The Bipolar model according to Tom Bishop: Clockwork Sun

Quote from Tom Bishop;

https://forum.google.com/index.php?topic=6054.msg114181#msg114181

In the Bi-Polar model the sun makes North-South and South-North movements between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It would be circling the Northern Hemiplane for part of the year when it is warm in the North and cold in the South, and then it would switch gears and circle the Southern Hemiplane for the remainder of the year when it is cold in the North and warm in the South. The figure 8 takes place over the course of the year, just like in the sun's analemma.

So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.

Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.

It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively


I would very much like to hear the explanation if this from the proponents of the bipolar model. I would like to have continued this discussion in the thread in question, but I thought it would be better to start a new topic dedicated to this very special area of study.

Does this represent the beliefs of the flat earth proponents? If not, what are the competing models?

And please feel free to correct any mistakes I have made in my visualisation  of this.

I have yet to see anyone defend that particular model here on the FES, except maybe Sandokhan (don't quote me on that). It's generally brought up as another possible model, usually by RE'rs.

Update:

Oh my good golly gosh things just got seriously real in Tom's defense of the model.

He just tried to say that the stars rise in the west in the southern hemisphere and that the sun isn't always above the earth.
No, seriously
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6072.0

There is another mechanism which pushes the sun lower than it actually is, and limits its visibility, and is a separate topic. If this mechanism did not exist day and night could not exist, and the sun would be at all times above the surface of the earth.

...

The stars in the Northern Hemisphere and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotate in opposite directions. When the sun is in the South it follows the stars. This happens in the Round Earth model, too.

Can someone please come defend this model? Anyone!
I would like to have a proper discussion about the motion of the sun as explained by the Flat Earth theory and your most outspoken scientific member is stabbing holes in the whole thing with such reckless abandon that he is losing any and all credibility.

The sun and stars rise in the east and sets in the west no matter where you are on the planet - discuss!

Who is stabbing holes in the whole thing? You seem to be chatting with yourself here.

Who is stabbing holes in the whole thing? You seem to be chatting with yourself here.

Here, yes - follow the link

To google.com?

Link is broken.

here.

Edit, damnit John.

https://forum.tf es.org/index.php?topic=6054.msg114181

Remove the space between tf and es.

tim bishop tim bishop who is he your leader??

tim bishop tim bishop who is he your leader??

Also OP could debate this on the site that must not be named.

Also, you could stop telling the secrets. 

Also, you could stop telling the secrets. 

NEVAR!!



Edit, we should've played dumb a bit for teh lulz, my bad.

You seem to just be making an ass of yourself.

Yes, stars travel from east to west. But in the north, they rotate around the north pole, which is to your north, and thus it appears to be a counter-clockwise rotation.
In the south, they still go east to west, but around the south pole, which is to your south, and thus it appears to be a clockwise rotation.

That is a key piece of evidence in favour of a round Earth, the 2 celestial poles with the stars rotating around them in opposite directions, always 180 degrees apart, one due north, one due south.

I also don't see where he says the sun isn't above us. He is talking about its apparent position.

You seem to just be making an ass of yourself.

Yes, stars travel from east to west. But in the north, they rotate around the north pole, which is to your north, and thus it appears to be a counter-clockwise rotation.
In the south, they still go east to west, but around the south pole, which is to your south, and thus it appears to be a clockwise rotation.

That is a key piece of evidence in favour of a round Earth, the 2 celestial poles with the stars rotating around them in opposite directions, always 180 degrees apart, one due north, one due south.

I also don't see where he says the sun isn't above us. He is talking about its apparent position.

He still states literally that the sun rises in the West but we don't see it as rising in the West.
The apparent directions may be different but when taking in the whole system, the stars are all following the same direction of rotation: the rotation of the Earth.

As has been established, Bishop, like many Flat Earth theorists, don't understand relative motion, so he can't use a relative motion defense in his argument.

Besides, if his "grinding gears" model were true, we'd still see the sun switch direction in the sky as it goes south.

He still states literally that the sun rises in the West but we don't see it as rising in the West.
The apparent directions may be different but when taking in the whole system, the stars are all following the same direction of rotation: the rotation of the Earth.

As has been established, Bishop, like many Flat Earth theorists, don't understand relative motion, so he can't use a relative motion defense in his argument.

Besides, if his "grinding gears" model were true, we'd still see the sun switch direction in the sky as it goes south.

Where did he say that?
Can you provide the exact words he used?
The switch in direction would be it rising in the north east and setting in the south west. It wouldn't switch directions and go backwards, rising in the west or setting in the east.

Ok, I see where I got that wrong, sorry about that.
Regardless, though, doesn't this swirchbin perceived direction fit the "celestial sphere" visualisation?
If the two sections of the sky were rotating like gears, as he asserts, wouldn't the constellation on the equator be split over the edges of these two counter rotating gears?
And the constealltions of the zodiac - wouldn't they have to jump tracks like he asserts the sun does?

I apologise for my mistake, but if the defense against it is in the form of touting the analemma as proof of the Sun's figure 8 motion over the Earth, then I don't see how the point is defensible.

It wouldn't be consistent with the celestial sphere/spherical Earth model.

In the spherical Earth model, the sun gradually moves south so it rises from a more easterly direction rather than north east, and on the equinox it rises due east.
This doesn't happen in the bi-polar model.


Instead, in the bi-polar model (at least for places near the connection between the 2 halves) it rises north east, significantly north east. For places right near the equator it is almost directly north east. Then it suddenly switches and sets south west, and starts rising south east.

For places opposite the connection point, they would be thrown into darkness.

The only place on the equator the sun could be directly overhead (or near to that) is where it joins, with it being significantly off at other locations.

None of this matches reality at all.

The sun's analemma is a result of the sun's motion back and forth and the eccentricity of our orbit shifting solar time.

It wouldn't be consistent with the celestial sphere/spherical Earth model.

In the spherical Earth model, the sun gradually moves south so it rises from a more easterly direction rather than north east, and on the equinox it rises due east.
This doesn't happen in the bi-polar model.


Instead, in the bi-polar model (at least for places near the connection between the 2 halves) it rises north east, significantly north east. For places right near the equator it is almost directly north east. Then it suddenly switches and sets south west, and starts rising south east.

For places opposite the connection point, they would be thrown into darkness.

The only place on the equator the sun could be directly overhead (or near to that) is where it joins, with it being significantly off at other locations.

None of this matches reality at all.

The sun's analemma is a result of the sun's motion back and forth and the eccentricity of our orbit shifting solar time.

Thank you for correcting this - I suppose what I should have said is this:

Doesn't the change between looking north and seeing the stars going anticlockwise, and looking south and seeing the stars going clockwise support the spherical model?
If viewed from the equator, seeing two "grinding gears" rotating around their respective points, wouldn't we see both points above the earth with their wheeling stars describing flat ellipses around them?

Even the perspective tricks employed to explain apparent stellar motion don't account for the actual motion of stars and their constellations in the sky, no matter how hard you try and twist them.
The stars describe circles around what is known as the "celestial sphere" which is a way to visualise their apparent motion around a common point - the earth. This apparent motion is cause by the rotation of the spherical earth and the analemma is a result of the axis of said rotation undergoing slight disturbances over the course of its years orbit around the sun.

This is the spherical model that explains the observable facts of everyday observation - no flat earth theory whether unipolar or bipolar can accommodate this.

And the Unipolar or Bipolar maps  are just that - two dimensional representations of a three dimensional object. The object is the globe. The maps are projections made from that globe.

The bipolar map is my map: I introduced this map here ten years ago, the only one that works.

Some of the other FE, realizing that they cannot defend the official unipolar map especially when it comes to Antarctica and some specific distances (South America - Africa), hurried to COPY my map not understanding that it is totally incompatible with a solar model based on the clockwork orbit.

The bipolar map, the global Piri Reis map, is totally compatible ONLY with a Sun that does rise and set.

It it beyond belief that those people would still propose the bipolar map accompanied by a clockwork type of orbital motion for the Sun.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64997.0 (the solar orbit explained within the context of the bipolar map)

http://forum.tf es.org/index.php?topic=3422.msg77307#msg77307 (reminding everyone there as to who brought the bipolar map to the FES in the first place)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.150 (pages 6-8, solar orbit, more details)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961267#msg961267 (solar orbit, 2010)

The bipolar map is my map: I introduced this map here ten years ago, the only one that works.

Some of the other FE, realizing that they cannot defend the official unipolar map especially when it comes to Antarctica and some specific distances (South America - Africa), hurried to COPY my map not understanding that it is totally incompatible with a solar model based on the clockwork orbit.

The bipolar map, the global Piri Reis map, is totally compatible ONLY with a Sun that does rise and set.

It it beyond belief that those people would still propose the bipolar map accompanied by a clockwork type of orbital motion for the Sun.

Firstly, it doesn't work - the motion of the sun over such a map is totally incompatible with reality. ANY model of motion of the sun over such an earth is incompatible with what is seen every day by billions of people.
Not to mention the distortion of distance and the impossibility of travelling west from the Americas and arriving at the eastern coast of Asia on such a map.

Secondly, it is not a "Piri Reis" map - it has nothing to do with Piri Reis and has no connection whatsoever with the cartographer known as Piri Reis.
What it boils down to is a rather sad misinterpretation  of a projection of a sphere on a flat plane, complete with curved latitude and longitude lines and coastlines.

Third, this is from a guy thay thinks Jesus was born in 1680 CE and that the fictional king thay constructed the tower of Babel founded the United States.

Source: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193

Your assertions mean very little, scientifically speaking.



Though you do have some compelling arguments about the Beatles and classical music, I'll give you that.

So far, you haven't been able to defend RET at all. Each time we met, it came down to a total defeat for you.

Firstly, it doesn't work - the motion of the sun over such a map is totally incompatible with reality. ANY model of motion of the sun over such an earth is incompatible with what is seen every day by billions of people.
Not to mention the distortion of distance and the impossibility of travelling west from the Americas and arriving at the eastern coast of Asia on such a map.

But it does work: I have been debating this map for the past ten years, each and every possible aspect, it does work beautifully.

The RE tested me on each and every conceivable distance on the Piri Reis map: Santiago de Chile - Juneau, Los Angeles - Hawaii, and much more.


At the same time you have no explanations for the faint young sun paradox, for the CNO cycle paradox, both of which demolish the currently accepted solar model.

Not to mention the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun argument.

Or for the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

You have nothing at all going for you when it comes to RET.


Secondly, it is not a "Piri Reis" map - it has nothing to do with Piri Reis and has no connection whatsoever with the cartographer known as Piri Reis.
What it boils down to is a rather sad misinterpretation  of a projection of a sphere on a flat plane, complete with curved latitude and longitude lines and coastlines.

You haven't done your homework at all on this map, have you?

If you do not want to call it Piri Reis that's fine, however, it is NOT a projection of a sphere onto a flat plane, not at all.

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

https://books.google.ro/books?id=N0MLyHWFGboC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=piri+reis+map+not+a+spherical+projection&source=bl&ots=jXktEpMVYg&sig=R_kOW9nPVkcHRfxAIaG_y5KKBcA&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSw8PG_pvTAhXiQZoKHfoaD3o4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&q=piri%20reis%20map%20not%20a%20spherical%20projection&f=false

http://old.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Third, this is from a guy thay thinks Jesus was born in 1680 CE and that the fictional king thay constructed the tower of Babel founded the United States.

That was just the initial hypothesis.

Now I fully believe, given the extraordinary proofs I have been able to bring forth, that Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 250 years ago.


Here are some references for you:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages: Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1673763#msg1673763

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674108#msg1674108

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1619746#msg1619746


As for scientific assertions, nothing beats the Gauss Easter formula applied to the chronology of history:

GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY

According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics, the ones in question here, the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.

I am going to prove to you that no such thing ever happened, thus showing the utter fallacy of the differential equation approach to understanding orbital mechanics.

You also seem to forget that just as Einstein fudged his Mercury equation to fit the results, so the conspirators who invented the RE differential equations of motion had to modify drastically not only the masses of the planets and the Sun, but also their corresponding distances from Earth, in order to, at least, offer accurate results for a time span not extending beyond some three hundred years.


Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR



It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.



What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:



Matthew Vlastar:



“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


I have just proven to you that the spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.


Gauss' Easter formula proves immediately the colossal errors inherent in the present day calculations based on the faulty RE equations of orbital mechanics.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674108#msg1674108

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674662#msg1674662

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504

Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).

Here is the basic summary/proofs that the Gauss Easter formula proves that the calculation performed by the RE equations of orbital mechanics for the vernal equinox is completely false and erroneous:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1747779#msg1747779

Yeah, I read your wall on the Easter equations. You should swing by the Angry Ranting forum some time - you might find something interesting there.

I still fail to see how it has anything to do the Flat Earth theory, but it is one of the most entertaining things I've seen in a while.

As for the supposed source of the map, I'm just going to leave this here.

I find it slightly more likely that the cartographer was running out of room on his paper than drawing the coastlines of two continents which, I'm pretty sure, weren't connected in his lifetime.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-supercontinent
http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/
Antarctic Marine Geology by J. B. Anderson is a good start if you want some more comprehensive assessments of the subject.
Most of the rest of modern geophysics is a good continuation from there.

It's especially absurd considering your new chronology model would have this happening some time around the beginning of the First World War.


Now, if you'd prefer, you could try conjecturing that it was drawn by the real John Lennon before he went on that road trip with Raphael to Pompeii to visit old king Nimrod and write the fake biography of Napoléon Bonaparte. I think they ended up calling it "The Odyssey" and their pal Monteverdi wrote an opera about it with Bach and Mozart in their chalet in Patagonia.

Both claims, as far as I can see, are based in just as much science as each other.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64997.0 (the solar orbit explained within the context of the bipolar map)

http://forum.tf es.org/index.php?topic=3422.msg77307#msg77307 (reminding everyone there as to who brought the bipolar map to the FES in the first place)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.150 (pages 6-8, solar orbit, more details)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961267#msg961267 (solar orbit, 2010)

These are also links to posts where to you fail utterly to explain your model in several important respects, the first and foremost being that you can fly west from Los Angeles to get to Tokyo.
I would also try and use an explanation that doesn't use the word "subquarks" which, sad to say, are not a thing.*
Let's start there, shall we? Then we can work on your terminal inability to distinguish small things from faraway things.

Though I would like to ask one thing on that last subject - when you see people on the other side of the street, do you do that "ahhaha I'm squishing your head" thing with your fingers in front of your eyeball? Do you think it actually works?
Just curious.



*well, they haven't been proven and don't show any signs of emerging soon. The theory went out of favour a while ago, but it certainly doesn't mean they don't exist, but I'd be willing to bet a limb they don't act the way he thinks they do.

https://tinyurl.com/muhcwdh
This book from 1992 is an interesting theoretical treatment, but as it says on page 57, "there is (also) no experimental evidence for preons"
Particle physics can be hard when you have no idea what it means.

The bipolar map is my map: I introduced this map here ten years ago, the only one that works.

No. Just like all the other FE maps, it doesn't work.

The bipolar map, the global Piri Reis map, is totally compatible ONLY with a Sun that does rise and set.

Which would require all of Earth to experience darkness together. That never happens.
It also means no midnight sun, which does happen.

So far, you haven't been able to defend RET at all. Each time we met, it came down to a total defeat for you.

No. So far all you have done is repeatedly bring up mountains of crap before running away with your tail between your legs after you have been repeatedly refuted.
You are yet to refute RET at all, and you are yet to be able to defend FE BS.

But it does work: I have been debating this map for the past ten years, each and every possible aspect, it does work beautifully.

No. It doesn't.
You baselessly asserting it does doesn't magically make it true.

If you wish to claim it works, explain how the sun rises due east for everyone on the equinox.

The RE tested me on each and every conceivable distance on the Piri Reis map: Santiago de Chile - Juneau, Los Angeles - Hawaii, and much more.

Do you mean one showing the entire globe, or one just showing a small portion with poor accuracy?

At the same time you have no explanations for the faint young sun paradox, for the CNO cycle paradox, both of which demolish the currently accepted solar model.

No, they don't. If you wish to discuss that, start your own thread, stop trying to derail this one to try and distract from the inadequacies of your bi-polar model.

Not to mention the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun argument.

Nothing impossible about it at all.

Or for the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

Merely your ignorance of gravity/forces in general.

You have nothing at all going for you when it comes to RET.

We have all the evidence in the world which points one way or another.
You have nothing.

If you do not want to call it Piri Reis that's fine, however, it is NOT a projection of a sphere onto a flat plane, not at all.

The bi-polar map is typically an azimuthal equidistant projection centred somewhere on the equator.
It is a projection of the globe onto a flat plane.

Here are some references for you:

Your insane ramblings aren't references.

According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics, the ones in question here, the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.

You mean the ones which fix the vernal equinox to be on that date, using a calendar which didn't exist at that time?

Regardless, if you want to bring up mountains of crap, do it in your own thread, don't derail this one.

I'm starting to belive the theory...that sandokhan is a bot...god...what montain of crap...can he even explain something with his own words?

So far, you haven't been able to defend RET at all. Each time we met, it came down to a total defeat for you.

Firstly, it doesn't work - the motion of the sun over such a map is totally incompatible with reality. ANY model of motion of the sun over such an earth is incompatible with what is seen every day by billions of people.
Not to mention the distortion of distance and the impossibility of travelling west from the Americas and arriving at the eastern coast of Asia on such a map.

But it does work: I have been debating this map for the past ten years, each and every possible aspect, it does work beautifully.

The RE tested me on each and every conceivable distance on the Piri Reis map: Santiago de Chile - Juneau, Los Angeles - Hawaii, and much more.

Please show how the movement of your tiny sun 12 km (or whatever) matches anything we see in the real world.
Or do you have a different sun model now?

I can never find where you describe your basic model of earth, sun and moon, where sunrise and sunset directions and times are described.