ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH

Now then, would you like to try to be rational and honest for once.

Tell us the direction (bearing) you would expect the sun to be at at certain times.

Or tell us how you think the sun moving from right to left will make it go from west to north to east.

Can you do either?

Or would you prefer to end this distraction with your ignorance and dishonest and instead go back to the original argument, with your dishonest numbers and missing sections of mountains or mountains being at the wrong height clearly indicating Earth can't be flat?

Quote from: cikljamas on December 05, 2016, 02:47:54 AM

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.

This is really the final nail in the coffin of your credibility (of any kind)!!!

My rod is not my reference point, a fixed arrows drawn on my desktop are my reference point, and you know that, but you are playing even more dumb than you really are (but you can't be dumber than you already are, it's impossible, since you are jack of stupidity, remember?)...

According to your UTTERLY IDIOTIC logic, when we come to the farthest point to the right then the sun has to be also farthest to the right, since the sun is on the right side of my rod, and when we reach the farthest point to the left then the sun has to be also farthest to the left, since the sun is on the left side of my rod...

You should shoot yourself in the empty head, you would do a favor to humanity, since you have UTTERLY failed as a human being!!!

Now, since there is no point to talk with such ultimate idiots like you (and your heliocentric friends are) i have to say goodby to you again dear Alpha2Omega!

JUST A REMINDER :

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 (http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/81683356424787192675.jpg), 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!!!

ZIGZAG 1 :

ZIGZAG 2 :

ZIGZAG 3 :

ZIGZAG 4 :

ZIGZAG 5 :

ZIGZAG 6 :

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO DEMONSTRATION :
#t=11m02s

This is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :

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

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

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

4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn't, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg

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

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

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

ON TOP OF THAT :

6. 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!

It goes for AT LEAST HALF AN HOUR AROUND NOON, AND HAL AN HOUR AROUND MIDNIGHT!

But it also goes for AT LEAST HALF AN HOUR AROUND 6 AM, AND HALF AN HOUR AROUND 6 PM, when we would move directly TOWARDS the sun, and directly AWAY FROM the sun!

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!!!

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!!!



7. Finally, i would like to remind you to my answer to Southern Hemispherer (regarding his objection) :

People are not dots, if we were a 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...

Another thing which you have to take into consideration is my answer to the so called "The same order of sequences" objection (see above)...

This is really the final nail in the coffin of your credibility (of any kind)!!!

Nope. But still makes me question if you are intentionally dishonest or just retarded.

My rod is not my reference point, a fixed arrows drawn on my desktop are my reference point, and you know that, but you are playing even more dumb than you really are

Really?
So you are using a reference point which isn't even in the situation?

Yes, I kind of did guess that, as you need it to pass your bullshit.

Try doing it honestly.

According to your UTTERLY IDIOTIC logic, when we come to the farthest point to the right then the sun has to be also farthest to the right, since the sun is on the right side of my rod, and when we reach the farthest point to the left then the sun has to be also farthest to the left, since the sun is on the left side of my rod...

Again, you are comparing completely different things.

If, from the north pole, facing the sun, the rod is furthest to the left, then if you are on the rod facing north, the sun will be furthest to the left. And the same applies for the right.
Notice how they are 2 different reference frames?
If you wanted to just use absolute position, ignoring the rotation, and instead having your person rotate to exactly match (in the opposite direction) the rotation of Earth, then there would be a movement. A whole 9 seconds of arc (or 1 200th of the sun's size).

You should shoot yourself in the empty head, you would do a favor to humanity, since you have UTTERLY failed as a human being!!!

The only thing I have failed with here is determining if you really are this stupid, or if you are just lying dishonest scum.

I have already dealt with the rest of your bullshit.

Now I will try asking you the nice simple questions again:

What is the bearing (or direction) to the sun, for someone standing on or slighly inside the arctic circle during their summer at the following times:
midnight
midday
morning
afternoon.

Or alternatively, if during the day the sun's motion is from left to right, starting east, heading south and then west, how then does moving the opposite direction result in it going to the north instead of back to the south?

Your continued avoidance of these questions doesn't help clarify anything either.
I'm not sure if you are too stupid to understand or you know you are spouting bullshit and thus are too dishonest to answer.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2016, 02:14:19 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on December 05, 2016, 02:47:54 AM

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.

This is really the final nail in the coffin of your credibility (of any kind)!!!

My rod is not my reference point, a fixed arrows drawn on my desktop are my reference point, and you know that, but you are playing even more dumb than you really are (but you can't be dumber than you already are, it's impossible, since you are jack of stupidity, remember?)...

According to your UTTERLY IDIOTIC logic, when we come to the farthest point to the right then the sun has to be also farthest to the right, since the sun is on the right side of my rod, and when we reach the farthest point to the left then the sun has to be also farthest to the left, since the sun is on the left side of my rod...

You should shoot yourself in the empty head, you would do a favor to humanity, since you have UTTERLY failed as a human being!!!

Now, since there is no point to talk with such ultimate idiots like you (and your heliocentric friends are) i have to say goodby to you again dear Alpha2Omega!

JUST A REMINDER :

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 (http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/81683356424787192675.jpg), 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!!!

ZIGZAG 1 :

ZIGZAG 2 :

ZIGZAG 3 :

ZIGZAG 4 :

ZIGZAG 5 :

ZIGZAG 6 :

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO DEMONSTRATION :
#t=11m02s

This is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :

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

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

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

4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn't, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg

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

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

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

ON TOP OF THAT :

6. 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!

It goes for AT LEAST HALF AN HOUR AROUND NOON, AND HAL AN HOUR AROUND MIDNIGHT!

But it also goes for AT LEAST HALF AN HOUR AROUND 6 AM, AND HALF AN HOUR AROUND 6 PM, when we would move directly TOWARDS the sun, and directly AWAY FROM the sun!

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!!!

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!!!



7. Finally, i would like to remind you to my answer to Southern Hemispherer (regarding his objection) :

People are not dots, if we were a 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...

Another thing which you have to take into consideration is my answer to the so called "The same order of sequences" objection (see above)...

oh heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell na, if we don't get to use pictures to show the earth's curvature, you don't get to use them to show the lack there of. you can either accept photographic evidence or not, you don't get to deny evidence from one side of the argument and deny any evidence from the other.

maybe i have a logical argument, maybe i don't; who cares, i say your photo was either taken with a fish eye lens at the perfect angle to make the round earth appear flat, or it's photoshopped to look flat.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 06, 2016, 01:36:12 AM

My rod is not my reference point, a fixed arrows drawn on my desktop are my reference point, and you know that, but you are playing even more dumb than you really are

Really?
So you are using a reference point which isn't even in the situation?

Well, it seems that i have expressed myself rather awkwardly :

When i said that i used arrows ON THE DESKTOP as my reference frame, what i really meant to say is this : you can consider this arrows as they are drawn on the lens of my camera, and that is exactly what you see in this video (and on the photographs (above) which are taken out of that ZIGZAG video demonstration) : an arrows are STRICTLY in the line of sight of the lens of the camera, so that an arrow which points to the left can almost perfectly represent the left eye of the viewer (who watch this ZIGZAG video demonstration) and an arrow which points to the right can almost perfectly represent the right eye of the observer (who watch this ZIGZAG video demonstration)!

Given all that i've just said, an arrows on the lens of my camera PERFECTLY represent the reference frame of the observer who is in demonstrated ZIGZAG situation!!!

So, you again prove an indisputable fact : you are a jack of stupidity!!!

P.S. Very interestingly, you haven't even try to decline the justification of my accusation regarding my conviction according which Jack Black and Alpha2Omega are the same person...

Quote from: JackBlack on December 06, 2016, 03:03:33 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on December 06, 2016, 01:36:12 AM

My rod is not my reference point, a fixed arrows drawn on my desktop are my reference point, and you know that, but you are playing even more dumb than you really are

Really?
So you are using a reference point which isn't even in the situation?

Well, it seems that i have expressed myself rather awkwardly :

When i said that i used arrows ON THE DESKTOP as my reference frame, what i really meant to say is this : you can consider this arrows as they are drawn on the lens of my camera, and that is exactly what you see in this video (and on the photographs (above) which are taken out of that ZIGZAG video demonstration) : an arrows are STRICTLY in the line of sight of the lens of the camera, so that an arrow which points to the left can almost perfectly represent the left eye of the viewer (who watch this ZIGZAG video demonstration) and an arrow which points to the right can almost perfectly represent the right eye of the observer (who watch this ZIGZAG video demonstration)!

Given all that i've just said, an arrows on the lens of my camera PERFECTLY represent the reference frame of the observer who is in demonstrated ZIGZAG situation!!!

So, you again proves an indisputable fact : you are a jack of stupidity!!!

P.S. Very interestingly, you haven't even try to decline the veracity of my accusation regarding my conviction according which Jack Black and Alpha2Omega are the same person...

here we see the flat earth conspiracist in its natural habitat, comfortably spewing logical fallacies while surrounded with a nonsensical argument. you don't want to corner one of these majestic creatures because what might at first seem to be a harmless debate will quickly turn into a pissing contest of ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

here we see the flat earth conspiracist in its natural habitat, comfortably spewing logical fallacies while surrounded with a nonsensical argument. you don't want to corner one of these majestic creatures because what might at first seem to be a harmless debate will quickly turn into a pissing contest of ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

sir_awesome, you are an awesome idiot!
You don't see the wood (a mountain of an indisputable arguments which are irrefutably  confirmed by the presented evidence : a bunch of photos, videos, a meticulous explanations and absolutely valid refutations of a round earth stupid objections) for the trees (a necessary remarks regarding unbelievable dishonesty and stupidity of your idiotic friends)!!!
CONGRATULATIONS!

Quote from: sir_awesome123 on December 06, 2016, 04:03:11 AM

here we see the flat earth conspiracist in its natural habitat, comfortably spewing logical fallacies while surrounded with a nonsensical argument. you don't want to corner one of these majestic creatures because what might at first seem to be a harmless debate will quickly turn into a pissing contest of ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

sir_awesome, you are an awesome idiot!
You don't see the wood (a mountain of an indisputable arguments which are irrefutably  confirmed by the presented evidence : a bunch of photos, videos, a meticulous explanations and refutations of a round earth stupid objections) for the trees (a necessary remarks regarding unbelievable dishonesty and stupidity of your idiotic friends)!!!
CONGRATULATIONS!

i had a spectacular point to make, but then you went and made it for me. how courteous of you.

Cikldumbass, what, people are not dots? The person depicted in the sequence for YOUR sake was seen from above wearing a freaking huge black sombrero, if you could not notice that he had to turn around, following the sun and see it going 360 degrees around the horizon that was visible to where he was standing, then you have absolutely no credibility here.
All you can do is requote your idiotic zig-zag video link and reams of other rubbish! Congratulations, you have reached the bottom of the ladder, and it has been removed so you are stuck down at the bottom of the latrine for ever!

Cikldumbass, what, people are not dots? The person depicted in the sequence for YOUR sake was seen from above wearing a freaking huge black sombrero, if you could not notice that he had to turn around, following the sun and see it going 360 degrees around the horizon that was visible to where he was standing, then you have absolutely no credibility here.
All you can do is requote your idiotic zig-zag video link and reams of other rubbish! Congratulations, you have reached the bottom of the ladder, and it has been removed so you are stuck down at the bottom of the latrine for ever!

Read and learn you stupid asshole :

1. Heliocentric model = you are on a merry go round = you are OUT OF A CIRCLE = THERE IS A PARALLAX = THERE IS A ZIGZAG PHENOMENA
2. Geocentric model = the sun circles AROUND you = you are WITHIN A CIRCLE = THERE IS NO PARALLAX = NO ZIGZAG

Now, read these two different hypothetical scenarios, and try to understand this simple "ZIGZAG" concept :

1. FIRST SCENARIO (DESCRIBED IN RORY COOPER'S ANIMATION OF MY ARGUMENT) :

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE SUN CONTINUOUSLY BY TURNING AROUND YOURSELF 360 DEGREES PER 24 HOURS.

IF THE EARTH WAS A SPINNING BALL, YOU WOULDN'T TURN AROUND YOURSELF FOR 360 DEGREES IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE STATIONARY SUN WHICH WOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU. IN THAT (HELIOCENTRIC) CASE YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSTANTLY ADJUST YOUR POSITION SO TO BE ABLE TO ALWAYS (FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS) WATCH DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE STATIONARY SUN WHICH WOULD ONLY APPARENTLY MOVE IN THE SKY FROM LEFT TO THE RIGHT (FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION), AND FROM RIGHT TO THE LEFT (FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION).

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE STATIONARY SUN, YOU WOULD ONLY CHANGE YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SPINNING-EARTH-BALL-ENVIRONMENT, AND THE RESULT WOULD BE A ZIGZAG PHENOMENA (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY GO TO THE RIGHT FIRST HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY, AND THEN WOULD APPARENTLY GO TO THE LEFT SECOND HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY) WHICH DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR REALITY.

2. SECOND SCENARIO:

IN THIS SCENARIO YOU ARE WATCHING STRICTLY TOWARDS THE NORTH (NOT TOWARDS THE SUN). WHAT HAPPENS NOW? WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS AN OPPOSITE SCENARIO THAN IN THE FIRST CASE:

YOU DON'T MOVE AT ALL, BUT NOW THE SUN GOES FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND (FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY), AND FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND AGAIN (FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY).

YOU SEE, NOW THE SUN MAKES KIND OF A ZIGZAG WITH RESPECT TO YOU AS AN OBSERVER, BUT THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IS THIS : IN THIS SCENARIO YOU CAN'T SEE THE SUN FOR ALMOST 12 HOURS (ONE HALF OF IT'S FULL CIRCUIT AROUND YOU).

ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE EARTH WAS A SPINNING BALL YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE SUN FOR ABOUT 12 HOURS, ALSO, BUT IN THIS (HELIOCENTRIC MODEL) THE SUN WOULDN'T MAKE ANY KIND OF A ZIGZAG WITH RESPECT TO YOU AS AN OBSERVER ON A SPINNING BALL, IN THIS CASE THE SUN WOULD CONSTANTLY-APPARENTLY MOVE FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS.

Cikldumbass, what, people are not dots? The person depicted in the sequence for YOUR sake was seen from above wearing a freaking huge black sombrero, if you could not notice that he had to turn around, following the sun and see it going 360 degrees around the horizon that was visible to where he was standing, then you have absolutely no credibility here.
All you can do is requote your idiotic zig-zag video link and reams of other rubbish! Congratulations, you have reached the bottom of the ladder, and it has been removed so you are stuck down at the bottom of the latrine for ever!

woah woah woah, that is much too logical a rebuttal. if you want to get any real answers you're gonna need to calm down with all this thinking you're doing, and really step into the flat earth mindset. try throwing out some ad hominem attacks, or maybe just denying or ignoring everything he says. ya gotta speak their language, facts and figures only work in the context of reason.

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 06, 2016, 04:19:59 AM

Cikldumbass, what, people are not dots? The person depicted in the sequence for YOUR sake was seen from above wearing a freaking huge black sombrero, if you could not notice that he had to turn around, following the sun and see it going 360 degrees around the horizon that was visible to where he was standing, then you have absolutely no credibility here.
All you can do is requote your idiotic zig-zag video link and reams of other rubbish! Congratulations, you have reached the bottom of the ladder, and it has been removed so you are stuck down at the bottom of the latrine for ever!

Read and learn you stupid asshole :

1. Heliocentric model = you are on a merry go round = you are OUT OF A CIRCLE = THERE IS A PARALLAX = THERE IS A ZIGZAG PHENOMENA
2. Geocentric model = the sun circles AROUND you = you are WITHIN A CIRCLE = THERE IS NO PARALLAX = NO ZIGZAG

Now, read these two different hypothetical scenarios, and try to understand this simple "ZIGZAG" concept :

1. FIRST SCENARIO (DESCRIBED IN RORY COOPER'S ANIMATION OF MY ARGUMENT) :

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE SUN CONTINUOUSLY BY TURNING AROUND YOURSELF 360 DEGREES PER 24 HOURS.

IF THE EARTH WAS A SPINNING BALL, YOU WOULDN'T TURN AROUND YOURSELF FOR 360 DEGREES IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE STATIONARY SUN WHICH WOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU. IN THAT (HELIOCENTRIC) CASE YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSTANTLY ADJUST YOUR POSITION SO TO BE ABLE TO ALWAYS (FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS) WATCH DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE STATIONARY SUN WHICH WOULD ONLY APPARENTLY MOVE IN THE SKY FROM LEFT TO THE RIGHT (FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION), AND FROM RIGHT TO THE LEFT (FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION).

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE STATIONARY SUN, YOU WOULD ONLY CHANGE YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SPINNING-EARTH-BALL-ENVIRONMENT, AND THE RESULT WOULD BE A ZIGZAG PHENOMENA (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY GO TO THE RIGHT FIRST HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY, AND THEN WOULD APPARENTLY GO TO THE LEFT SECOND HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY) WHICH DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR REALITY.

2. SECOND SCENARIO:

IN THIS SCENARIO YOU ARE WATCHING STRICTLY TOWARDS THE NORTH (NOT TOWARDS THE SUN). WHAT HAPPENS NOW? WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS AN OPPOSITE SCENARIO THAN IN THE FIRST CASE:

YOU DON'T MOVE AT ALL, BUT NOW THE SUN GOES FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND (FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY), AND FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND AGAIN (FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY).

YOU SEE, NOW THE SUN MAKES KIND OF A ZIGZAG WITH RESPECT TO YOU AS AN OBSERVER, BUT THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IS THIS : IN THIS SCENARIO YOU CAN'T SEE THE SUN FOR ALMOST 12 HOURS (ONE HALF OF IT'S FULL CIRCUIT AROUND YOU).

ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE EARTH WAS A SPINNING BALL YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE SUN FOR ABOUT 12 HOURS, ALSO, BUT IN THIS (HELIOCENTRIC MODEL) THE SUN WOULDN'T MAKE ANY KIND OF A ZIGZAG WITH RESPECT TO YOU AS AN OBSERVER ON A SPINNING BALL, IN THIS CASE THE SUN WOULD CONSTANTLY-APPARENTLY MOVE FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS.

see what i mean?

Well, it seems that i have expressed myself rather awkwardly :

When i said that i used arrows ON THE DESKTOP as my reference frame, what i really meant to say is this : you can consider this arrows as they are drawn on the lens of my camera,
. . . . . . . . . . .
Given all that i've just said, an arrows on the lens of my camera PERFECTLY represent the reference frame of the observer who is in demonstrated ZIGZAG situation!!!

The what? The "arrows as they are drawn on the lens of my camera"?

Draw what you like on the lens of your camera and it won't appear in the image.

By the way, in the first 60 seconds of actual video

All the rest is garbage you have made up because you do not have the perception to understand the situation.

We could say that it is all in the mind - your mind. End of the non-existent ZigZag argument.

So, as you so aptly put it:

Your time would be far better spent trying to paper over all the holes in your flat earth "model".
here are just a few:
      All east-west distances of your map^[1] inaccurate, Southern Hemisphere ones grossly so,
      Sunrise and sunset directions grossly in error in the Southern Hemisphere, especially during summer.
      Still no reasonable explanation for sunrise, sunset, lunar eclipses and lunar phases and
      likewise for the proven constancy of size of sun and moon.

Reminds me of:

    Ladybird, ladybird fly away home,
    Your house is on fire and your children are gone,

Or, sort out you own decrepit model before trying to pull ours down.

[1] And that's simply a projection of the Globe, I might add!

Cikl. Should I take the guy's huge sombrero off his head and depict him with a Pinocchio nose like you must have for you to understand that he has to turn in the opposite direction that the earth is rotating in order for him to still be facing the stationary sun all the way in a 360 degree circle! There are none so dumb as those that cannot see!

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 05, 2016, 08:52:12 AM

Cikljamas, I notice you failed to comment on my depiction I created for you! Why, is there no reaction? Lost your tongue or in this case your copy, paste fingers!

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)...

Nice. Ciklijamas ignored everything I said.

Now he thinks that for some reason you have to draw a man with two hands, otherwise the phenomenon doesn't "work". Interesting.

When i said that i used arrows ON THE DESKTOP as my reference frame, what i really meant to say is this : you can consider this arrows as they are drawn on the lens of my camera, and that is exactly what you see in this video (and on the photographs (above) which are taken out of that ZIGZAG video demonstration) : an arrows are STRICTLY in the line of sight of the lens of the camera, so that an arrow which points to the left can almost perfectly represent the left eye of the viewer (who watch this ZIGZAG video demonstration) and an arrow which points to the right can almost perfectly represent the right eye of the observer (who watch this ZIGZAG video demonstration)!

So you are using an arbitrary reference frame based upon a moving camera?

Guess what, with that you can show anything.
You could leave the camera facing the centre of the rod, akin to someone standing on Earth facing north.
Then as the rod turns clockwise, from above, (in this case, to the left, but again, it is quite poor to use left or right to explain rotation), the sun appears to move to the left, circling counterclockwise around the person.
This roughly matches what would be observed regardless (i.e. if Earth was flat with the sun circling above the tropic or if it was round rotating around its axis with the sun relatively stationary).

You could do what the video makes a horrible attempt at doing, and instead of keeping the camera fixed w.r.t. the wooden rod, keep it pointing parallel to a line connecting the rod and the light (indicating the sun).
In this case it does show a "zig-zag" movement, as I already explained. It would be a mere 9 seconds of arc. So basically nothing.
On the typical flat earth, you would also expect this zig-zag movement, but instead of being a tiny 9 seconds of arc, it would be over 19 degrees.

So again, this would show the flat Earth model is wrong.

And then you could do more dishonest crap, like turning the camera however you feel like to make it do whatever you wanted.
You could turn it clockwise, making the sun look like it goes even further left than if you kept it aligned with the rod.
You could turn it in a more complex way to exaggerate the zig-zag.
How about you try telling us what this would correspond to in reality (or if you like, the pseudo heliocentric model).
Would it be a person standing and turning around?

Given all that i've just said, an arrows on the lens of my camera PERFECTLY represent the reference frame of the observer who is in demonstrated ZIGZAG situation!!!

Again, what is this reference frame that is meant to be represented? And no, it isn't perfect as the camera is being moved by hand in a horribly imprecise way.

So, you again prove an indisputable fact : you are a jack of stupidity!!!

No. Once again I have proven I am intelligent enough to see through your bullshit and you have shown that you are unable to answer simple questions and present your case honestly and rationally.

P.S. Very interestingly, you haven't even try to decline the justification of my accusation regarding my conviction according which Jack Black and Alpha2Omega are the same person...

I must have missed that.
I have no idea who that person is.
They are not me.

How about you try and deal with the argument rather than trying to find ways to avoid it?

Read and learn you stupid asshole :

How about you try to read what we say and understand what we say rather than continually spout the same bullshit?

1. Heliocentric model = you are on a merry go round = you are OUT OF A CIRCLE = THERE IS A PARALLAX = THERE IS A ZIGZAG PHENOMENA
2. Geocentric model = the sun circles AROUND you = you are WITHIN A CIRCLE = THERE IS NO PARALLAX = NO ZIGZAG

No. The only way to remove parallax is if the sun circles you. Not the earth you are on, but you (or the exact point on Earth you are on).
Also, due to how reference frames work, the 2 are equivalent.
It doesn't matter if you are circling a point (e.g. circling the north pole) with an object far away remaining stationary, or you are remaining stationary with an object circling you.
There is absolutely no difference in the math and the parallax produced.

It is the same if Earth is stationary with the sun orbiting it at 150 000 000 km, or if Earth is 150 000 000 km away from the sun, and Earth is rotating.
They produce the exact same parallax.
It doesn't matter if Earth was a flat stationary disc with the sun circling above the tropic or if the sun was stationary and Earth was spinning below it. The math is the same.

The further away the sun is, the less the parallax. The closer it is, the greater the parallax.
The further you are from the centre of that rotation (so either the centre of rotation of Earth, or the centre of the suns orbit around Earth), the greater the parallax.

This means in a heliocentric model, with the sun 150 000 000 km away, we would expect a tiny parallax (less than 9 seconds of arc at the equator).
This means on a geocentric model with the sun circling above the tropic, we would expect a massive parallax (19 degrees for 90 degree offset, e.g. rather than the sun being due-east it is ENE.

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE SUN CONTINUOUSLY BY TURNING AROUND YOURSELF 360 DEGREES PER 24 HOURS.

Are you following the sun, or remaining parallel to the line connecting the sun and Earth?
If the former, you expect no parallax as you are continually looking at the sun.
If the later, then ignoring axial tilt, you expect a parallax of 9 arc seconds, virtually nothing.

Do the same on a flat Earth, you expect a parallax (in the second case) of over 19 degrees.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE STATIONARY SUN, YOU WOULD ONLY CHANGE YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SPINNING-EARTH-BALL-ENVIRONMENT, AND THE RESULT WOULD BE A ZIGZAG PHENOMENA (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY GO TO THE RIGHT FIRST HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY, AND THEN WOULD APPARENTLY GO TO THE LEFT SECOND HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY) WHICH DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR REALITY.

Again, if you kept it the same w.r.t. the sun, it wouldn't change.
If you countered the rotation of Earth, then you would expect an un-noticeable 9 seconds of arc.
In the flat Earth model, the first case remains the same, the second case produces over 19 degrees of parallax.

So again, this zig-zag BS refutes a flat Earth.

IN THIS SCENARIO YOU ARE WATCHING STRICTLY TOWARDS THE NORTH (NOT TOWARDS THE SUN). WHAT HAPPENS NOW? WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS AN OPPOSITE SCENARIO THAN IN THE FIRST CASE:

No. It isn't really opposite, it is completely different.

If you stand facing the north pole, then the sun appears to circle you.
It is quite dishonest to describe that as a left to right and right to left movement.

And guess what? The same (ignoring the parallax) happens on a flat Earth model.

YOU DON'T MOVE AT ALL, BUT NOW THE SUN GOES FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND (FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY), AND FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND AGAIN (FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE ARCTIC SUMMER DAY).

How did it magically get back to your left hand?
I assume one of them was meant to be the other way?

Again, in either model, what would typically be considered the day, the sun would be behind you moving right to left. Then it goes in-front of you and moves left to right.

This is what is observed.

YOU SEE, NOW THE SUN MAKES KIND OF A ZIGZAG WITH RESPECT TO YOU AS AN OBSERVER, BUT THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IS THIS : IN THIS SCENARIO YOU CAN'T SEE THE SUN FOR ALMOST 12 HOURS (ONE HALF OF IT'S FULL CIRCUIT AROUND YOU).

No. It makes a circle around you. There isn't a zigzag.
If it was a zig zag, it would be in front of you the whole time, moving back and forth.
You even admit, it is a circuit, i.e. not a zigzag.

ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE EARTH WAS A SPINNING BALL YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE SUN FOR ABOUT 12 HOURS, ALSO, BUT IN THIS (HELIOCENTRIC MODEL) THE SUN WOULDN'T MAKE ANY KIND OF A ZIGZAG WITH RESPECT TO YOU AS AN OBSERVER ON A SPINNING BALL, IN THIS CASE THE SUN WOULD CONSTANTLY-APPARENTLY MOVE FROM YOUR RIGHT HAND TO YOUR LEFT HAND FOR THE FULL 24 HOURS.

How would it do that?
How would it then magically get back to your right hand to be able to rise again for the next day?

Like I said, in either model, the sun would appear to circle you (ignoring parallax).

It would start out to your right, go behind you, to the south, then to the west, before coming into view and going in front you to the north and then back to the east.

You would expect it to circle you, just like it does in reality.

Do I need to draw pictures for you again so you can understand?
Or do you think you could do it with your rod? Put the camera so it stays facing the centre, and see what the light does.

ZIGZAG 1 :

ZIGZAG 2 :

ZIGZAG 3 :

ZIGZAG 4 :

ZIGZAG 5 :

ZIGZAG 6 :

For the love of Pete, would you please use the width=xxx qualifier in these large images so we can actually see them, where xxx is something reasonable like 600? Thanks!

Anyway... how far away is the light source and how far is the observer moving laterally in these? Unless it's about 300,000:1 (distance to sun:diameter of arctic circle) this experiment is going to lead you astray. Exactly like it looks like it has.

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO DEMONSTRATION :
#t=11m02s

@ Alpha, this is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :

1. You would make 360, not the sun, the sun wouldn't move

That's right. You have to turn 360° with respect to (wrt) the ground to continually face the sun, or keep facing the same way on earth and rotate 360° wrt the sun. Your side to side motion is insignificant because the sun is hundreds of thousands of times farther away than you're moving laterally, which causes a tiny parallax angle compared to rotating a full circle.

AND THE APPARENT MOTION OF THE SUN WOULD ZIGGING AND ZAGGING, MAKING PARALLAX (A LOOP) IN THE SKY!!!

Nope. The sun appears to circle the sky smoothly; parallax is insignificant.

You can clearly see that loop in Rory's newest interpretation/defence of my ZIGZAG argument, and i have shown the same loop in my FIRST ZIGZAG VIDEO which i have uploaded on JANUARY 30. 2015. Watch : How do you  manage not to see/understand something so simple?

It is quite simple, but you're the one missing it.

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?

Yes. It appears to continually move from left to right when we face it (from the north).

And you know why?

Yes. Because we're standing on a rotating earth.

Because the sun makes HUGE turn in the sky!

No, that's not it.

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!

That can't be right. If the sun were close to earth, then it would appear to change size as we move relative to it. It doesn't.

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

When viewed from above, shadows always move in a clockwise direction when we're north of the sun. The motion of the shadow on a sundial in Europe is where the term "clockwise" originated. Above the arctic circle, the shadow of something near vertical continuously moves clockwise as long as the sun is up.

4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn't, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg

There's your problem. Your drawings are inconsistent. Here's the original:



Note that the angles change from being acute angles to the right of the ray of sunlight in the upper part to acute angles to the left of the rays on the bottom.

Here it is with all the angles measured consistently, from the incoming ray clockwise to the radial connecting you to the edge of the circle:



They go smoothly from 0° to 360°. No abrupt changes or reversing direction.

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

Since the incoming rays are parallel (see your drawing, above), the left-to-right motion makes no difference whatsoever. In that drawing, the shadows are parallel, just as the incoming rays are. They have to be. The direction relative to the center of the circle, however, smoothly makes a full circle.

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

Nope. Sorry. Moving laterally three thousand miles produces negligible parallax when looking at the sun 93 million miles away. If you can demonstrate the sun is nearby - similar to the diameter of the arctic circle, say - then you would be justified in claiming there should be parallax. Unfortunately (for you), you can't, because it should also change appreciably in apparent size as the distance changes by a factor of two or three, but it's easily seen not to change noticeably at all. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that it's much more distant, so parallax is similarly non-noticeable.

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

Because for half the day you're looking at it "over the pole" and half of it you aren't. You've just confused yourself.

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!

Quote from: cikljamas on December 04, 2016, 11:51:50 AM

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 [distant] 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?

No.

Did you miss this, cikljamas?

Any response, or are you just going to let this stand as correct?

It is an overload on his brain, there is too much information coming in for Cikljamas to get past more than one fact at a time! I think he has been carted back to the Looney bin.

@ Alpha, as for "the shadows" problem, the easiest way how we can prove that the earth doesn't move (rotate) is to hang one big aluminium plate below a helicopter so that the plate would be parallel to the ground and then take off with a helicopter and see if there is any amount of displacement of the shadow after certain period of time.

Every 4 minutes the shadow would be displaced for 1 degree if the earth is at rest and if the sun circles above and around the earth.

If the sun is stationary (150 000 000 km away from the earth - which would ensure parallel sun's rays) then there would be no displacement of the shadow of a helicopter cast on the surface of a big aluminium (hanging below a helicopter) plate.

Now, if you think that it is impossible to ensure helicopter's fixed position in an absolute spatial frame of reference, then i have to disappoint you : by using directional gyro a.k.a. gyrocompass you can easily maintain helicopter's fixed position with respect to the absolute space which even allow us to determine if there is any motion of the earth IN A DIRECT MANNER (comparing fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference with the relative position of the earth in relation to the fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference)!

So, by using directional gyro and a hoovering helicopter above the surface of the earth we don't even need to carry out a hypothetical experiment with hanging (below helicopter) big aluminium plate, because a hoovering helicopter and gyrocompass can show us IN A DIRECT MANNER whether the earth rotates or not, which makes our experiment (observing the amount of displacement of helicopter's shadow on the surface of a big aluminium plate) quite superfluous!!!

Now, swallow this :

Stop quoting the same old stuff we debunked ages ago over and over again and explain how the helicopter thing would prove anything and why it has to be a helicopter.

Helicopters don't hoover things up, they blast air downwards. They do however hover!

@ Alpha, as for "the shadows" problem, the easiest way how we can prove that the earth doesn't move (rotate) is to hang one big aluminium plate below a helicopter so that the plate would be parallel to the ground and then take off with a helicopter and see if there is any amount of displacement of the shadow after certain period of time.

Notice how you leave out what the helicopter was doing?
e.g. staying stationary w.r.t. the sun, or w.r.t. Earth or moving in a certain way.

Every 4 minutes the shadow would be displaced for 1 degree if the earth is at rest and if the sun circles above and around the earth.

No. It would vary depending on a multitude of factors, including the distance the helicopter and the sun are from the north pole.
Like I said earlier, if the helicopter was above the arctic circle, and the sun was above the tropic, then you get an offset of 19 degrees.
When the shadow should be due west, it is actually 19 degrees south of that.

On the equator, at the equinox, we would expect it to start south west, and move in an arc (I think), going under the helicopter and then moving off to the south east. Instead it starts west and goes east, no south.

So no, we don't get what we expect on a flat Earth.

If it stayed in the same place w.r.t. the sun, the shadow wouldn't move relative to the sun and the helicopter.

If the sun is stationary (150 000 000 km away from the earth - which would ensure parallel sun's rays) then there would be no displacement of the shadow of a helicopter cast on the surface of a big aluminium (hanging below a helicopter) plate.

Notice how you are now having the helicopter move relative to Earth instead of remaining stationary?
This makes it a dishonest comparison.

If the helicopter moved relative to Earth, such that it was stationary w.r.t. the sun (quite impossible except near the poles), then the shadow would remain in the same spot w.r.t the sun.
If the helicopter remained stationary relative to Earth, it the shadow would move.

Now, if you think that it is impossible to ensure helicopter's fixed position in an absolute spatial frame of reference, then i have to disappoint you : by using directional gyro a.k.a. gyrocompass you can easily maintain helicopter's fixed position with respect to the absolute space which even allow us to determine if there is any motion of the earth IN A DIRECT MANNER (comparing fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference with the relative position of the earth in relation to the fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference)!

No. You can't.
A gyrocompass doesn't work like that.

There is no absolute spatial reference frame.

They cannot detect translation. Only rotation, and guess what? They do.

A gyro-compass relies upon the rotation of Earth to point to true (rotational) north.

So, by using directional gyro and a hoovering helicopter above the surface of the earth we don't even need to carry out a hypothetical experiment with hanging (below helicopter) big aluminium plate, because a hoovering helicopter and gyrocompass can show us IN A DIRECT MANNER whether the earth rotates or not, which makes our experiment (observing the amount of displacement of helicopter's shadow on the surface of a big aluminium plate) quite superfluous!!!

And it does.
You can also use something much simpler, a Foucault pendulum.

Now, swallow this :

No.

Also, I notice you have abandoned your zig-zag BS.

Is it because you can't rationally defend it?

Come on, I was asking simple questions, in the pseudo-heliocentric model, what bearing should the sun have at various times of day, and thus what should the motion be?

JackBlack already posted a response, but this was already mostly composed, so here it is anyway.

@ Alpha, as for "the shadows" problem, the easiest way how we can prove that the earth doesn't move (rotate) is to hang one big aluminium plate below a helicopter so that the plate would be parallel to the ground and then take off with a helicopter and see if there is any amount of displacement of the shadow after certain period of time.

Presuming you meant to hover over a particular spot on earth (and you must, else why specify a helicopter?), there will be, for the same reason the shadow of, say, a flagpole moves through the day.

I don't see why the plate is necessary, though... just watch the shadow on the ground. For that matter, why use a helicopter when a flagpole would do?

Every 4 minutes the shadow would be displaced for 1 degree if the earth is at rest and if the sun circles above and around the earth.

That's what you'd see on the earth spinning 1° in 4 minutes under a distant sun.

If you were on a stationary flat earth with a nearby sun circling the pole, the rate the shadow moves would change during the day as the distance to the sun changed, for the same reason the apparent size of the sun would change. For those reasons, we can discard that model since it doesn't fit observations.
 
[To JackBlack:] The direction of the shadow of something that's moving along with the surface of the earth will move at that constant rate wrt an earth-fixed coordinate system (i.e. North-East-Down) regardless of its location on earth. That's because the coordinate system is spinning wrt the sun, and the shadow maintains the same orientation wrt the sun. The shadow will change length depending on the position of the sun if it's projected onto a flat surface, however. Some nicer sundials have the hours inscribed on a circular arc centered on a rod parallel to the earth's axis - the arc length between hours are constant.

If the sun is stationary (150 000 000 km away from the earth - which would ensure parallel sun's rays) then there would be no displacement of the shadow of a helicopter cast on the surface of a big aluminium (hanging below a helicopter) plate.

Assuming, again, that the helicopter is hovering over a point on the surface, that is not correct. Stick a pin in a globe, illuminate from a single light source from a reasonable distance, say a dozen or more times the diameter of the globe) and watch how the shadow of the head of the pin moves on the surface as you rotate the globe.

Now, if you think that it is impossible to ensure helicopter's fixed position in an absolute spatial frame of reference, then i have to disappoint you

Whoa, Nellie! Who said anything about fixed in an inertial reference frame?  Helicopters aren't fast enough to counter the earth's rotation (except perhaps at very high latitudes). Fast jets can do that at lower latitudes, so why specify a helicopter?

If you do observe from an inertial frame, you'd see the earth spinning beneath you.

by using directional gyro a.k.a. gyrocompass you can easily maintain helicopter's fixed position with respect to the absolute space which even allow us to determine if there is any motion of the earth IN A DIRECT MANNER (comparing fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference with the relative position of the earth in relation to the fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference)!

So, by using directional gyro and a [hovering] helicopter above the surface of the earth we don't even need to carry out a hypothetical experiment with hanging (below helicopter) big aluminium plate, because a hoovering helicopter and gyrocompass can show us IN A DIRECT MANNER whether the earth rotates or not, which makes our experiment (observing the amount of displacement of helicopter's shadow on the surface of a big aluminium plate) quite superfluous!!!

Funny you should mention that. Inertial navigation systems aboard aircraft routinely detect the rotation of the earth directly even when they're on the ground. I guess we're done; according to your proposed experiment, the earth rotates.

Now, swallow this :

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Maybe later. What is its point and how long is it?

The direction of the shadow of something that's moving along with the surface of the earth will move at that constant rate wrt an earth-fixed coordinate system (i.e. North-East-Down) regardless of its location on earth. That's because the coordinate system is spinning wrt the sun, and the shadow maintains the same orientation wrt the sun. The shadow will change length depending on the position of the sun if it's projected onto a flat surface, however. Some nicer sundials have the hours inscribed on a circular arc centered on a rod parallel to the earth's axis - the arc length between hours are constant.

I thought it did vary a bit due to things like Earth being spherical and refraction.
Sure, it remains constant if you put a stick in vertical at the poles, or if you have a similar setup (i.e. an equatorial sundial), but if you just put a stick in anywhere, then the angle can change.

For example, using the 15 degree an hour assumption, when you would expect the sun to be due east in some places in the Arctic circle, it would instead be 7 degrees north of due east, and it has the same 7 degree offset for when you would expect it to be due west. (Note: using this place as an example:
70.85411°N
147.74527°E, on the 21st of July 2016.)
And this offset drops the closer to the poles you are (and increases the further away).
At 80°N, it is only 4 degrees.
At 45°N it is 17 degrees.

At a simplistic level that means over the course of 12 hours, it rotates 214 degrees, or roughly 18 degrees an hour.

It gets even stranger near the equator (below the tropic), where it starts off NE, starts heading south towards E, but then stops and goes back to the north, passes due north and heads off to the west, before stopping and going back north to finish off north west.

All of this is because we haven't aligned our stick (or object) with the axis of Earth, and aren't aligning our plate perpendicular to the axis.


However, this was more targeted at the flat Earth view, which gets much larger angular offsets (at least in some places)
e.g. on the arctic circle it would be 19 degrees further north than expected at 6 o clock (apparent solar time).

I'll guess Cikl went back into hibernation, but I was going through photobucket and came across my corrected version of his diagram and figured I'd post it for the heck of it.

"Zigzag" died long ago.

Sandokhan, suppose I am standing on an infinite plane. On this plane there are parallel arrows painted on the ground all pointing the same direction. Also on the ground there is painted a dot. On top of my hat is a ring interferometer.

Now suppose I walk around the dot in two different ways.

1) while moving around the dot I always face in the direction of the arrows.

2) while moving around the dot I always face toward the dot.

What rotation do you expect the Sagnac effect to show in these two situations?

Edit: oh crap, Sandokhan linked to an older thread where he posted A NEARLY IDENTICAL COMMENT so I didn't realize I was on the older thread when I posted.

I'm not sure sandoman is in this thread but if you like I could copy and paste a couple hundred links.

I'm not sure sandoman is in this thread but if you like I could copy and paste a couple hundred links.

Only if they link to other posts where you say the same thing in old threads so I don't know which thread I'm posting on anymore.