You have just depicted what really happens in reality and thus the "absence" of that motion clearly proves that you are the greatest idiot who ever walked on the face of this earth !!! ROFL
No. I have depicted what would happen on a flat Earth.
As you can clearly see, the sun goes right to left for one part of the day, but then left to right for another.
This doesn't happen in reality, and thus clearly the Earth can't be flat.
So your zig-zag argument is "irrefutable proof" that the sun does not circle above a stationary Earth.
If you would like to reject this argument, explain why it is wrong but your argument is correct.
(I will likely skip over most of your later crap which I have already refuted, but may restate some points).
All you are doing now is showing your complete stupidity or dishonesty.
ZIGZAG 1 :
Nope.
The wooden rod is your reference. If you were standing there and facing the middle and the wooden rod (indicating Earth) rotated (especially smoothly rotated at very low speed) then you would still be facing towards it.
You can clearly see (at least in the video which shows the start) that the "sun" goes from directly in line with the rod, to the left of the rod.
Thus turning to the left made the sun go to the left.
The only exception to that is if you are countering the rotation to try and determine parallax, but I will get to that in a second.
AND THE APPARENT MOTION OF THE SUN WOULD ZIGGING AND ZAGGING, MAKING PARALLAX (A LOOP) IN THE SKY!!!
And how about you do the math for us to show us just how big this parallax would be, on a flat Earth and a round Earth?
For the round Earth, to simplify a bit, assuming you are keeping your reference frame pseudo-stationary, such that it points in the direction perpendicular to Earth's motion, this means you are turning at a rate of 15 degrees an hour to counter the rotation of Earth at 15 degrees an hour.
This is also so at midday and midnight you are directly facing the sun.
The extremes are at 6 am and 6 pm, where you are displaced from that line by a maximum of the radius of Earth.
This allows us to easily determine the angle (or parallax).
You construct a right triangle, where one side connects you to the centre of Earth, another side connects the centre of Earth to the sun, and the hypotenuse is between you and the sun. The parallax angle is the angle between the line connecting you and the sun and the line connecting Earth and the sun.
This allows us to easily find it using inverse tan (aka atan aka arctan). (just using approx numbers for simplicity to show it but using the proper ones in calculations in excel).
So, this gives us parallax=atan(6400/150000000). This gives us a parallax of roughly 9 arc seconds.
As a comparison, the sun itself is roughly 30 arc minutes.
This means we would be looking for a change in the apparent position of the sun equal to roughly one 200th of the size of the sun.
So fat chance noticing that.
Now the FE case.
Lets put our person on the edge of the arctic circle at 180 degrees (measured clockwise from above). This is roughly 2600 km from the north pole.
The sun circles above the tropic of cancer, which is roughly 7400 km from the north pole.
At midnight, the sun is due north, at a horizontal distance of roughly 10 000 km (0 degrees relative to the person and the north pole).
At 6am (which is not necessarily the peak of the parallax, I am just using it for simplicity), the person is still at 180 degrees from the south pole, and is 2600 km from it.
The sun is still 7400 km away from the north pole, but now is at an angle of 90 degrees.
However, to match the orbit of the sun, just like in the RE example, he is turning 15 degrees an hour. So he is now looking 90 degrees, or due east.
Again, this allows us to construct a right angle triangle (which is why I chose this time rather than trying to find the maximum parallax).
One side is person to north pole. One is sun to north pole. The hypotenuse is sun to person.
The angle is calculated just like before, so the parallax would be atan(2600/7400). This gives us a massive parallax of 19.4 degrees.
(Also notice the massive change in the distance, ranging from 10 000 km to 4800 km).
So if we were going to see this zig-zag motion parallax, it would be if Earth is flat.
So if you think this zig-zag argument is viable, it would disprove a flat Earth, not a round one.
So time to come up with some new BS.
Also note, for simplicity I ignored Earth's axial tilt. That will effect it to some degree and is why it isn't due east at 6am.
How do you manage not to see/understand something so simple?
Good question. How do you?
How do you not understand the difference between rotational and translational motion?
How do you not understand the difference between being on the side of the north pole facing the sun and the side away from the sun?
How do you not understand that your crap works better on a flat earth (i.e. refuting it) than on a round Earth?
How do you not understand that the sun turns against the clockwise/counterclockwise rotation of Earth rather than left/right movement of it?
How do you not understand that your argument is pure bullshit?
2. We can obscure our orientation points (our entire environment) and we will be still able to say (very easily) from which side to which side the sun goes in the sky. Do you agree? And you know why? Because the sun makes HUGE turn in the sky! And you know why? Because the sun is very close to the earth and because the sun is very small in comparison to the earth!
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it is wrong.
In the FE model, the sun makes a tiny and highly variable turn in the sky.
in the RE model, from a non-rotating earth centred reference frame, the sun makes a huge turn in the sky.
For FE, the maximum is roughly 12600 km, for RE it is 150 000 000 km.
3. When we go to the LEFT (and the sun goes to the RIGHT)
Again, this depends on which side of the north pole you are on.
If you are on the same side as the sun, then when you go left, the earth goes counterclockwise (when viewed from above) and thus the sun goes right.
If you are on the opposite side, then as you go left, the earth goes clockwise and thus the sun goes left.
4.Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn't
That's right. The core of your argument is bullshit regardless of how far away the sun is.
Imagine that you observe the motion of the shadow of some object on the spinning round earth, during your LEFT to RIGHT translation (with respect to the sun)
Get this through your thick skull;
THERE IS NO TRANSLATION!!! IT IS ROTATION!!!!
Due you understand the difference?
If you are going to do it with respect to the sun, then it is so huge and far away that there is effectively no translation, and thus no motion left or right.
As I explained before, at the equator the maximum would be 9 arc seconds compared to the suns 30 arc minute size.
As such, you wouldn't see any of this bullshit.
Instead, lets use a more rational reference frame, such as your bearing, and rotating clockwise (N->E->S->W->N), vs counterclockwise (the other way), and rotation of Earth, when viewed from above the north pole, so clockwise rotation means that the side facing the sun goes right, while counterclockwise means it goes left.
Just saying left and right makes no sense but it is the dishonest bullshit you need to pull to pretend your dishonest bullshit argument works.
the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction, and vice versa, while you go RIGHT to LEFT the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction (LEFT to RIGHT).
Yes (after fixing for actual direction).
If Earth rotates counterclockwise the sun appears to move clockwise and the shadow rotates counterclockwise, e.g. the sun moves from due south to the west while the shadow goes from north to the east.
This applies regardless of what side of Earth you are on, assuming you are north of the tropics and the sun is visible.
This is also exactly what is observed.
So, an attempt of refutation on the basis of so called "small parallax" "counter-argument" is totally bogus and erroneous!
Yes, if you horribly misrepresent rotational motion as transnational motion, then the small parallax argument doesn't apply.
If instead you try to be honest and actually use a frame that keeps Earth and the sun in the same position but has Earth rotating (e.g. sun at 0,0, Earth at 0,-R), but you measure you bearings with respect to this y axis, then the small parallax counter-argument is rock solid.
This is simply because of the relative sizes are. As I explained Earlier, with a massively close sun (FE), the shadow would move 19 degrees. But that isn't observed and that would easily be observed. Hence this FE model is pure bullshit.
However, the RE model, with the sun at 150 000 000 km, the angle would only be 9 seconds of arc. That is pretty much undetectable to a human, especially when they need to compensate for the rotation of Earth and get more complications with axial tilt.
As such, the small parallax argument is either irrelevant to your dishonest presentation of rotational movement as translational movement, or it holds for the RE model, but not the FE bullshit.
5. Should i repeat this once more
No. You should discard your dishonest/stupid bullshit and try to be honest and rational for a change.
you would instantly have to discard heliocentric explanation for the mechanics of changes (the alleged rotation of the earth) of the suns (EAST-WEST) position in the sky
No. As they would be talking about 2 completely different things.
Again, unless you are trying to use translational motion to describe angular motion.
Translational motion causes the parallax.
Rotational motion causes the east to west movement of the sun.
The 2 issues are entirely different, only linked by your rotational and translational motion being a result of the rotational motion of Earth.
HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN AVOID APPLYING THE SAME ALLEGED MECHANIC (HELIOCENTRIC CAUSE) OF SUN'S TRANSLATION IN THE SKY DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE POLAR DAY? HOW???
We don't. The sun's "translation" in the sky is still tiny and not observed then. Its rotation about us still has the same cause and is produced by our rotation relative to it, rather than our translation relative to it. Our rotation relative to it remains unchanged (well, it doesn't change direction).
Alpha, i know that you are not so confused like that guy to whom i have sent above message, you are an ordinary-profesional liar. So, i have posted these words for the victims of your deliberate lies, for those who are still confused reading your disgusting, deliberate lies, not for you!
No. He seems honest, and is just confused at what you mean.
I would like to know which are you?
Are you a complete imbecile that is completely incapable of understanding how these models work, or are you lying dishonest scum that knows quite well that what you are saying is pure bullshit, but you want to say it anyway?
And don't worry, I am starting to feel the same. I am not posting theses primarily here for you, as you seem far too far gone, either in stupidity or dishonesty, to be able to accept that you are wrong. Instead I am refuting it for anyone who might look on and otherwise be convinced by your bullshit.
Exactly dumbass, but what you are saying goes for [reality] (if the earth were 150 000 000 away from the earth), but even in [reality] with special instruments we could detect ZIGZAG motion (no doubts about that) but i am sure that you can't imagine what we would see in the sky regarding sun's motion, because that would be something quite different from what we see in our reality!!!
Except we are looking for a tiny difference, much less than the difference caused by refraction, and a difference which is complicated by axial tilt.
And what makes you so sure we can't see it?
You just assert we can't, but you do so by saying the sun should move in the complete opposite direction, but that isn't what we expect.
I can imagine what we would see. The sun would appear to revolve around us, in a slightly perturbed circle. And guess what? That is what is observed.
Now dumbass, wouldn't you finally pull your brain out of your ass and try to figure out this simple truth : 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!
Yes. That's right.
We wouldn't notice it with our eyes, and we don't.
But this is just due to translation, not to rotation.
While we travel on Earth rotating, we would see the change in the position of the sun.
It goes for AT LEAST HALF AN HOUR AROUND NOON, AND HAL AN HOUR AROUND MIDNIGHT!
No. It doesn't.
What we see then is a rotational change, where the bearing to the sun changes. Exactly what we would expect from our rotation.
From a simplified view, that 30 minute time means we are rotating 7.5 degrees. That means that the sun would be expected to move roughly 7.5 degrees.
But again, axial tilt and 3D complicates that.
That is to say, in above periods of the day THERE WOULD BE NO APPARENT TRANSLATION OF THE SUN IN THE SKY, THE SUN WOULD BE A FIXED DOT IN THE SKY IN THESE PERIODS AT LEAST!!!
No. If Earth was just translating and not rotating, that would be the case. But we aren't. We are also rotating. As such, we would expect a change due to our rotation.
So, having this in mind we can say that ZIGZAG argument INDIRECTLY (there is no apparent stoppage of the sun in the sky in above enumerated periods of the day) proves that the sun is very close to the earth, and DIRECTLY (there is no ZIG ZAG motion of the sun comparing NOON/MIDNIGHT periods of one Arctic Polar Day) proves that the earth is at rest!!!
No. All it proves is that you are either too stupid/ignorant to understand direction and translation and rotation, or are too dishonest to tell the truth about it.
The zig-zag argument proves directly that the sun must be very far away and refutes the FE.
People are not dots, if we were dots we wouldn't be able to distinguish LEFT and RIGHT. So, you have to draw a man (instead of dot) who has got two hands : one LEFT and one RIGHT hand and then see what is going to happen regarding ZIGZAG phenomena (on a spinning ball)...
Another thing which you have to take into consideration is my answer to the so called "The same order of sequences" objection (see above)...
And people don't just stay standing facing the same way relative to the sun, they rotate with Earth. In order to track the sun, they need to turn.
I did that with a flat earth model, and guess what?
It matches with your depiction of the round Earth with someone standing on the artic circle facing north.
For one part of the day, the sun moved right to left, for the other part it moved left to right.