ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH

Quote from: sandokhan on November 30, 2016, 11:36:21 PM

jack black, you are just trolling around.

You are no scientist.

You tried to bullshit your way around offering the WRONG equations in the Sagnac experiment description.

Now everybody knows you are a fake.

No. I'm refuting your bullshit.
Very big difference.

I am a scientist, with publications. But that is irrelevant as arguments stand on their own merit.
So far you have provided no merit. You repeatedly assert crap and I continually refute it.

I have not offered the wrong equation. I don't recall offering any.

Which topic do you want? The Sagnac effect considering you seem to think you are so smart with it and it causes a massive problem (unlike the others which would just indicate some other force exists as well rather than refuting any previous science)?

You are trying to bury your opponents in massive amounts of text which require no effort on your part, in the hopes that they give in.
I'm not going to. I'm just going to ignore you massive amounts of text.

Like I said, if you aren't going to put in any effort, I see no reason why I should.

I am done with your massive walls of text with you just repeating the same refuted bullshit.

Lets pick one topic to focus on, and address that before moving on.
Okay?
Which do you want?

Just quit. This is the 100th time someone has tried to explain to sandokhan why he's spouting nonsense, and everyone has failed, because he is way too dense to realize it and will just continue to restate his arguments in massive walls of text or deflect by bringing up an entirely different subject. I wouldn't ask you to quit if these were different arguments, but they are the SAME. He keeps posting the EXACT SAME STUFF over and over again.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 01, 2016, 12:31:34 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on November 30, 2016, 11:36:21 PM

jack black, you are just trolling around.

You are no scientist.

You tried to bullshit your way around offering the WRONG equations in the Sagnac experiment description.

Now everybody knows you are a fake.

No. I'm refuting your bullshit.
Very big difference.

I am a scientist, with publications. But that is irrelevant as arguments stand on their own merit.
So far you have provided no merit. You repeatedly assert crap and I continually refute it.

I have not offered the wrong equation. I don't recall offering any.

Which topic do you want? The Sagnac effect considering you seem to think you are so smart with it and it causes a massive problem (unlike the others which would just indicate some other force exists as well rather than refuting any previous science)?

You are trying to bury your opponents in massive amounts of text which require no effort on your part, in the hopes that they give in.
I'm not going to. I'm just going to ignore you massive amounts of text.

Like I said, if you aren't going to put in any effort, I see no reason why I should.

I am done with your massive walls of text with you just repeating the same refuted bullshit.

Lets pick one topic to focus on, and address that before moving on.
Okay?
Which do you want?

Just quit. This is the 100th time someone has tried to explain to sandokhan why he's spouting nonsense, and everyone has failed, because he is way too dense to realize it and will just continue to restate his arguments in massive walls of text or deflect by bringing up an entirely different subject. I wouldn't ask you to quit if these were different arguments, but they are the SAME. He keeps posting the EXACT SAME STUFF over and over again.

You want some new stuff?

Here it is, just for you (and Jack) :

The Yugoslavian Military Technology Institute developed, within a project named EDO-0, a railgun with 7 kJ kinetic energy, in 1985. In 1987 a successor was created, project EDO-1, that used projectile with a mass of 0.7 kg (1.5 lb) and achieved speeds of 3,000 m/s (9,800 ft/s), and with a mass of 1.1 kg (2.4 lb) reached speeds of 2,400 m/s (7,900 ft/s). It used a track length of 0.7 m (2.3 ft). According to those working on it, with other modifications it was able to achieve a speed of 4,500 m/s (14,800 ft/s). The aim was to achieve projectile speed of 7,000 m/s (23,000 ft/s). At the time, it was considered a military secret.

Modern rail guns typically make use of two metal rails, a movable armature, and a power supply. Current passes from a positive conducting rail, over the armature, and to a negative conducting rail, creating a magnetic field in the process that sends a projectile resting on or within the armature forward. Laboratory conditions produced velocities of up to 9 kilometers per second using small mass projectiles; nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.

One question for you and Jack :
If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)

IN ADDITION :

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ABOUT THIS :


* Admiral K. P. Jessen's odd account: afterimage or bleached areas?
* After establishing himself as an experienced observer of phenomena at
* sea in "my numerous navigations, carried out in all nearly 40 years,"
* with a brief account of mirages and looming seen in the Baltic in June,
* 1895, he gets to his main theme: an observation made at sunrise on 25
* Feb., 1902, 12 miles off "Cape Boltin, on the eastern coast of Korea."
*      "Standing on the command bridge together with the senior and junior
* navigating officers and the officer of the watch, I observed the rising
* sun: the horizon was perfectly clean, free of clouds and the rising
* sun appeared to us, as always, in the form of a continually increasing
* bright segment. Suddenly I, and behind me also the aforesaid officers,
* noticed on the perfectly clean disk of the sun a dark spot, continually
* increasing just like the rising sun above the horizon and little by
* little taking on the obvious form of a high mountain. In a few seconds
* a new spot appeared on the left beside this peak, gradually changing into
* another such summit, but lower, separated from the first by a deep pass.
* Finally, the entire disk of the sun was covered from limb to limb by
* a whole mountain massif, reaching to the very lowest limb of the sun as
* it rose. Just as the whole solar sphere separated from the water horizon,
* the whole phenomenon instantly vanished."
*      The accompanying drawings, based on sketches made as soon as he
* returned to his cabin, show two steep mountains appearing to rise together
* with the Sun, so that their image remains fixed with respect to its disk.
* (Considering the latitude of over 40°, this is impossible.) The
* Sun's disk is shown round, with no distortions.
*      "Obviously, those mountains which we saw so clearly on the solar
* disk had to be on a line between us and the rising sun. And, indeed,
* by constructing on a chart the aforementioned azimuth of the sun at the
* moment of its rising, it turned out that this line passed just through
* the high mountain Tonvumi-yama , located on the north-western part of the
* Japanese island of Nippon [sic -- he means Honshu], at north latitude
* 39° 5' and east longitude 140° 10', not far from the city of Akita.
* The distance from the cruiser to that mountain was 480 sea miles."
* An accurate calculation gives 897 km or 490 nautical miles.
*      He later gives the height of the mountain as 7130 feet.  The only
* mountain of this height near this location is Chokai-San; I cannot find
* any place in Japan with the peculiar name of "Tonvumi-yama" (which he
* repeats later); it might be a mistake for the lower peak Tokami-Yama.
* Photographs of Chokai-San show it has shallow slopes, like Mt. Fuji,
* quite unlike the "mountain" in the drawings. (As the Sun appears
* undistorted, the mountain should, too -- if it were real.)
*      His sunrise azimuth of 77° 40' E from S (or 102.3° by the usual
* astronomical convention) agrees well with calculation for the stated
* date and coordinates. He gives the time of sunrise as 6h 4m but fails
* to state whether this was LCT or zone time; predicted sunrise for the
* ship's position is indeed 6:04 zone time, however. As "The state of
* the weather was most ordinary: a light breeze and calm sea" and the
* accompanying table of meteorological data shows the water and air to
* have the same temperature within a few tenths of a degree, the most
* reasonable conclusion is that there was no mirage at all, and that the
* "mountain" was illusory. His drawings show the *lower* limb of the Sun,
* even where it should be occulted by the "mountain" if it were real!
*      I conclude that the "dark spots" were either afterimages or bleached
* areas on the observers' retinas. We have no direct accounts from the
* other officers present; they would be unlikely to contradict their
* commanding officer, I suspect.
*      Note that Korzenewsky (1923) says the distance claimed here was 1177 km
* but the actual value is just under 900 km.

JUST A REMINDER :

A choice quote from Cikljamas -
"I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!"
Um, who claims to have what on Mars? They are talking about astronauts not going higher than lower earth orbit at present! Do you think Mars Rover is a man or a dog?  It is a robotic car which should make it through the Van Allen Belt without developing radiation poisoning! It is humans they don't want to put at risk again yet, perhaps due to medical tests done on Apollo astronauts.
By the way, there are satellites in orbits around the Sun, the Stereo A and B satellites which give us images of the far side of the Sun, showing us what sunspots, filaments and coronal holes are about to face Earth in the next few days! Explain that on a flat earth model!
You are trying to become the new cut and paste master, but you aren't thinking.

A choice quote from Cikljamas -
"I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!"
Um, who claims to have what on Mars? They are talking about astronauts not going higher than lower earth orbit at present! Do you think Mars Rover is a man or a dog?  It is a robotic car which should make it through the Van Allen Belt without developing radiation poisoning! It is humans they don't want to put at risk again yet, perhaps due to medical tests done on Apollo astronauts.
By the way, there are satellites in orbits around the Sun, the Stereo A and B satellites which give us images of the far side of the Sun, showing us what sunspots, filaments and coronal holes are about to face Earth in the next few days! Explain that on a flat earth model!
You are trying to become the new cut and paste master, but you aren't thinking.

This is all you have to know about space travel (and mars rovers):


I am not thinking?
If i am not thinking then you are completely brainless, if you are not then answer this question :

The Yugoslavian Military Technology Institute developed, within a project named EDO-0, a railgun with 7 kJ kinetic energy, in 1985. In 1987 a successor was created, project EDO-1, that used projectile with a mass of 0.7 kg (1.5 lb) and achieved speeds of 3,000 m/s (9,800 ft/s), and with a mass of 1.1 kg (2.4 lb) reached speeds of 2,400 m/s (7,900 ft/s). It used a track length of 0.7 m (2.3 ft). According to those working on it, with other modifications it was able to achieve a speed of 4,500 m/s (14,800 ft/s). The aim was to achieve projectile speed of 7,000 m/s (23,000 ft/s). At the time, it was considered a military secret.

Modern rail guns typically make use of two metal rails, a movable armature, and a power supply. Current passes from a positive conducting rail, over the armature, and to a negative conducting rail, creating a magnetic field in the process that sends a projectile resting on or within the armature forward. Laboratory conditions produced velocities of up to 9 kilometers per second using small mass projectiles; nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.

One question for you and Jack :
If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 01, 2016, 07:25:11 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 01, 2016, 12:31:34 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on November 30, 2016, 11:36:21 PM

jack black, you are just trolling around.

You are no scientist.

You tried to bullshit your way around offering the WRONG equations in the Sagnac experiment description.

Now everybody knows you are a fake.

No. I'm refuting your bullshit.
Very big difference.

I am a scientist, with publications. But that is irrelevant as arguments stand on their own merit.
So far you have provided no merit. You repeatedly assert crap and I continually refute it.

I have not offered the wrong equation. I don't recall offering any.

Which topic do you want? The Sagnac effect considering you seem to think you are so smart with it and it causes a massive problem (unlike the others which would just indicate some other force exists as well rather than refuting any previous science)?

You are trying to bury your opponents in massive amounts of text which require no effort on your part, in the hopes that they give in.
I'm not going to. I'm just going to ignore you massive amounts of text.

Like I said, if you aren't going to put in any effort, I see no reason why I should.

I am done with your massive walls of text with you just repeating the same refuted bullshit.

Lets pick one topic to focus on, and address that before moving on.
Okay?
Which do you want?

Just quit. This is the 100th time someone has tried to explain to sandokhan why he's spouting nonsense, and everyone has failed, because he is way too dense to realize it and will just continue to restate his arguments in massive walls of text or deflect by bringing up an entirely different subject. I wouldn't ask you to quit if these were different arguments, but they are the SAME. He keeps posting the EXACT SAME STUFF over and over again.

You want some new stuff?

Here it is, just for you (and Jack) :

The Yugoslavian Military Technology Institute developed, within a project named EDO-0, a railgun with 7 kJ kinetic energy, in 1985. In 1987 a successor was created, project EDO-1, that used projectile with a mass of 0.7 kg (1.5 lb) and achieved speeds of 3,000 m/s (9,800 ft/s), and with a mass of 1.1 kg (2.4 lb) reached speeds of 2,400 m/s (7,900 ft/s). It used a track length of 0.7 m (2.3 ft). According to those working on it, with other modifications it was able to achieve a speed of 4,500 m/s (14,800 ft/s). The aim was to achieve projectile speed of 7,000 m/s (23,000 ft/s). At the time, it was considered a military secret.

Modern rail guns typically make use of two metal rails, a movable armature, and a power supply. Current passes from a positive conducting rail, over the armature, and to a negative conducting rail, creating a magnetic field in the process that sends a projectile resting on or within the armature forward. Laboratory conditions produced velocities of up to 9 kilometers per second using small mass projectiles; nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.

One question for you and Jack :
If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)

IN ADDITION :

"You want some new stuff?"


1) I wasn't referring to you.
2) No.

"The Yugoslavian Military Technology Institute developed, within a project named EDO-0..."


Oh, this sounds riveting 

"NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)"


I'm not Jack and I don't understand where the issue is.

As a starter, the curvature is not 25 metres over 18 km distance. You are not firing the rail gun from 0 metres high at a tangent to the earth but from 3 metres high, to hit the target at the middle, one metre up, the curvature allowed for is just under 15 metres! If the fins on the missile do not affect its flight and it acts like a normal bullet, it will fall 19.6 metres in 2 seconds (.5 times acceleration times time squared, or .5 x 9.8 x 2x2) so you will have to aim about 4.6 metres above the direct assumed path to the target. So the angle to the target would be calculated using a right angled triangle with sides 15000 and 4.6, or .000005 degrees, so basically just about zero degrees. The problem is you would need a very sensitive aiming system to hit the target. However if the fins act as a stabilizer, much like wings on an aeroplane, the drop will be less than 19.6 metres in the 2 seconds, so you may have to aim lower, but without knowing the aerodynamics of the projectile, it is impossible to do the calculation. Basically you will need line of sight targets to hit them.

As a starter, the curvature is not 25 metres over 18 km distance. You are not firing the rail gun from 0 metres high at a tangent to the earth but from 3 metres high, to hit the target at the middle, one metre up, the curvature allowed for is just under 15 metres! If the fins on the missile do not affect its flight and it acts like a normal bullet, it will fall 19.6 metres in 2 seconds (.5 times acceleration times time squared, or .5 x 9.8 x 2x2) so you will have to aim about 4.6 metres above the direct assumed path to the target. So the angle to the target would be calculated using a right angled triangle with sides 15000 and 4.6, or .000005 degrees, so basically just about zero degrees. The problem is you would need a very sensitive aiming system to hit the target. However if the fins act as a stabilizer, much like wings on an aeroplane, the drop will be less than 19.6 metres in the 2 seconds, so you may have to aim lower, but without knowing the aerodynamics of the projectile, it is impossible to do the calculation. Basically you will need line of sight targets to hit them.

Even if you did fire it almost at a tangent, gravity would make it fall a bit less than 20 meters over ~2 seconds.

As a starter, the curvature is not 25 metres over 18 km distance. You are not firing the rail gun from 0 metres high at a tangent to the earth but from 3 metres high, to hit the target at the middle, one metre up, the curvature allowed for is just under 15 metres! If the fins on the missile do not affect its flight and it acts like a normal bullet, it will fall 19.6 metres in 2 seconds (.5 times acceleration times time squared, or .5 x 9.8 x 2x2) so you will have to aim about 4.6 metres above the direct assumed path to the target. So the angle to the target would be calculated using a right angled triangle with sides 15000 and 4.6, or .000005 degrees, so basically just about zero degrees. The problem is you would need a very sensitive aiming system to hit the target. However if the fins act as a stabilizer, much like wings on an aeroplane, the drop will be less than 19.6 metres in the 2 seconds, so you may have to aim lower, but without knowing the aerodynamics of the projectile, it is impossible to do the calculation. Basically you will need line of sight targets to hit them.

Guys, maybe this formula applies to conventional bullets, but it certainly doesn't apply to railgun hypervelocity projectiles :

1. Listen what this guy says (time adjusted at 3m54s) :

#t=3m54s

2. Pay attention to the words written in red :

Modern rail guns typically make use of two metal rails, a movable armature, and a power supply. Current passes from a positive conducting rail, over the armature, and to a negative conducting rail, creating a magnetic field in the process that sends a projectile resting on or within the armature forward. Laboratory conditions produced velocities of up to 9 kilometers per second using small mass projectiles; nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.

3. Are you trying to tell me that first second of it's flight railgun bullet would fly in upward direction, and then in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory in downward direction? If you really believe that this is possible, you are the stupidest jerks who ever walked on this earth...THE RAILGUN BULLET IS NOT A GUIDED MISSILE!!!

4. Now, if you want to use railgun to intercept missile which flies at high altitudes, how do you think you can hit such fast moving (and so small) target without being able to shoot bullet (which is not guided missile) in PERFECTLY STRAIGHT trajectory???

5. Now, don't try to answer until you REALLY think it through :

If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)

"Are you trying to tell me that first second of it's flight railgun bullet would fly in upward direction, and then in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory in downward direction? If you really believe that this is possible, you are the stupidest jerks who ever walked on this earth.." - sorry, you already wrapped up that title!
Any object fired almost parallel to the ground would still be subject to the earth's gravitational pull! The object would effectively weighs less if you could weigh it due to the centrifugal force, but it's path is still affected by gravity! Add the fact that there is an atmosphere to travel through, so friction,  will slow it minutely! Look for the pretty picture on this page for long range railgun trajectories, as we know you like posting pictures, then think again about your question! (Note in the picture, start speed Mach 7, end speed Mach 5, trajectory height 500000 feet) I guess gravity seems to be working in this case!

1. "The good thing about the shape of the earth is that it's surface is flat whether or not you believe in it!." - NEIL SMARTASS TYSON

No. It is round regardless of if you believe it or not.
Your photos have conclusively proven that.
All that is left to discuss just how round it is and what the effects of refraction and the like are.

Are you just going to make repeated crappy quotes, or actual arguments?
I will skip your quotes as they have no merit.

Especially as I have already pointed out the pure bullshit in them.

5. ZIGZAG argument is SIMPLE AND 100 % VALID PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST!!!

So simple, you can't even explain it here. Are you sure it is?

And I highly doubt that it is even 10% valid.
It can't be proof Earth is at rest because of all the proof we have it isn't.

If you want me to consider it, explain it here, nice and simply.

Is it this crap?

During day, sun should move as normal, going east to west.
At night (during midnight sun times), sun should move opposite, going west to east.

If so, that is pure bullshit. At it is the same in both a flat Earth and round Earth model, regardless of if the sun is moving or Earth is.

6. AIRY'S FAILURE WASN'T a FAILURE for no GOOD REASON!!! It was a FAILURE for a VERY GOOD REASON!!!

It was a failure because he failed to take into effects like refraction.
In the Earth centred reference frame, no additional correction is needed as the light is going straight in.
In the star centred reference frame, as the telescope is at an angle, the water surface will cause refraction.

The simple fact of stellar aberration indicates this experiment can't prove Earth is stationary.

If we are stationary and the aether is moving, it is still moving even in the water filled telescope and thus the same correction would need to be applied.

It wasn't a null result, it was no result, i.e. a complete failure.

Good luck with your self-deception!

Sure, My self deception, when you are the one continually spouting pure bullshit, using completely fake numbers and failing to address serious flaws in your case, such as the missing mountains (or sections of them) and the height order being wrong.

I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!

What did they claim can go no higher than LEO?

And if you want to see a satellite, you need a decent telescope/good binoculars, and you need to know where to look. Plenty of people have seen them.

To give you an idea, the ISS is 400 km up, and its longest axis is roughly 108 m long. It is also one of the largest artificial satellites in existence.
This would make it roughly 56 arc seconds.
The human limit of resolution is roughly 60 arc seconds.
So it would appear as a single blurry point in the sky if you don't have any help. And that is only if it is significantly brighter than the sky.

Typically something easier to see is a flashing light moving across the sky. That can be a plane, or a satellite. Some satellites spin such that they reflect the sun off them which hits Earth and bounces back up to them for them to take a picture. That makes it look like a strobe light moving across the sky.

But your only hope to see one in any detail is with some magnifying device, which then needs to be pointed in the right direction, which itself is quite hard, especially considering it is moving at a speed of roughly 7.67 km/s (again, using the ISS as an example.
So you are looking for something that is 56 arc seconds, moving roughly 11 degrees a second, so roughly 708 times its size.

Do you really expect to easily be able to find it without any effort?

A. If the earth is stationary round-earth geometry falls to pieces!

No. It doesn't.
Round Earth geometry works regardless of if Earth is moving or not.

B. There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!

Sure. There isn't a single one. There are loads.
All of the imagery on Google Earth are pictures of Earth from space.

But I assume you mean one showing the curve of Earth, or almost a hemisphere.
But they exist as well, you just dismiss them as fake.
This is because you don't care about the truth, you just want to deny it.

Now, you have to ask yourself this : What is more likely :
C) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is ROUND (although stationary)?
D) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is FLAT and stationary?

Or you are just spouting pure bullshit and there actually are authentic pictures of Earth from space which you ignore, with Earth moving and round.

-If the earth is round, it wouldn't matter if the earth were stationary, would it? If the earth were round (although stationary) there would be no problem (for NASA or anyone else) to present to us at least ONE SINGLE (if not thousands) AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space!

Except getting there, and getting people like you to accept them when you have made it clear you have no interest in doing so as it goes against your religion which you care more about than reality.

-On the other hand, if the earth is flat, there would be a huge problem to show us ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!

Nope. That would be quite easy as you wouldn't need to go up all that far to be able to easily see all of Earth.
The question is why haven't flat Earthers gotten a picture which shows all of Earth?

1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!

Yes, Heliocentric theory is wrong. This is because the sun is not the centre of the universe. It moves as well as Earth.
Earth moves. There is no doubt about that at all to any rational human being (other than the general doubts about the universe in general which puts literally everything in doubt).

2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT.

No. That isn't in question either to any rational human beings. Again, it is round, without a doubt.
The only thing in question is the exact shape.

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 :

So don't bother with a geocentric round Earth model.

Alternatively, as you have thrown some physics and rationality out the window to make a geocentric model, why not bother with the rest?

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.

i.e. you can't understand how it works so you discard it.

How would your senses tell you that?

It is simply because you are used to seeing objects close to you, and thus can't comprehend the distance to the sun.
If your math is right (which I'm not going to bother to check as it is irrelevant), then your senses indicate that the sun is moving that fast, at least if you know the distance, or at least your senses would be consistent with that model.

Just do the math, with that how fast should it appear to move? 15 degrees an hour.
How much does it move? 15 degrees an hour.

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!

Yes, which is why rational people would then jump to a heliocentric model, and then when the question of the galactic core comes into it, put that in the centre and so on.
But again, as you are throwing physics out the window to even start to use a geocentric model, why not keep throwing it out the window here?

1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!

If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)
If 3 then 4 !!!!?

Like I said, all pure bullshit.
Airy's failure was a complete failure. It didn't prove anything.
ZigZag is likewise pure bullshit that proves nothing.
1 does not prove 2 nor does 2 prove 1.
If either 1 or 2, you get 3, as the tilt is a measure of the angular difference between Earth's axis of rotation, and the axis of Earth's orbit.
4 doesn't come from any of it. It is just thrown in because it is what you want.

I'm not going to bother with your copy-paste bullshit.

You want some new stuff?

No. I want you to focus on 1 thing, and deal with that until you realise that you were wrong about it and can admit it rather than spouting so much crap and ignoring so much.

Here it is, just for you (and Jack) :
[RAILGUN!!!]

So the same bullshit I have refuted before?

nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.

So 11.2 km/s straight up?

One question for you and Jack :
If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)

Well, first it wouldn't be shooting it at 9 km/s.
In order to accurately calculate the trajectory, I would need more info.
This includes the actual location, the orientation and most importantly, the aerodynamic properties of the round.

You have provided none of this so I will make a few assumptions:
1 - The test is being carried out inside a vacuum, so the air can be ignored.
2 - They are firing it on the equator, going with the rotation of Earth.
3 - I am simplifying the acceleration due to gravity to 9.8 m/s^2. Obviously they would use the real number.
4 - I'm ignoring the height difference as well.

This still provides loads of trajectories they could use (infinite really).
So I will just say one, the simplest one.
They fire it, with an elevation of 0, at a speed of roughly 7440 m/s.
At this speed, their actual speed (so adding Earth's rotation) will be roughly 7900 m/s.


In reality, they would need an elliptical path, which I can't be bothered calculating, but I can depict.
Again, there are several options.
As the target is below us, then the simplest one is to fire at an angle of 0 degrees, but with a slightly slower speed. This will allow the bullet to drop the 1 m in its orbit.

But basically, for this simple one, draw an ellipse which intersects your target and gun, which has a focus in the centre of Earth.
Then you get to use standard orbital mechanics to figure it out.

I'm not going to bother with your links and cut and paste.

3. Are you trying to tell me that first second of it's flight railgun bullet would fly in upward direction, and then in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory in downward direction? If you really believe that this is possible, you are the stupidest jerks who ever walked on this earth...THE RAILGUN BULLET IS NOT A GUIDED MISSILE!!!

That depends on exactly what you mean by "in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory".
It would follow a ballistic trajectory.
That means it starts going at one angle and gravity will pull it down. This is continuous.
Assuming it started going up, this means it slowly approaches a point where it is going neither up nor down, and then starts heading down.
It's just like a normal bullet in that regard, or an arrow or even a ball.

So no, we aren't the stupid jerks.

It doesn't magically change in that instant, the change is continuous.

4. Now, if you want to use railgun to intercept missile which flies at high altitudes, how do you think you can hit such fast moving (and so small) target without being able to shoot bullet (which is not guided missile) in PERFECTLY STRAIGHT trajectory???

It is going to drop due to gravity regardless.
So again, all this would serve to do is show a railgun is impossible or impossible to do that. It says nothing about the shape of Earth.
I have pointed this out to you before, but you ignore it.

Like I said before, in the test where it went 7km before hitting the ground, do you think it just flew through the air perfectly straight, then magically stopped at the 7km and fell to the ground?

The biggest factor is likely going to be wind resistance. They will have a hard time hitting any target like that.

One concept I saw will use explosive rounds which blow apart shortly before hitting the target causing it to be blasted with shrapnel.

Now, before you try and respond with this railgun BS, be able to explain how they fire it in a straight line and avoid the influence of gravity. Not even firing at escape velocity will do that.

So no, we aren't the stupid jerks.

Yes you are, every single post of yours confirms that you are!

Now, before you try and respond with this railgun BS, be able to explain how they fire it in a straight line and avoid the influence of gravity. Not even firing at escape velocity will do that.

LOL, of course not...LOL Can you explain why?

1 does not prove 2 nor does 2 prove 1

So, according to your idiotic logic (which you spill all around 24/7) if the earth doesn't orbit the sun it doesn't mean that the earth doesn't rotate either (and vice versa) - YOUR STUPIDITY IS LEGENDARY!!!

Airy's failure was a complete failure. It didn't prove anything.

Just because lunatic like you says so? Of course, we believe you...don't worry everything will be o.k., just take your pills at the right time (every day!!!)

ZigZag is likewise pure bullshit that proves nothing.

Of course, now i am going to give you the opportunity to entertain us some more :

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth! I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another. For instance :

1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turns around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine that God stops the earth at 1 PM and start to move the earth in an opposite direction (CLOCKWISE), what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question for you Jack :

What is the difference (regarding the heliocentric cause for "THE DIRECTION of the apparent motion of the sun") between such hypothetical situation (God stops the earth at 1 PM and sets the motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 02, 2016, 04:34:50 AM

So no, we aren't the stupid jerks.

Yes you are, every single post of yours confirms that you are!

I might be a jerk for continually pointing out your bullshit. But I am far from stupid. And each of my posts pointing that out confirm that.

On the other hand, you spout complete nonsense, like rejecting ballistic trajectories, making arguments which effectively amount to "If I throw a ball up, it can't come down, because that would require it to stop going up and start going down in an instant".

You also continually ignore massive flaws in your arguments and how the evidence you provide shows a flat Earth is impossible, or just contains pure nonsense which would equally refute a flat and round Earth.

LOL, of course not...LOL Can you explain why?

Can I explain what?
Why you can't explain it? Yes.
This is because it is impossible, regardless of the shape of Earth.
The only way to make something fire (in air) in a straight line is to have it go an extremely short distance, or to have some kind of built in guidance system keeping it straight.

Like I said, this is a problem for the railgun idea you are presenting, not for a round Earth.

So, according to your idiotic logic (which you spill all around 24/7) if the earth doesn't orbit the sun it doesn't mean that the earth doesn't rotate either (and vice versa) - YOUR STUPIDITY IS LEGENDARY!!!

No. Not according to my logic, nor according to idiotic logic.
According to logic itself.
The rotation of Earth (alone) says nothing about if Earth orbits the sun.
It would be hypothetically possible to have a stationary non-rotating Earth or a stationary rotating Earth and an orbiting rotating Earth.
The only time it is a bit iffy is for an orbiting, non-rotating Earth.
Earth's rotation around it's axis has 2 different rotations you can consider (or quote it as). One is in a reference frame which keeps the position of Earth and the sun fixed, in which Earth rotates every 24 hours.
The other instead keeps the sun fixed and has Earth orbit around it, in which case Earth rotates every roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes. These 4 minutes add up throughout the year to give us an extra day.
Regardless of which frame you use, it is possible to have Earth stationary (i.e. not rotating) while orbiting.

In the first case, Earth will be tidally locked, akin to the moon and Earth. This would make the period of rotation in the second view equal to the orbital period.
In the second case, Earth would basically be the opposite of tidally locked, such that the period of rotation in the first view would be in the opposite direction, but still have a period equal to 1 year.

Also, having a stationary, rotating Earth with a sun orbiting it fixes one of the biggest problems with a non-rotating stationary earth, the strange path of the sun where it moves up and down Earth, which makes no sense at all.

Just because lunatic like you says so? Of course, we believe you...don't worry everything will be o.k., just take your pills at the right time (every day!!!)

No. Because of fundamental flaws in the experiment.
Like I said, from the reference frame of the moving Earth, no correction would be needed as the light is travelling straight towards the microscope.
This indicates no correction should be needed.
In the reference frame of the stationary star it has issues of not accounting for refraction (including the refraction of the light after it left the telescope and went to Airy as well as the interaction between light and the moving water. It is no longer a case of being the same regardless of observer/reference frame, because the water is moving and taking some light with it.

And like I said earlier, it works equally well on a stationary Earth with a moving aether as it does on a moving Earth with a stationary aether. (which is what he was using).

As such, it proves nothing.

Of course, now i am going to give you the opportunity to entertain us some more :

I said simply, not loads of crap, especially will all the bullshit prelude. You are stating your conclusions before your argument.
Your argument is crap and just shows your ignorance and/or dishonesty.

IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

No. It wouldn't.
And again, this works equally on a flat Earth.

we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).

No. You still need to move your cameras. Earth continues rotating. It doesn't stop and shift to the side.

Just imagine that God stops the earth at 1 PM and start to move the earth in an opposite direction (CLOCKWISE), what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Who gives a shit as this isn't what happens.

What is the difference (regarding the heliocentric cause for "THE DIRECTION of the apparent motion of the sun") between such hypothetical situation (God stops the earth at 1 PM and sets the motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM?

In one, Earth rotates in the opposite direction. In the other, it keeps on rotating in the same direction.

At midnight (solar time, which may be shifted slightly from local time due to not having a timezone every ms), the sun is due North. As the day goes on, it appears to move to the east (bearing, not absolute position). (which you seem to deem deem to be "right to left"). For the observer, this means the sun is appearing to move right, as it is moving from north, to east, and if you are looking north, to look to the east, you need to turn to the right.
This continues until some time in the morning at which point it is due east. Then after this, it continues moving right and starts heading to the south. This continues until mid-day, where it is due south. Then it keeps moving right eventually heading due west at some point in the afternoon, and it keeps heading right until it is back to due north.

At no point it time would it change its direction.

Again, this holds regardless of if Earth is flat or round.

At the solstice, the sun is directly over the tropic at mid-day. (i.e. a line would go from the sun, to the tropic to the centre of Earth).
Any place north of the tropic will have the sun to the south at mid day.
At midnight, they would have to look to the north to see over the pole to the sun.

Here is a picture:


The left is viewed from the side. The right is viewed from above the north pole.

The green lines indicate the direction to the sun.
Do you notice how in the right side you can't tell if the model is one of a flat Earth, or just the top half of Earth (unless you guess which line is which).
So like I said:
YOUR ZIGZAG BS WORKS THE SAME ON FLAT AND ROUND EARTHS!!!!

We observe exactly what we would expect regardless of if Earth is round or flat. The sun appears to move to the right, even during midnight.

Your claim is pure BS.

Care to admit you are wrong this time?

Or perhaps explain why you think the sun magically moves right to left?

Jack, you are a COMPLETE IDIOT!!!

I would like to point out the word :

A COMPLETE

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 01, 2016, 12:22:44 PM

As a starter, the curvature is not 25 metres over 18 km distance. You are not firing the rail gun from 0 metres high at a tangent to the earth but from 3 metres high, to hit the target at the middle, one metre up, the curvature allowed for is just under 15 metres! If the fins on the missile do not affect its flight and it acts like a normal bullet, it will fall 19.6 metres in 2 seconds (.5 times acceleration times time squared, or .5 x 9.8 x 2x2) so you will have to aim about 4.6 metres above the direct assumed path to the target. So the angle to the target would be calculated using a right angled triangle with sides 15000 and 4.6, or .000005 degrees, so basically just about zero degrees. The problem is you would need a very sensitive aiming system to hit the target. However if the fins act as a stabilizer, much like wings on an aeroplane, the drop will be less than 19.6 metres in the 2 seconds, so you may have to aim lower, but without knowing the aerodynamics of the projectile, it is impossible to do the calculation. Basically you will need line of sight targets to hit them.

Guys, maybe this formula applies to conventional bullets, but it certainly doesn't apply to railgun hypervelocity projectiles :

1. Listen what this guy says (time adjusted at 3m54s) :

#t=3m54s

2. Pay attention to the words written in red :

Modern rail guns typically make use of two metal rails, a movable armature, and a power supply. Current passes from a positive conducting rail, over the armature, and to a negative conducting rail, creating a magnetic field in the process that sends a projectile resting on or within the armature forward. Laboratory conditions produced velocities of up to 9 kilometers per second using small mass projectiles; nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.

3. Are you trying to tell me that first second of it's flight railgun bullet would fly in upward direction, and then in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory in downward direction? If you really believe that this is possible, you are the stupidest jerks who ever walked on this earth...THE RAILGUN BULLET IS NOT A GUIDED MISSILE!!!

4. Now, if you want to use railgun to intercept missile which flies at high altitudes, how do you think you can hit such fast moving (and so small) target without being able to shoot bullet (which is not guided missile) in PERFECTLY STRAIGHT trajectory???

5. Now, don't try to answer until you REALLY think it through :

If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)

Maybe you should go back to high school and learn what escape velocity means and what the superposition principle is. It's really simple stuff.

http://aty.sdsu.edu/~aty/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#looming

I'm just gonna put this here.

Jack, you are a COMPLETE IDIOT!!!

I would like to point out the word :

A COMPLETE

Nope. But thanks for showing just how dishonest you were.

If I was a complete idiot like you claim you would be able to point out what was wrong with my refutation of your "irrefutable argument"

The fact that you didn't respond to it at all and instead just dismiss me as a complete idiot shows you know (at least to some extent) that it is pure bullshit.

So would you like to try being an adult?
Either accept your argument is crap, or defend it and point out why my analysis is wrong?

Can you do either?

Or will you continue to act like a child, calling me an idiot, just for proving you wrong?

The only in his name is really a d, sick dumbass.

@ Jack Black

FIRST EXAMPLE OF YOUR ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

No. lots of atheists are intelligent enough to ask those questions.
You just misunderstand.

The point isn't to determine the cause of God, it is to point out that all a god does is push the problem back.
So either god needs a cause, or the theist is forced to admit things can exist without cause, refuting their argument.
Yes. Theists want it to end on their side, basically at 1. Because if it goes any further, their argument is shown to be bullshit.

God does not push the problem back, God is an answer to the problem, the only possible answer...Just look at your idiotic logic : if there must be something that has to be out of the time-space (not subdued to the second law of thermodynamics), then (according to your utterly idiotic reasoning) that something can also be applied to things which are created, which exist within the time-space reality, which are subdued to the second law of thermodynamics, which came into existence (which are not eternal)
...Only A COMPLETE idiot can claim something like this!!!
That is the same as if you said : "If there is something which is eternal it means that something which is not eternal also can be eternal!"

I would put you (and other similar idiots (like Lawrence Krauss) in mental institution for such reasoning! And if you think that i am joking, i am not joking! You deserve to be put in mental institution for such reasoning!

SECOND EXAMPLE OF YOUR ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

The rotation of Earth (alone) says nothing about if Earth orbits the sun.
It would be hypothetically possible to have a stationary non-rotating Earth or a stationary rotating Earth and an orbiting rotating Earth.
The only time it is a bit iffy is for an orbiting, non-rotating Earth.

1. Rotation of the Earth (alone) says everything about if the Earth orbits the sun or not.
Why? Because you have to somehow explain away changes on the vertical axis of ANALEMA (seasons). You could do that by saying that the earths tilt is changing seasonally, but you can't do that because Polaris maintains it's fixed position in the sky 24/7!

2. Stationary-rotating earth? see above (number 1)...btw, how rotating earth can be stationary in the same time? You stupid idiot!

3. Orbiting, non-rotating earth? What would cause the days and the nights on such orbiting, non-rotating earth? Stupid idiot!


THIRD EXAMPLE OF YOUR ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

The only way to make something fire (in air) in a straight line is to have it go an extremely short distance, or to have some kind of built in guidance system keeping it straight.

NO COMMENT, YOUR STUPIDITY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!!!


FOURTH EXAMPLE OF YOUR ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

 I'VE ASKED YOU : 

What is the difference (regarding the heliocentric cause for "THE DIRECTION of the apparent motion of the sun") between such hypothetical situation (God stops the earth at 1 PM and sets the motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM?


YOUR ANSWER WAS :

In one, Earth rotates in the opposite direction. In the other, it keeps on rotating in the same direction.

Since we talk about AN OPPOSITE (relative) direction of the rotation, which occurs within the 24 hours of each Polar day on the edge of Arctic circle, how then you can escape the inevitable conclusion (which constitutes the core of the ZIGZAG argument) which is this : whenever (every 12 hours) the earth changes the direction of rotation (with respect to the fixed position of the sun) the consequence of this shift of earth's relative direction of rotation must be also the shift of the direction of the apparent motion of the sun in the sky! AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

Now, maybe you can answer this question:

What would happen if God stopped the rotation of the earth (during any Polar day) at 1 AM, and force the earth to rotate in an opposite direction? What would you see?

THE ANSWER : In such hypothetical situation (and only in that particular situation) an observer at the edge of the Arctic circle would be able to see the sun going in a proper (in accordance with the reality as we know) direction, that is to say : to the right (as the sun always goes to the right when we observe it from any point north from the equator)!


ON TOP OF THAT :

There is no point to analyze here your ultimate stupidity which you have CLEARLY shown commenting :

-AIRY'S FALURE EXP.
-MMX EXPERIMENT
-SAGNAC EXPERIMENT
-MGP EXPERIMENT
-DE PALMA EXPERIMENT
-DAYTON MILLER INTERFEROMETER EXP. (30 000)
-LONG EXPOSURE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STARS WHICH CONFIRM THAT
AIRY'S FAILURE, MMX, AND ALL OTHER INTERFEROMETER EXP. CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT THERE IS NO ORBITAL MOTION OF THE EARTH!!!
-ETC...

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711 -1787).

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.

Now, you have ridiculed RABINOZ cowardice (reluctance to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book), but you have to look at yourself, your cowardice (TOTAL INDISPOSITION - AT ALL COST - to face the truth that the earth is at rest) is much more tragic, so i suggest you to shut your mouths up FOREVER AND EVER, because every word that comes out from your mouths is insult to a common sense of every reader who will ever have to lick a stinky shit which you spill (in tons) all around yourself 24/7!

You should be hospitalized in a mental institution!!! Take you medicine at right time EVERY DAY!!! Go, seek for medical help, because you NEED IT!!! - That goes for all your heliocentric friends !!!

“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself;Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince.

In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics." JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...are motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" - JOHN CALVIN

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down; doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedoms, the major media destroy information, and religions destroy spirituality.” DR.M.E.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” E.B.

Nasa is an Embarrassing Joke! They are a luciferin Sun Cult (STEELING OUR MONEY, based on false pretenses!) and are hiding the keys to knowledge and material and spiritual truth...to enslave US! “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” J.W.V.G.

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” M.T./S.C.

Now now guys, let's play nice.

@cikljamas (extra large because you'll probably read over this if I don't)

Here you are, showing us pictures of mountains taken from far away, using them to "disprove" the curvature of the earth. That is the only conclusion you can draw because that is the only conclusion you want to draw. Unfortunately, you forgot to check whether your method is foolproof. You made the assumptions that:

1. The earth's curvature is constant, water is "flat"
2. Light travels in a constant, unchanging direction
and based on 2.,
3. What you see is exactly where you see it

Now I'm going to skip over 1 (although I can explain it to you if you want), because I'm here to tell you about 2 & 3. Are the assumptions you made true? No sir, they are not. But you did not bother to check them because you are biased and have a goal of achieving the "ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH".

Now there are various ways in which light that travels through the atmosphere can be distorted, this website has a nice overview:

http://aty.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/phenomena.html

It's mainly the phenomenon of looming that we are interested in. Looming is an abnormally large refraction of the object that increases the apparent elevation of the distant objects and sometimes allows an observer to see objects that are located below the horizon under normal conditions. Looming, and its counterpart sinking, alongside a whole bunch of other related phenomena, are the result of variations in atmospheric conditions, that cause the light to refract in various ways. The amount of refraction can and will vary from day to day, and if you're lucky, you can see things that are well behind the horizon. Sometimes it also completely distorts figures, possibly also due to the result of other phenomena from the interaction between light and atmosphere. Because the amount of looming or sinking is so incredibly variable, experiments like yours are useless to prove/disprove Flat Earth Theory. Even if you disagree with the theory behind the phenomenon, you can't deny that it exists.

Some examples:






Or try comparing these two images of the same lighthouse (mind that the tide is higher in the picture where the lighthouse seems taller):




This also means that you get different views under different circumstances:



Sources:
http://aty.sdsu.edu/~aty/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena
http://www.polarimage.fi/mirages/mirages.htm

FIRST EXAMPLE OF [MY] ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

Quote

No. lots of atheists are intelligent enough to ask those questions.
You just misunderstand.

The point isn't to determine the cause of God, it is to point out that all a god does is push the problem back.
So either god needs a cause, or the theist is forced to admit things can exist without cause, refuting their argument.
Yes. Theists want it to end on their side, basically at 1. Because if it goes any further, their argument is shown to be bullshit.

God does not push the problem back, God is an answer to the problem

Really? Bringing up other crap here? What, have you realised your "irrefutable zig zag bullshit" is actually bullshit and can be easily refuted and thus you need to distract everyone?

Regardless, God is not the answer, it merely pushes the problem back.
The arguments with the assertion that everything has a cause. If that is the case, then so does God.
As such, God does not answer the problem and instead pushes it back.
If you accept that God can exist without cause, then you accept that not everything has a cause and thus reject the first premise of the argument.

Ultimately the problem is why there is something rather than nothing.
God is not an answer.
God is a something.
You must now ask why there is God rather than nothing.
You cannot appeal to any aspect of God, as that merely explains it if God is there. It doesn't explain why God is there in the first place.
Additionally, every attribute of God can be considered a separate something to consider and thus you need to ask why there is that rather than nothing.

The only actual answer is nothing.
There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing.

And as I said elsewhere, if something exists outside of time (in order for you to claim it is eternal), then it is unable to do anything, as all actions require time.

I would put you (and other similar idiots (like Lawrence Krauss) in mental institution for such reasoning! And if you think that i am joking, i am not joking! You deserve to be put in mental institution for such reasoning!

i.e. you are so insane and emotionally pathetic you need to lock up those who would refute you to avoid your feelings getting hurt.

People do not deserve to be put in a mental institution for pointing out your bullshit.
We aren't encouraging people like you to be locked up, even though you are clearly mentally deficient.

SECOND EXAMPLE OF [MY] ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

Quote

The rotation of Earth (alone) says nothing about if Earth orbits the sun.
It would be hypothetically possible to have a stationary non-rotating Earth or a stationary rotating Earth and an orbiting rotating Earth.
The only time it is a bit iffy is for an orbiting, non-rotating Earth.

1. Rotation of the Earth (alone) says everything about if the Earth orbits the sun or not.
Why? Because you have to somehow explain away changes on the vertical axis of ANALEMA (seasons). You could do that by saying that the earths tilt is changing seasonally, but you can't do that because Polaris maintains it's fixed position in the sky 24/7!

Do you notice the "ALONE" part? I take it know.
In a model where Earth is stationary but rotating, the seasons would have another cause, such as a yearly orbit of the sun around us or something of the like.
And if you are going to have Earth's tilt change, then why can't Polaris move as well?

Without appealing to anything else, like seasons or Polaris or anything of the like, can you explain why a rotating Earth needs to be orbiting the sun?

2. Stationary-rotating earth? see above (number 1)...btw, how rotating earth can be stationary in the same time? [I am a] stupid idiot!

Stationary - i.e. not moving in a lateral direction, its centre of mass remains in the same place. It is a simple way to describe a hypothetical Earth that is revolving on its axis but not orbiting the sun.

This is also used in other context, for example, a stationary bike. That doesn't mean it's wheel (or pedals or other things) can't move. It just means it won't move laterally from you pedalling it.

3. Orbiting, non-rotating earth? What would cause the days and the nights on such orbiting, non-rotating earth? [I'm such a] Stupid idiot!

Good question. But irrelevant to the point at hand.
It is hypothetically possible for an orbiting non-rotating Earth to exist.

We aren't dealing with reality in any of these so who gives a damn?
The only model indicative of reality is that of a rotating orbiting Earth.

THIRD EXAMPLE OF [MY] ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

Quote

The only way to make something fire (in air) in a straight line is to have it go an extremely short distance, or to have some kind of built in guidance system keeping it straight.

NO COMMENT, [MY] STUPIDITY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!!!

Yes. Your stupidity sure does.
You are yet to provide an explanation for how an unpowered, unguided projectile can fire in a straight line.
Although I will admit, I did leave out the obvious option of firing straight down or up, but the rotation of Earth can get in the way.

FOURTH EXAMPLE OF [MY] ULTIMATE STUPIDITY :

 I'VE ASKED YOU : 

What is the difference (regarding the heliocentric cause for "THE DIRECTION of the apparent motion of the sun") between such hypothetical situation (God stops the earth at 1 PM and sets the motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM?


YOUR ANSWER WAS :

Quote

In one, Earth rotates in the opposite direction. In the other, it keeps on rotating in the same direction.

Since we talk about AN OPPOSITE (relative) direction of the rotation, which occurs within the 24 hours of each Polar day on the edge of Arctic circle, how then you can escape the inevitable conclusion (which constitutes the core of the ZIGZAG argument) which is this : whenever (every 12 hours) the earth changes the direction of rotation (with respect to the fixed position of the sun) the consequence of this shift of earth's relative direction of rotation must be also the shift of the direction of the apparent motion of the sun in the sky! AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

And as I said, in reality (not your delusional fantasy world), IT DOESN'T CHANGE DIRECTION.
I can escape you evitable conclusion because it is based on a straw man of reality.

I think I know what you are doing.
You are ignoring the Earth rotating below the person and pretending the person remains facing the same way w.r.t. the Earth-sun system.
But that isn't the case. You can't try to measure the person's orientation relative to the sun. You need to measure it relative to Earth.
I already explained what people would observe in reality.

Now, maybe you can answer this question:

What would happen if God stopped the rotation of the earth (during any Polar day) at 1 AM, and force the earth to rotate in an opposite direction? What would you see?

THE ANSWER : In such hypothetical situation (and only in that particular situation) an observer at the edge of the Arctic circle would be able to see the sun going in a proper (in accordance with the reality as we know) direction, that is to say : to the right (as the sun always goes to the right when we observe it from any point north from the equator)!

No. You would see the exact opposite.
The sun would previously have been coming from the west to the north. This would be left to right.
If your imaginary fiend then stopped it and turned it backwards, the sun would then appear to go from the north to the west. This would be right to left, and go against what we observe and what we would expect to observe.

Do you notice how again, instead of dealing with any of my objections to your argument, you instead just keep up the ridicule.

How about you go and try to refute my refutation of your crap?
How about you explain exactly what someone on Earth should expect. Not just right to left or left to right. Tell me the bearing they would expect to see the sun at.
can you do that?
State it for both a flat Earth and a round Earth.

ON TOP OF THAT :[/b]

There is no point to analyze here [my] ultimate stupidity which have CLEARLY shown commenting :

-AIRY'S FALURE EXP.
-MMX EXPERIMENT
-SAGNAC EXPERIMENT
-MGP EXPERIMENT
-DE PALMA EXPERIMENT
-DAYTON MILLER INTERFEROMETER EXP. (30 000)
-LONG EXPOSURE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STARS WHICH CONFIRM THAT
AIRY'S FAILURE, MMX, AND ALL OTHER INTERFEROMETER EXP. CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT THERE IS NO [AETHER]!!!
-ETC...

Now, you have ridiculed RABINOZ cowardice (reluctance to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book), but you have to look at yourself, your cowardice (TOTAL INDISPOSITION - AT ALL COST - to face the truth that the earth is at rest) is much more tragic, so i suggest you to shut your mouths up FOREVER AND EVER, because every word that comes out from your mouths is insult to a common sense of every reader who will ever have to lick a stinky shit which you spill (in tons) all around yourself 24/7!

Yes. I have pointed out his cowardice and dishonesty.
Me not accepting your delusional fantasies (which you have pretty much admitted you only believe because the Bible says so) is not cowardice.
You are yet to provide any evidence that Earth is at rest. Instead you come up with whatever crap you can to pretend your shitty book is true.
You are the coward here. You are unable to even consider my objections rationally because it would destroy your entire world view, showing your religion is a pile of shit, which you simply cannot accept. So instead you insult and ridicule and do whatever you can to dodge the argument.
That is an insult to intelligence, rationality, honesty, integrity, common sense and so on.

Now then, will you actually address my objections, or will you respond honestly?

Ciklijamas now thinks that a sky Santa Clause is a synonym of eternal.

Ciklijamas now thinks that a sky Santa Clause is a synonym of eternal.

I JUST HAVE FOUND ONE CONCISE ARTICLE WHICH EXPLAINS (IN A VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR WAY) THE REASONS ON WHICH BASIS I AM ALWAYS SAYING THAT THE MOST PROPER PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION OF GOD SHOULD BE "ONE WHO CAN NOT NOT TO BE" ("AN ESSENCE OF EXISTENCE" - "ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE" - "UNCAUSED CAUSE"):

I WARMLY RECOMMEND THIS ARTICLE (YOU SHOULD READ EVERY WORD OF THIS ARTICLE - DON'T BE AFRAID TO CLICK ON THIS LINK - IT WON'T BITE YOU) TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS THAT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS NOT AN OBVIOUS FACT : http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

I would like to point out this two quotes from this article :

--- If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.

--- If this argument is getting too tricky, the thing to do is to return to what is sure and clear: the intuitive point we began with. Not everyone can understand all the abstract details of the first-cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

P.S. You see, the existence of God is a self-evident fact, just like my ZIGZAG argument is a self-evident (plain and simple) proof that there is no rotation of the earth!!! If there is no rotation of the earth then there is no orbital motion of the earth and vice versa. If the earth is stationary then the earth is not tilted. If the earth is not tilted,  in order to enable parallel sun's rays the sun has to be very, very far away. If the sun is very, very far away (at least a few billion miles) then the sun must be much larger body than the earth. If the sun is much larger body (than the earth) which DAILY makes one full orbit (and seasonally makes huge vertical shifts (ANALEMA) ) around the earth then the sun must travel at tremendous speeds around much smaller body (which has no rational sense, and physical justification). On top of that : such motion would be geometrically in great discordance with what we see in the sky regarding sun's daily UP and DOWN motion!!!
Because of all that i just have said the only possible inference is that the earth must be flat!!!

Now, i would like to entertain you a little bit :

Sure, ignore the post that shows that your whole method here does not work

 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 03, 2016, 02:26:02 PM

Ciklijamas now thinks that a sky Santa Clause is a synonym of eternal.

I JUST HAVE FOUND ONE CONCISE ARTICLE WHICH EXPLAINS (IN A VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR WAY) THE REASONS ON WHICH BASIS I AM ALWAYS SAYING THAT THE MOST PROPER PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION OF GOD SHOULD BE "ONE WHO CAN NOT NOT TO BE" ("AN ESSENCE OF EXISTENCE" - "ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE" - "UNCAUSED CAUSE"):

I WARMLY RECOMMEND THIS ARTICLE (YOU SHOULD READ EVERY WORD OF THIS ARTICLE - DON'T BE AFRAID TO CLICK ON THIS LINK - IT WON'T BITE YOU) TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS THAT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS NOT AN OBVIOUS FACT : http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

I would like to point out this two quotes from this article :

--- If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.

--- If this argument is getting too tricky, the thing to do is to return to what is sure and clear: the intuitive point we began with. Not everyone can understand all the abstract details of the first-cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

P.S. You see, the existence of God is a self-evident fact, just like my ZIGZAG argument is a self-evident (plain and simple) proof that there is no rotation of the earth!!! If there is no rotation of the earth then there is no orbital motion of the earth and vice versa. If the earth is stationary then the earth is not tilted. If the earth is not tilted,  in order to enable parallel sun's rays the sun has to be very, very far away. If the sun is very, very far away (at least a few billion miles) then the sun must be much larger body than the earth. If the sun is much larger body (than the earth) which DAILY makes one full orbit (and seasonally makes huge vertical shifts (ANALEMA) ) around the earth then the sun must travel at tremendous speeds around much smaller body (which has no rational sense, and physical justification). On top of that : such motion would be geometrically in great discordance with what we see in the sky regarding sun's daily UP and DOWN motion!!!
Because of all that i just have said the only possible inference is that the earth must be flat!!!

Now, i would like to entertain you a little bit :

[CAPS RAGE]

Ok, stop shouting at me!

"THE MOST PROPER PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION OF GOD SHOULD BE "ONE WHO CAN NOT NOT TO BE" "

Who the fuck cares what he thinks and why is it relevant?

"If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist."

Again, SO? I don't think you understand that "independent entity" and your biblical old man in the sky are not synonymous. Not to mention that for all we know, there could be an infinite chain of dependent things. You are asking unknowable questions and reaching stupid conclusions.

"just like my ZIGZAG argument is a self-evident (plain and simple) proof that there is no rotation of the earth!!! "

WTF is the zigzag argument?

Also, you fail to understand frames of reference. You could pick a frame of reference where earth doesn't move. No issue with that.

"On top of that : such motion would be geometrically in great discordance with what we see in the sky regarding sun's daily UP and DOWN motion!!!"

What are you talking about?

"Because of all that i just have said the only possible inference is that the earth must be flat!!!"

Are you insane or what?

Also, what's the video you posted? I'm using mobile data I can't watch it.

WTF is the zigzag argument?

FIRST SCENARIO :

It's NOON, it's northern summer solstice, you are standing at the edge of the Arctic circle, and you are watching the stationary sun (you are looking to the south). The earth currently doesn't move!

THE QUESTION:

If God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the left you would see the sun as apparently goes to the right and vice versa, if God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the right you would see the sun as apparently moves to the left!

 ISN'T THAT SO?

SECOND SCENARIO :

It's MIDNIGHT, it's northern summer solstice, you are standing at the edge of the Arctic circle, and you are watching the stationary sun. (you are looking to the north). The earth currently doesn't move!

NOW I HAVE TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION :

If God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the left you would see the sun as apparently goes to the right and vice versa, if God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the right you would see the sun as apparently moves to the left!

 ISN'T THAT SO?

THE ONLY WAY HOW YOU CAN ESCAPE INEVITABLE INFERENCE (WHICH IS THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) REGARDING THE NECESSARY CHANGE/SHIFT OF THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF SUN'S MOTION (UNDER THE SUPPOSITION OF THE SPINNING BALL-EARTH) IS IF YOU MANAGE TO PROVE THAT THE RIGHT ANSWER TO ONE OF ABOVE QUESTIONS IS NEGATIVE (AND IF YOU MANAGE TO LOGICALLY JUSTIFY SUCH NEGATIVE ANSWER)!!!

FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE DECISIVE ZIGZAG ARGUMENT :

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth! I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another. For instance :

1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turns around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine that God stops the earth at 1 PM and start to move the earth in an opposite direction (CLOCKWISE), what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question :

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (God stops the earth at 1 PM and sets the motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 miles away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!

If you asked yourself why is it so, (((why there weren't any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun))) i could offer to you this simple and true explanation :

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!

Quote

All of you round earthers now admit that we can't see the curvature of the earth even from a very high altitudes (more than 125 000 feet), and we can't see it because the earth is so, so huge, isn't that so? The earth is so huge that when you observe the earth from Mt Everest you  would be able to see 333 km in all directions according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator. So, 333 km = 3 degrees (3 * 60 nautical miles = 111 km). Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flat, of course it's flat since it's flat when we observe it from even much, much higher altitudes, you can't deny that, can you? Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorable, but we are going to use these 333 km. Now, imagine yourself standing somewhere at the Arctic circle and observing the motion of the sun ) which travels at 666 km/h at the Arctic circle latitude which is 66,6 degree N. It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun. Let's say that you observe the motion of the sun from 15 minutes before MIDNIGHT till 15 minutes after MIDNIGHT. Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???

The end of story!!!

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 04, 2016, 05:13:05 AM

WTF is the zigzag argument?

FIRST SCENARIO :

It's NOON, it's northern summer solstice, you are standing at the edge of the Arctic circle, and you are watching the stationary sun (you are looking to the south). The earth currently doesn't move!

THE QUESTION:

If God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the left you would see the sun as apparently goes to the right and vice versa, if God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the right you would see the sun as apparently moves to the left!

 ISN'T THAT SO?

SECOND SCENARIO :

It's MIDNIGHT, it's northern summer solstice, you are standing at the edge of the Arctic circle, and you are watching the stationary sun. (you are looking to the north). The earth currently doesn't move!

NOW I HAVE TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION :

If God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the left you would see the sun as apparently goes to the right and vice versa, if God suddenly caused the earth to rotate to the right you would see the sun as apparently moves to the left!

 ISN'T THAT SO?

THE ONLY WAY HOW YOU CAN ESCAPE INEVITABLE INFERENCE (WHICH IS THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) REGARDING THE NECESSARY CHANGE/SHIFT OF THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF SUN'S MOTION (UNDER THE SUPPOSITION OF THE SPINNING BALL-EARTH) IS IF YOU MANAGE TO PROVE THAT THE RIGHT ANSWER TO ONE OF ABOVE QUESTIONS IS NEGATIVE (AND IF YOU MANAGE TO LOGICALLY JUSTIFY SUCH NEGATIVE ANSWER)!!!

FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE DECISIVE ZIGZAG ARGUMENT :

Quote

That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth! I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another. For instance :

1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turns around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).

2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!

Just imagine that God stops the earth at 1 PM and start to move the earth in an opposite direction (CLOCKWISE), what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?

Now, the question :

What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (God stops the earth at 1 PM and sets the motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM?

Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!

Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 miles away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!

If you asked yourself why is it so, (((why there weren't any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun))) i could offer to you this simple and true explanation :

In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.

While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!

Quote

All of you round earthers now admit that we can't see the curvature of the earth even from a very high altitudes (more than 125 000 feet), and we can't see it because the earth is so, so huge, isn't that so? The earth is so huge that when you observe the earth from Mt Everest you  would be able to see 333 km in all directions according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator. So, 333 km = 3 degrees (3 * 60 nautical miles = 111 km). Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flat, of course it's flat since it's flat when we observe it from even much, much higher altitudes, you can't deny that, can you? Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorable, but we are going to use these 333 km. Now, imagine yourself standing somewhere at the Arctic circle and observing the motion of the sun ) which travels at 666 km/h at the Arctic circle latitude which is 66,6 degree N. It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun. Let's say that you observe the motion of the sun from 15 minutes before MIDNIGHT till 15 minutes after MIDNIGHT. Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???

The end of story!!!

I'm sorry I am having a hard time following your argument here, but I have been near the arctic circle around the solstice and the sun neither stops nor zig zags.  It makes a circle in the sky, exactly like it would if the earth were a tilted spinning globe.
But here is the thing.  You can easily prove or disprove this yourself.  Take a decent size globe, attach a small camera to it, you could tape your phone to it.  Position a light source away from it.   Turn on the camera and give the globe a spin.
You can test all kinds of tilts etc.
You will find you get the same results as you can observe every day.  No zig zag, not stoppage.
Go on try it.  I dare you.

I'm sorry I am having a hard time following your argument here, but I have been near the arctic circle around the solstice and the sun neither stops nor zig zags.  It makes a circle in the sky, exactly like it would if the earth were a tilted spinning globe.
But here is the thing.  You can easily prove or disprove this yourself.  Take a decent size globe, attach a small camera to it, you could tape your phone to it.  Position a light source away from it.   Turn on the camera and give the globe a spin.
You can test all kinds of tilts etc.
You will find you get the same results as you can observe every day.  No zig zag, not stoppage.
Go on try it.  I dare you.

Of course it doesn't stops or zig zags since the earth is stationary! That is the point of my argument! As for the experiment maybe you should watch this video (time adjusted at 11m02s) :

#t=11m02s

I fail to see how anything you said translates to a zig zag.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 04, 2016, 05:13:05 AM

WTF is the zigzag argument?

FIRST SCENARIO :

...you are looking to the south...

SECOND SCENARIO :

...you are looking to the north...

You turned around. What used to be to your left is now to your right and vice-versa.

Trying this tired, already-refuted argument on a new audience?

FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE DECISIVE ZIGZAG ARGUMENT :

Here. I'll save you some trouble:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1720290#msg1720290

That was more than a year ago, from one of several threads about it. There are others. Should I link them, too?

"DECISIVE" (in all caps, yet), lol. A year ago it was "ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE" (also all caps), yet as easily refuted then as now. You're still wrong.