SLOWLY (within minutes) reacts and compensates the difference in altitude, but while your erection mechanism does what it allegedly does you again and again (after every single SLOW adjustment) climb up next 126 meters. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what? If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilots in X-15 aircraft have managed not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?
ON TOP OF THAT :  How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?
*******************************************************************************

You are dodging all of my VERY IMPORTANT questions (unlike my questions, your questions are really funny and naive, and you know that for example your last question was : "When you jump up, why do you come down?" lol ...you see, there is a big difference between my questions and your questions, you can't deny that, can you?) So i am going to repeat my VERY IMPORTANT questions once again:

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, after 1 min you climb up 126 meters per minute [not if you're maintaining altitude], now your erection mechanism SLOWLY reacts and compensates this difference in altitude[citation needed]
, but while your erection mechanism does what it does you climb up next 126 meters again[citation needed]. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already[citation needed].

1. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what?
I'm saying "what?"

But wait... you knew all along that the AI was corrected for curvature. So why did you assert this earlier in your post?

Quote
any attempt to fly STRAIGHT AND LEVEL would be obstructed in a following manner : Artificial Horizon would permanently indicate that an aircraft is climbing up, although VSI would never show any change at all, since there would be no difference in air pressure while aircraft SOMEHOW manages to maintain the same altitude!!! In other words Artificial Horizon would be of no use whatsoever!!!
You might look more credible if you kept your story straight.[nb]Having a credible story to start with would be an even bigger help to your cred.[/nb]

Quote
2. If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilot in X-15 aircraft manages not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?
By maintaining the desired altitude profile.

Quote
3. How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?
It doesn't. It doesn't need to.

Quote
4. How about attitude indicators embedded in i-phones, how come that these indicators perfectly match those attitude indicators equipped with erection mechanisms[citation needed]?

5. Artificial horizon was invented in 1929. by Jimmy Doolittle, and the first mention of a so called "erection mechanisms" took place at the end of the WWII...So, how artificial horizons had worked before someone came up with this idea?
That might be interesting to look up. Why don't you do so and report back. Be advised that a lot of such developments before and during the war were secret, so no mention of them until after the end of hostilities isn't terribly surprising and by no means indicates that nobody had the idea before they were publicized.

At least you're associating it with the correct instrument now.

Quote
6. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> ,should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?
Ideally, I would expect so. Could that possibly be why they aren't used this way?

Quote
blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

blk jet 9 minutes ago
+odiupicku I don't think he will answer your questions. I worked on C-141, A-10, A-7, F-117, F-16, and B-1B aircraft as well as trained on F-111 and B-52 systems. None of those aircraft had ANY pitch down commands to account for the curvature of the earth. None, Not a single one.?
None are needed if maintaining altitude is the goal. In level flight Otto[nb]"Otto Pilot"... get it?[/nb] monitors the altimeter (or maybe VSI, or both) and adjusts as needed.
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sokarul

  • 16786
  • Discount Chemist
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2016, 04:59:21 PM »
1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up! In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

On top of that :

A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-3) THE FINAL BLOW : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-4)  STAR-TRAILS argument (against the rotation of the earth) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

A-5) THE SUN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

B) Can anyone disprove RAIL GUN argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - THE FINAL NAIL IN RE COFFIN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

C) Can anyone disprove UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS argument (against the curvature of the earth)?
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 1 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

D) Can you disprove GYRO argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

E) Can anyone disprove that all the water on the earth always finds it's own LEVEL?
F) Can you disprove that there are no adjustments for the curvature of the earth when building canals, bridges, tunnels, railways etc...?

G) Can you disprove that if the earth rotated we would never be able to reach any eastern destination by flying in a direction (WEST-EAST) of the supposed rotation of the earth because the rotation of the earth would be faster than most airplanes? Can you disprove that aviation wouldn't work on a spinning globe? - Flat Earth - AVIATION & SEA LEVEL - part II : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

H) Can you disprove that the horizon is always flat no matter how high we fly? - FLAT EARTH VIEW FROM 317 000  FEET - 96 KM (NASA FOOTAGE) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I) Can you disprove that rocket men (Don Quixote) don't take into account the rotation of the earth hypothesis or the supposed curvature of the earth when lunching long range missiles?
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 1 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

J) Can you disprove ALBATROS ARITHMETIC argument (Mutiny on the Bounty)? - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).

Still a know nothing fool I see.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 09:50:10 PM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2016, 06:19:35 PM »

My point is this : put your money on the table or just shut up! (regarding ZIGZAG argument)
As for the final answer regarding the shape of the earth i still think that the earth is flat or flattish (and i can stand for that with 98 % certainty), but until i am not 100 % sure, i won't bet on it. As for the immobility of the earth issue i am 100 % sure that the earth is stationary, and i am ready to bet on that (anytime) with you or with anyone else in the world. So what is going to be, will you shut up already or you will put your money on the table?


Bet?  I could, but why?  You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend past posts showing the flaws with your zigzag argument, why would you start doing so when money is involved?  We already know your history.  You have called others here liars in the past, but When I posted inquiring about your intentional distortion of the FE map that you were repeatedly posting, and stated that your silence would bring us to question your level of integrity, you remained silent.  That being said, why even bother betting?

Now then, you would have to prove the sun is very close to a globe Earth and not 93million miles away from a globe Earth. 

One of your videos showed a bunch of stuff being done on some graphic software that resulted in the sun being about 260,000 miles away, with no explanation about what was being done,  but even that close I don't feel there would be a zigzag effect within the arctic circle as you describe (I would have to work it out on a diagram) because as the person/camera turns to face the sun, they would still be rotating the entire time with the horizon moving across their field of view, and the horizon is only a few miles away.

(not my video.  This too is a bit on the long side, I would have explained it in a couple minutes.  Anyway, just skip to about 3:20) Zigzag debunked.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

'fixed' version of one of your diagrams


So, once again, there would be no zigzag on a globe Earth.

*edited to fix embedding.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 10:13:40 AM by 29silhouette »

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2016, 06:57:19 AM »
29silhouette, this objection would make sense only (i repeat : ONLY) if our hypothetical observer were centered on the very axis of a spherical rotating body (globe). I have explained that many times in my various ZIGZAG videos published on my primary youtube channel as well as in some additional ZIGZAG informative videos which i have published on my secondary youtube channel (" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">). So, i will repeat once more just for you : HAVE IN MIND THAT OUR HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER (OF NON-EXISTING ZIGZAG PHENOMENA) IS PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE (WHICH CIRCUMFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOZEN THOUSAND MILES), HE IS NOT CENTERED DIRECTLY AT THE NORTH POLE!!!!!!!!! So, your objection amounts to nothing! Well, after we have settled this matter i have something very interesting for you (you can consider this as a gift) :
1. FLIGHT PATHS EXPLAINED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
2. BALLOON SUCCESS : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Although, as i said before : there are some serious ASTRONOMICAL reasons which compel us to think that the earth is spherically shaped :
LEMAIRE CHANNEL - 23 DECEMBER 2015 - VIDEO 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
There must be some way out of this conundrum....
In addition : have you forgotten all these facts : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2016, 09:42:48 AM »
29silhouette, this objection would make sense only (i repeat : ONLY) if our hypothetical observer were centered on the very axis of a spherical rotating body (globe). I have explained that many times in my various ZIGZAG videos published on my primary youtube channel as well as in some additional ZIGZAG informative videos which i have published on my secondary youtube channel (" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">). So, i will repeat once more just for you : HAVE IN MIND THAT OUR HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER (OF NON-EXISTING ZIGZAG PHENOMENA) IS PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE (WHICH CIRCUMFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOZEN THOUSAND MILES), HE IS NOT CENTERED DIRECTLY AT THE NORTH POLE!!!!!!!!! So, your objection amounts to nothing!

cikljamas, we've been over this before. You're describing parallax. The amount of parallax you see depends on two factors: 1) the length of the baseline, and 2) the distance to the object you're observing.

In the case you describe, the baseline is the diameter of the Arctic Circle; call it 3200 miles. You are ignoring the distance to the Sun, which is about 93 million miles. Using these numbers, solar parallax would be about tan-1 (3200 mi / 93,000,000 mi) = .0020°, over a 12-hour period. The maximum apparent motion of the Sun due to this parallax is at local solar noon (and midnight), and the rate is 0.00026° / hour. The rotation rate of the Earth is 15° / hour, more than 50,000 times greater than the maximum rate of change of parallax. Ergo, there is no "zig-zag" due to the circumstance you describe. Instead, the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky speeds up and slows down by less than 0.002% through the day; it would not change direction, or even come close to stopping.

Can we please move on now?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2016, 11:59:15 AM »
Alpha, this is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :

1. You would make 360, not the sun, the sun wouldn't move, AND THE APPARENT MOTION OF THE SUN WOULD ZIGGING AND ZAGGING, MAKING PARALLAX (A LOOP) IN THE SKY!!! You can clearly see that loop in Rory's newest interpretation/defence of my ZIGZAG argument, and i have shown the same loop in my FIRST ZIGZAG VIDEO which i have uploaded on JANUARY 30. 2015. Watch : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">  How do you  manage not to see/understand something so simple?

2. We can obscure our orientation points (our entire environment) and we will be still able to say (very easily) from which side to which side the sun goes in the sky. Do you agree? And you know why? Because the sun makes HUGE turn in the sky! And you know why? Because the sun is very close to the earth and because the sun is very small in comparison to the earth!

3. When we go to the LEFT (and the sun goes to the RIGHT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT will go to the RIGHT, also! On the other hand when we go to the RIGHT (and the sun goes to the LEFT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT  will go to the LEFT, also. THE SHADOWS TELL US THE TRUTH, ANYWAY,  IN ANY CASE, IN BOTH MODELS!

4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn&#39;t, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg

Imagine that you observe the motion of the shadow of some object on the spinning round earth, during your LEFT to RIGHT translation (with respect to the sun) the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction, and vice versa, while you go RIGHT to LEFT the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction (LEFT to RIGHT).

So, an attempt of refutation on the basis of so called "small parallax" "counter-argument" is totally bogus and erroneous!

5. Should i repeat this once more : if you chose to try to refute my ZIGZAG argument on the basis of the "small parallax" attempt of evasion, you would instantly have to discard heliocentric explanation for the mechanics of changes (the alleged rotation of the earth) of the suns (EAST-WEST) position in the sky during the first half (12 hours) of the Polar Day. The same mechanic has to be applied during the second half of the Polar Day (WEST-EAST). HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN AVOID APPLYING THE SAME ALLEGED MECHANIC (HELIOCENTRIC CAUSE) OF SUN'S TRANSLATION IN THE SKY DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE POLAR DAY? HOW???

Alpha, i know that you are not so confused like that guy to whom i have sent above message, you are an ordinary-profesional liar. So, i have posted these words for the victims of your deliberate lies, for those who are still confused reading your disgusting, deliberate lies, not for you! Goodby!
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2016, 12:42:10 PM »
29silhouette, this objection would make sense only (i repeat : ONLY) if our hypothetical observer were centered on the very axis of a spherical rotating body (globe). I have explained that many times in my various ZIGZAG videos published on my primary youtube channel as well as in some additional ZIGZAG informative videos which i have published on my secondary youtube channel (" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">).
Once again, this video is depicting a small sun roughly 3,000 miles away from the arctic circle.  How far away is the sun in RET?  93million miles.

Quote
So, i will repeat once more just for you : HAVE IN MIND THAT OUR HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER (OF NON-EXISTING ZIGZAG PHENOMENA) IS PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE (WHICH CIRCUMFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOZEN THOUSAND MILES), HE IS NOT CENTERED DIRECTLY AT THE NORTH POLE!!!!!!!!! So, your objection amounts to nothing!
The arctic circle has a diameter of about 3200 miles.  Throughout the day that means 1600 miles to either side of the pole.  Rather simple geometry means my objection (and everyone else's) explains why there would be no zigzag with the sun distance as dictated with a globe Earth.

Quote
Well, after we have settled this matter i have something very interesting for you (you can consider this as a gift) :
1. FLIGHT PATHS EXPLAINED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
So you're saying Earth is flat and square?  Locations in far northern latitudes and far southern latitudes are much bigger than what is known in reality?  And how does a aircraft fly off one end of the Earth and appear on the other end?

Quote
2. BALLOON SUCCESS : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
And?  The center of the frame is aimed above the horizon.  Wide angle lenses make the horizon look convex when aimed low, and concave when aimed high.  The amount varies.

Quote
Although, as i said before : there are some serious ASTRONOMICAL reasons which compel us to think that the earth is spherically shaped :
Quite a few, yes, I agree.

Quote
LEMAIRE CHANNEL - 23 DECEMBER 2015 - VIDEO 2 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
There must be some way out of this conundrum....
Lemaire channel.  Beautifle place.  What about it.

Quote
In addition : have you forgotten all these facts : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902
So start a thread on them again.

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2016, 12:54:06 PM »
4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn&#39;t, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg
Now label the latitude line the observe is at, and add in the circumference of the horizon around the observer.

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2016, 09:07:18 PM »
Alpha, this is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :
Quote
bogus "small-parallax" objection
How big do you think the parallax is? Care to show your math?

Quote
1. You would make 360, not the sun, the sun wouldn't move, AND THE APPARENT MOTION OF THE SUN WOULD ZIGGING AND ZAGGING, MAKING PARALLAX (A LOOP) IN THE SKY!!! You can clearly see that loop in Rory's newest interpretation/defence of my ZIGZAG argument, and i have shown the same loop in my FIRST ZIGZAG VIDEO which i have uploaded on JANUARY 30. 2015. Watch : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">  How do you  manage not to see/understand something so simple?
I'll agree that it's a video. Nice fade-to-white transition each time you reverse the video. It has a nice piano score, too[nb]Do you have rights to distribute that music? Is it under copyright? Just wondering.[/nb].

Otherwise, it's just an unsubstantiated and incorrect visualization of "this is what I think it should look like if the earth were rotating." You never explain why the Sun would stop moving left-to-right and start moving right to left, and vice-versa, while facing it. Can you explain your reasoning? It's obvious to me that you are absolutely befuddled by this, but maybe you can clarify to others the source of your confusion, too.

Quote
2. We can obscure our orientation points (our entire environment) and we will be still able to say (very easily) from which side to which side the sun goes in the sky. Do you agree? And you know why?
Yes! To both. Thanks for asking.

Quote
Because the sun makes HUGE turn in the sky! And you know why?
Yes! I's because the Sun is far away and the Earth is rotating.

Quote
Because the sun is very close to the earth and because the sun is very small in comparison to the earth!
No. That's not it. Why do you think so?

Quote
3. When we go to the LEFT (and the sun goes to the RIGHT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT will go to the RIGHT, also!
Uh... no. This is easy to see if you will actually get away from you computer and go outside and look at the real world for a few hours. Sick a nearly vertical stake in the ground, stand (or sit) and watch the sun move to the right from east to west (presuming you're still in a mid-northern latitude) and watch the shadow move to the left, from west to east. If you'll actually watch, instead of just doing idle speculation, you will see that you're wrong.

Quote
On the other hand when we go to the RIGHT (and the sun goes to the LEFT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT  will go to the LEFT, also. THE SHADOWS TELL US THE TRUTH, ANYWAY,  IN ANY CASE, IN BOTH MODELS!
Southern hemisphere? Still works. You're still wrong.

Quote
4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn&#39;t, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg
Since the core of your zig-zag argument is a nearby sun, yes it would, whether I watch the video or not.

Can you tell me something about that video that will pique my interest? Is it any more informative than any of your other videos[nb]History suggests not, but sell me.[/nb]? Does it at least have a nice soundtrack[nb]Of secondary importance (to me, but perhaps not to the rights owner), do you have the rights to any soundtrack in this video?[/nb]? How long is it?

Quote
Imagine that you observe the motion of the shadow of some object on the spinning round earth, during your LEFT to RIGHT translation (with respect to the sun) the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction, and vice versa, while you go RIGHT to LEFT the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction (LEFT to RIGHT).
The short answer is that my translation with respect to (wrt) the Sun is insignificant because the Sun is much (tens of thousands times) further than the translation. It's my rotation wrt the Sun that matters.

Quote
So, an attempt of refutation on the basis of so called "small parallax" "counter-argument" is totally bogus and erroneous!
Nope. The translation is small because of the distances involved. The only way around this is to demonstrate convincingly that the Sun is much closer to the Earth than it actually is[nb]Good luck with that![/nb].

Quote
5. Should i repeat this once more : if you [choose] to try to refute my ZIGZAG argument on the basis of the "small parallax" attempt of evasion[?], you would instantly have to discard heliocentric explanation for the mechanics of changes (the alleged rotation of the earth) of the suns (EAST-WEST) position in the sky during the first half (12 hours) of the Polar Day. The same mechanic has to be applied during the second half of the Polar Day (WEST-EAST). HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN AVOID APPLYING THE SAME ALLEGED MECHANIC (HELIOCENTRIC CAUSE) OF SUN'S TRANSLATION IN THE SKY DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE POLAR DAY? HOW???
No need to avoid applying either. They are both simply too small to be noticed. How hard is this to understand?

You still haven't shown why solar parallax would amount to significantly more than a very tiny fraction of a degree[nb]Please don't confuse an uninformed opinion or wishful thinking with meaningful measurements. I'm interested in facts, not useless "what ifs" contrary to well-confirmed evidence.[/nb]. How about doing that before proceeding any further?

Quote
Alpha, i know that you are not so confused like that guy to whom i have sent above message, you are an ordinary-profesional liar. So, i have posted these words for the victims of your deliberate lies, for those who are still confused reading your disgusting, deliberate lies, not for you! Goodby!
Does this mean that you're reduced to ad-hom attacks again. Do you have no real arguments? It seems you don't.

You still haven't explained how any of this related to "How Amunesden [sic] knew he was on the south pole". That's the topic the thread started out about, remember? You should, you started the thread.
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2016, 07:05:01 AM »
Why i can't find at least one authentic video from the South Pole which clearly shows that the sun retains the same angle on the horizon throughout at least 6 hours during southern summer solstice?
However, I have easily found northern-summer-solstice video that has been taken at the North Pole : SUN TRACKING NORTH POLE : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Is there anyone who can provide for us video like this one (above) that has been taken from the South Pole? It should be much easier to find such a "South Pole" video since we have at least one station and many web cams at the South Pole, which is not the case at the North Pole...
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2016, 07:36:30 AM »
Why i can't find at least one authentic video from the South Pole which clearly shows that the sun retains the same angle on the horizon throughout at least 6 hours during southern summer solstice?
However, I have easily found northern-summer-solstice video that has been taken at the North Pole : SUN TRACKING NORTH POLE : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Is there anyone who can provide for us video like this one (above) that has been taken from the South Pole?

This was easy to find. It shows the Sun itself for about four hours and shadows with constant length for a full day.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">. Not the solstice, but it doesn't need to be.

Quote
It should be much easier to find such a "South Pole" video since we have at least one station and many web cams at the South Pole, which is not the case at the North Pole...

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the people making it to the North Pole are tourists; making tourist videos is what they do. Most of the people at the South pole are working; they have other responsibilities.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2016, 08:24:38 AM »
After all these years you can't find anything better than that old garbage photomontage?
How convenient this is...
Same with CGI photos of the "ball-earth" from "space"....Thousands satellites in an alleged orbit around the earth, but still NOT SINGLE ONE authentic photo of the earth from space? LoL...LoL...Lol:::
How about Gyro at the Equator experiment?
How about Gyro experiment flying in a direction NORTH - SOUTH?
How about ONE SINGLE authentic proof of the curvature of the earth in the manner of Bedford Level Experiment?
How about high-altitude balloon footage proof of the curvature of the earth?
How about the RAIL GUN argument?
How about anything AT ALL?

How about the fact that FLAT EARTH COMMUNITY have provided for us ALL of the above enumerated KINDS of proofs (except the photograph of the earth from space taken from non-existing satellites) - (Only the results of ALL these proofs are conclusively IN FAVOR OF the FLAT EARTH THEORY!!!!!!!) ???
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 08:26:58 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2016, 09:32:23 AM »
After all these years you can't find anything better than that old garbage photomontage?
You asked for a video, I provided a video. Sorry you don't like it.

Can't you do anything better than simply declaring something that clearly shows you're wrong is fake?

Quote
How convenient this is...
Same with CGI photos of the "ball-earth" from "space"....Thousands satellites in an alleged orbit around the earth, but still NOT SINGLE ONE authentic photo of the earth from space? LoL...LoL...Lol:::
Again...

Can't you do anything better than simply declaring something that clearly shows you're wrong is fake?

Quote
How about Gyro at the Equator experiment?
What about it? Have you tried the gyro experiment I provided for you in this post from a few days ago?

Quote
How about Gyro experiment flying in a direction NORTH - SOUTH?
What about it?

Quote
How about ONE SINGLE authentic proof of the curvature of the earth in the manner of Bedford Level Experiment?
Like the repeat of the BLE by a competent surveyor, which shows the expected curvature? There you go. Let me guess... "it's fake!"

Quote
How about high-altitude balloon footage proof of the curvature of the earth?
Yes, how about it? Cool, huh? Let me guess... "it's fake!"

Quote
How about the RAIL GUN argument?
Remind me what that is, again, please.

Quote
How about anything AT ALL?
See the above.

You can do your own experiments by looking over a large body of water and seeing a sharp horizon, or watching a sunset or any number of other easy-to-see phenomena. Those do require you to venture out into the real world, however, so they may be unappealing to you.

Quote
How about the fact that FLAT EARTH COMMUNITY have provided for us ALL of the above enumerated KINDS of proofs[citation needed] (except the photograph of the earth from space taken from non-existing satellites) - (Only the results of ALL these proofs are conclusively IN FAVOR OF the FLAT EARTH THEORY!!!!!!!) ???
I haven't seen anything convincing at all yet. If you have something, let's see it!

You never did say what any of this has to do with Amundsen? Don't you remember? That's what you started this thread to discuss.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2016, 10:12:36 AM »
Read.
Carefully.
Do scientists claim that there are two magnetic poles? Okay, well then someone should be able to provide evidence of a compass that points South. EVERY single compass points North. There's a reason why, look into the real meaning behind Mercator and the magnetic mountain. The distorted focus and dissonance is a result of the incorrect focus on the Antarctic, we should be looking at the North "pole".

One guy posted this question :

We've been studying magnetism in fifth grade. We want to know what will happen if you bring a compass to the South Pole. We think the needle will rotate 360 degrees multiple times because when you are at the South Pole you can go any direction and still be going north.

Another guy gave him this answer :

But what this means for your question is that if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction.

Guess what...This answer is wrong...Geometrically impossible!!! Isn't it?
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2016, 12:05:36 PM »
Read.
Carefully.

O.
K.

Quote
Do scientists claim that there are two magnetic poles?

Yes. In fact, they do more than claim it - they also demonstrate it.

Quote
Okay, well then someone should be able to provide evidence of a compass that points South. EVERY single compass points North.

Seriously? Look at the end of the compass needle that's not pointing toward magnetic north. That end is pointing toward magnetic south. How could you not notice this? Have you ever used a compass?

Quote
There's a reason why, look into the real meaning behind Mercator and the magnetic mountain. The distorted focus and dissonance is a result of the incorrect focus on the Antarctic, we should be looking at the North "pole".

I've carefully read that several times. It still makes no sense. What are you talking about?

Please.
Write.
Carefully.

Quote
One guy posted this question :

We've been studying magnetism in fifth grade. We want to know what will happen if you bring a compass to the South Pole. We think the needle will rotate 360 degrees multiple times because when you are at the South Pole you can go any direction and still be going north.

Another guy gave him this answer :

But what this means for your question is that if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction.

Guess what...This answer is wrong...Geometrically impossible!!! Isn't it?

No. It's quite correct.

Did you know that the magnetic poles are not in the same places as the geographic poles?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan