ANALEMA PROBLEM

  • 116 Replies
  • 10469 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #90 on: July 20, 2017, 06:20:56 AM »
Rabinoz, did you know that DAILY (diurnal - ZIGZAG) parallax of the sun on a "spinning globe" would be more than 10 times greater than YEARLY (annual - due to the alleged orbital motion of the earth) parallax of the closest star (Alpha Centauri)???

And we can measure ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri, but we can't measure DIURNAL parallax of the sun which would be (if existed in the first place) more 10 times greater than ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri (if existed in the first place)???

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #91 on: July 20, 2017, 06:24:42 AM »
Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1? in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2?). This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, a Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned a Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0?.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.

Sir John Herschel says:--

"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."

Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words

"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1?; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."

The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"



“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.

This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad."

« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 06:49:56 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #92 on: July 20, 2017, 06:56:06 AM »
Compared to the writings of Foscarini and Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter stands out for its extreme conciseness. After the usual initial pleasantries, the Cardinal immediately tackles the problem, defining how the Copernican proposal should be interpreted:

«First I say that it seems to me that your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke».

We note that the letter, although addressed to Foscarini, also explicitly mentions Galileo, thereby directing to both a single response. But what does it mean to speak suppositionally? In the first place, it meant maintaining Copernicanism as hypothetical until proved irrefutably [8], and at the end this was in agreement with the understanding of the astronomy of the time, considered part of mathematics and therefore subject to different representations to justify the same phenomenon. In the second place, however, Bellarmine’s warning meant that one should not have had any realistic claim in arriving at the physical description of the celestial bodies by proposing the Copernican model of the universe. This could have been viewed as less acceptable to scholars of a science that had begun precisely to emancipate itself from mathematics. When De revolutionibus by Copernicus (1473-1543) was published in May of 1543, it used a text of the protestant theologian Andreas Osiander as an introduction, in which he explained that heliocentrism was a proposal of an astronomical model to facilitate the calculations of celestial motions, but he did not want to draw any realistic conclusions in the field of natural philosophy. In Bellarmine’s letter, the distinction is clear between the astronomer-mathematician who does calculations on one side and, on the other side, the natural philospher who qualitatively describes the real in light of a theologically inspired metaphysics:

«For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.».

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, “The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose,” was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated. Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving, I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that it is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the it also is not in error when it judges that the stars move. And this is enough for now.

With this I greet dearly Your Paternity, and I pray to God to grant you all your wishes.


At home, 12 April 1615.

To Your Very Reverend Paternity.

As a Brother,

Cardinal Bellarmine

Galileo recanted his heliocentric credential freely/voluntarily in a letter to his friend, but some dark forces succeeded to hide this important historical truth from wider public for centuries...

« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 07:03:33 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #93 on: July 20, 2017, 07:48:56 AM »
I started a thread yesterday on a Fiber Optic Sun idea originating from the Earths core.  Would this work for your problem?  And please-instead of simply "NO" please elaborate, I'm trying to find holes in this myself.

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #94 on: July 20, 2017, 01:33:43 PM »
Rabinoz, did you know that DAILY (diurnal - ZIGZAG) parallax of the sun on a "spinning globe" would be more than 10 times greater than YEARLY (annual - due to the alleged orbital motion of the earth) parallax of the closest star (Alpha Centauri)???
...

Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars
...

Compared to the writings of Foscarini and Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter stands out for its extreme conciseness. After the usual initial pleasantries, the Cardinal immediately tackles the problem, defining how the Copernican proposal should be interpreted:
...

Does this change of topic mean you're satisfied that the "Analemma problem" wasn't a problem after all, and it's time to move on to the more general "heliocentric solar system problem" that isn't a problem either?

If you really want to go through that again, maybe you should start a new thread for it.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #95 on: July 21, 2017, 02:53:43 AM »
And we can measure ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri, but we can't measure DIURNAL parallax of the sun which would be (if existed in the first place) more 10 times greater than ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri (if existed in the first place)???
You keep spouting this crap, but you are yet to prove it.
What makes you say we can't measure the daily parallax?

And I see you are just repeating the same ignorant, irrelevant refuted crap.

Care to address the issues with your argument yet? Perhaps admit that you were completely wrong?

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #96 on: July 21, 2017, 03:29:39 AM »
And we can measure ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri, but we can't measure DIURNAL parallax of the sun which would be (if existed in the first place) more 10 times greater than ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri (if existed in the first place)???
You keep spouting this crap, but you are yet to prove it.
What makes you say we can't measure the daily parallax?

And I see you are just repeating the same ignorant, irrelevant refuted crap.

Care to address the issues with your argument yet? Perhaps admit that you were completely wrong?

The only thing that you have refuted is sanity of your mind.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #97 on: July 21, 2017, 04:29:18 AM »
The only thing that you have refuted is sanity of your mind.
No. I have managed to refute several forms of your zig-zag argument, including showing you would expect the same result for a stationary Earth with a circling sun and a stationary sun and rotating Earth.
I have shown your claim that the path is longer in summer is wrong.
I have shown that your claim regarding when the solar day should be longer or shorter is wrong.
And so on.

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #98 on: July 21, 2017, 04:44:48 AM »
Jack, where is the parallax?

Did you know that DAILY (diurnal - ZIGZAG) parallax of the sun on a "spinning globe" would be more than 10 times greater than YEARLY (annual - due to the alleged orbital motion of the earth) parallax of the closest star (Alpha Centauri)???

And we can measure ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri, but we can't measure DIURNAL parallax of the sun which would be (if existed in the first place) more than 10 times greater than ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri (if existed in the first place)???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #99 on: July 21, 2017, 04:57:12 AM »
Jack, where is the parallax?

Did you know that DAILY (diurnal - ZIGZAG) parallax of the sun on a "spinning globe" would be more than 10 times greater than YEARLY (annual - due to the alleged orbital motion of the earth) parallax of the closest star (Alpha Centauri)???

And we can measure ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri, but we can't measure DIURNAL parallax of the sun which would be (if existed in the first place) more than 10 times greater than ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri (if existed in the first place)???

So just repeating the same post (pretty much, just slight changes)?
I already responded to it.
If you missed it the first time, go read it again.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931836#msg1931836

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #100 on: July 21, 2017, 07:21:20 AM »
Jack, where is the parallax?

Did you know that DAILY (diurnal - ZIGZAG) parallax of the sun on a "spinning globe" would be more than 10 times greater than YEARLY (annual - due to the alleged orbital motion of the earth) parallax of the closest star (Alpha Centauri)???

And we can measure ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri, but we can't measure DIURNAL parallax of the sun which would be (if existed in the first place) more than 10 times greater than ANNUAL parallax of Alpha Centauri (if existed in the first place)???

So just repeating the same post (pretty much, just slight changes)?
I already responded to it.
If you missed it the first time, go read it again.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931836#msg1931836

So, just like in the "ZIGZAG of the Full Moon" case , you are not able to show to us at least ONE SINGLE peer-review article about "more than 10 times bigger (than the alleged parallax of Alpha Centauri) "ZIGZAG" parallax of the sun", however we should take your word for it (that we can measure non-existing sun's diurnal parallax)??? facepalm
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #101 on: July 21, 2017, 03:36:32 PM »
So, just like in the "ZIGZAG of the Full Moon" case , you are not able to show to us at least ONE SINGLE peer-review article about "more than 10 times bigger (than the alleged parallax of Alpha Centauri) "ZIGZAG" parallax of the sun", however we should take your word for it (that we can measure non-existing sun's diurnal parallax)??? facepalm
Again, WHY WOULD I NEED TO?

I'm not saying to take my word for it.
I'm saying if you wish to claim it can't be seen, you need to provide evidence.
I'm not saying it absolutely exists and you should just take my word for it.
You are saying/implying it doesn't exist and thus you need to prove it.

If it doesn't exist do you know what that means? The sun must be infinitely far away.

Is that what you are suggesting? No.
Instead you are lying and claiming that this parallax which you simply haven't measured somehow magically proves Earth is stationary.

What I am also saying (and have proven) is that it is entirely pointless as you would expect the same "zig-zag" if Earth was stationary and the sun orbited around us or if the sun was stationary and Earth was rotating and orbiting.

All that is important is the relative motion, which remains the same either way.

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #102 on: July 22, 2017, 03:49:18 AM »
Jack, you have no idea what you are talking about...We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid...Do i really have to retrieve (again) numerous examples of your "playing dumb" (or even "being dumb") techniques?

Let's examine a few marvellous passages that has come out of the brain of a Jack's genius brain :
Quote
No. It isn't pure stupidity.
Yes, if Earth rotates and you set up a camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth (and the orbital motion, such that it turns roughly 0.25 degrees per minute), there would be an apparent zig-zag motion which you couldn't detect.
So what?

Nothing, except that there would be an apparent ZIGZAG motion of the sun (even in the case in which the sun would be 150 000 000 km away from the earth), and which ZIGZAG motion we would even be able to measure with special instruments....

Quote
If Earth was stationary and the sun circled us, and again, you set up a camera to rotate that same roughly 0.25 degrees per minute, you would get the same result. There would be an apparent zig-zag motion there as well, again being too small to detect.

No, in such scenario there wouldn't be an apparent ZIGZAG motion of the sun because the sun would move in one single direction all the time....

Quote
If the sun was much closer (such as in the FE models), then there would be a very noticable zig-zag motion.

Exactly, but only if the earth were rotating on it's axis, and the sun were stationary, if the earth were stationary and the sun were orbiting the stationary earth, there wouldn't be noticeable (neither apparent nor real) ZIGZAG motion of the sun...
Quote
So this isn't Rab's stupidity. It is yours.
Rab isn't saying there is no zig-zag. He is saying you would get it regardless of if Earth was stationary with the sun circling, or if Earth was rotating with the sun stationary.

So, yes, it is Rab's and your stupidity, indeed!!!

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1922485#msg1922485

Shall we examine another example of Jack's geniusness :

Quote
NO IT WOULD NOT!!!
The translation (or relative speeds) component is only causing a small change in the apparent motion.
The 1.25 degrees is caused by Earth's rotation, nothing to do with where you are on Earth or the moon.
The 1.25 degree rotation of Earth will cause everything in the sky to appear to move by -1.25 degrees.

The moon's orbit is the next most significant effect, where it moving 0.04 degrees makes it appear to move 0.04 degrees (in addition to the -1.25 degrees from Earth's rotation). This means the cumulative motion for the moon will be -1.21 degrees

The least significant of the three is your position on Earth away from the axis of rotation, which contributes a pathetic 0.008 degrees.
Instead of doing it this way, you can combine the second and third components.

The orbit and your position on Earth causes an apparent motion of the moon of 0.032 or 0.048 degrees (for our 2 scenarios).
That is where your 46% is hidden. That is where your ratio of 1.5 is hidden (it doesn't quite match due to not enough sig.figs).

This is a very small amount, and a small contributor of the motion of Earth.
Remember, the rotation of Earth contributes 1.25 degrees.
This relative translation causes 0.048 degrees at most. But you use the 0.032 to calculate your 46%, so I will as well. You have a difference of 0.016 degrees, out of 1.202 degrees. That is 1.3%.

So, Jack you agree that there would be 46 % (within our 2 different scenarios) difference in the speed of relative motion of the moon (which difference would produce significant 1,5 ratio), only this 46 % difference (1,5 ratio) wouldn't be noticeable because 1,25 degree rotation of Earth will cause the full moon to appear to move by -1,25 degrees IN THE SAME DIRECTION - NO MATTER IN WHICH DIRECTION EARTH ROTATES WITH RESPECT TO THE FULL MOON???

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.120
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #103 on: July 22, 2017, 04:21:23 AM »
Jack, you have no idea what you are talking about...We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid...Do i really have to retrieve (again) numerous examples of your "playing dumb" (or even "being dumb") techniques?

Let's examine a few marvellous passages that has come out of the brain of a Jack's genius brain :
Quote
No. It isn't pure stupidity.
Yes, if Earth rotates and you set up a camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth (and the orbital motion, such that it turns roughly 0.25 degrees per minute), there would be an apparent zig-zag motion which you couldn't detect.
So what?

Nothing, except that there would be an apparent ZIGZAG motion of the sun (even in the case in which the sun would be 150 000 000 km away from the earth), and which ZIGZAG motion we would even be able to measure with special instruments....
We would? Explain how you would measure a Zig-Zag of about 0.12 seconds of arc.
Stellar parallax of such small angles is possible by comparing the positions of nearby stars, with on relatively close and the other so far away as to have no observable parallax.
In this case there is no similar reference available. Of course someone  ;D of your ingenuity  ;D will explain how to do it.

Quote from: cikljamas
Quote
If Earth was stationary and the sun circled us, and again, you set up a camera to rotate that same roughly 0.25 degrees per minute, you would get the same result. There would be an apparent zig-zag motion there as well, again being too small to detect.

No, in such scenario there wouldn't be an apparent ZIGZAG motion of the sun because the sun would move in one single direction all the time....
Incorrect!  The apparent movementioned of the sun is "in one single direction all the time" in both cases.
The same (minuscule) Zig-Zag would still occur because the sun would rotate about the the axis of the earth (North Pole) and not about the observer on the Arctic Circle.

Quote from: cikljamas

Quote
If the sun was much closer (such as in the FE models), then there would be a very noticable zig-zag motion.

Exactly, but only if the earth were rotating on it's axis, and the sun were stationary, if the earth were stationary and the sun were orbiting the stationary earth, there wouldn't be noticeable (neither apparent nor real) ZIGZAG motion of the sun...
Quote
So this isn't Rab's stupidity. It is yours.
Rab isn't saying there is no zig-zag. He is saying you would get it regardless of if Earth was stationary with the sun circling, or if Earth was rotating with the sun stationary.

So, yes, it is Rab's and your stupidity, indeed!!!
Incorrect!  It makes absulutely no difference to wgat we would see whether the sun is stationary and the earth rotates or the earth is stationary and the sun circles. You don't have the slightest concept of relative motion.

Quote from: cikljamas

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1922485#msg1922485

Shall we examine another example of Jack's geniusness :

Let's not bother! This thread is "ANALEMA PROBLEM" not "ZIGZAG",  as I thought you might have realised, since they are both your topics.

But would you mind referring me to what you actually believe, if anything.
Where is the sun and exactly how does it move?

PS  How come we have a model that works and you don't?

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #104 on: July 22, 2017, 06:16:50 AM »
Jack, you have no idea what you are talking about
I have a very good idea of what I am talking about.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid
And you sure are working hard at that.

Do i really have to retrieve (again) numerous examples of your "playing dumb" (or even "being dumb") techniques?
Do you mean the examples of your own stupidity, where you repeatedly got your ass handed to you? And then ran away like a scared little child because you couldn't handle being refuted yet again.

Your only saving grace this time is how incoherent you have been.

But I have a better idea, leave those comments in their own thread, and focus on your current batch of stupidity.
Think you can do that?

If anyone else would like an explanation I would be happy to provide it, but for now I will just leave the links to the posts, for people to see it in context.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1922485#msg1922485
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1920671#msg1920671

But thanks for bringing up other examples of your dishonesty and stupidity.

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #105 on: July 22, 2017, 06:27:24 AM »
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #106 on: July 22, 2017, 06:48:02 AM »
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.
Reading this thread would be rather pointless for it. You would want to read his BS zig-zag threads.
Basically the parallax he is talking about is correcting for Earth's average rotation of 0.25 degrees per minute (matching a solar day), and noticing that the sun doesn't remain in the exact same spot throughout the day due to you not being at the centre of Earth's rotation, while ignoring the more complex parts to it like the eccentricity of the orbit or the tilt.

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #107 on: July 22, 2017, 01:17:05 PM »
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.
Reading this thread would be rather pointless for it. You would want to read his BS zig-zag threads.
Basically the parallax he is talking about is correcting for Earth's average rotation of 0.25 degrees per minute (matching a solar day), and noticing that the sun doesn't remain in the exact same spot throughout the day due to you not being at the centre of Earth's rotation, while ignoring the more complex parts to it like the eccentricity of the orbit or the tilt.

You just explained what we are talking about (HC "ZIGZAG" (due to the non-existing rotation of the globe) DIURNAL parallax) while we are looking for non-existing peer-review article which would have to deal with non-existing diurnal parallax of the sun. Bravo Jack, you are evolving...:) Now, explain to us how would you measure "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax" (whatever it could be :)) ??? Or should we wait for your smart friend Rabinoz to explain to us what is the true meaning of "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax"??? :)
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #108 on: July 22, 2017, 01:17:37 PM »
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.
Reading this thread would be rather pointless for it. You would want to read his BS zig-zag threads.
Basically the parallax he is talking about is correcting for Earth's average rotation of 0.25 degrees per minute (matching a solar day), and noticing that the sun doesn't remain in the exact same spot throughout the day due to you not being at the centre of Earth's rotation, while ignoring the more complex parts to it like the eccentricity of the orbit or the tilt.
You've just explained what we are talking about (HC "ZIGZAG" (due to the non-existing rotation of the globe) DIURNAL parallax) while we are looking for non-existing peer-review article which would have to deal with non-existing diurnal parallax of the sun. Bravo Jack, you are evolving...:) Now, explain to us how would you measure "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax" (whatever it could be :)) ??? Or should we wait for your smart friend Rabinoz to explain to us what is the true meaning of "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax"??? :)


« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 01:25:41 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #109 on: July 22, 2017, 04:49:49 PM »
You just explained what we are talking about (HC "ZIGZAG" (due to the non-existing rotation of the globe) DIURNAL parallax) while we are looking for non-existing peer-review article which would have to deal with non-existing diurnal parallax of the sun. Bravo Jack, you are evolving...:) Now, explain to us how would you measure "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax" (whatever it could be :)) ??? Or should we wait for your smart friend Rabinoz to explain to us what is the true meaning of "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax"??? :)
I did it for his benefit, not yours.
Like I said elsewhere, if this doesn't exist then all it means is that the sun is even further away.
You cannot use it to determine if Earth is stationary or rotating.
I also explained how to measure the geocentric version, exactly the same as you would measure a heliocentric version.
If you wish to discuss it, go revive one of your other threads.
Leave this one for the discussion of the analemma.

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #110 on: July 22, 2017, 05:28:59 PM »
Here, I have done it for you.
If you want to continue the discussion do it in its thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1932922#msg1932922

Leave this one to the discussion of the analemma.

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #111 on: July 23, 2017, 03:38:25 AM »
Here, I have done it for you.
If you want to continue the discussion do it in its thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1932922#msg1932922

Leave this one to the discussion of the analemma.

This is my answer to you :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1933061#msg1933061
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #112 on: July 23, 2017, 04:35:38 AM »
Here, I have done it for you.
If you want to continue the discussion do it in its thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1932922#msg1932922

Leave this one to the discussion of the analemma.

This is my answer to you :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1933061#msg1933061

You didn't need to link to it. I can see it myself.

Now are you going to address your failings on the analemma issue?

*

cikljamas

  • 2068
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #113 on: July 23, 2017, 06:09:15 AM »
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433

However, since it seems that your delusional disorder is incurable i doubt that you will realize what is the true nature of your illness even after reading next elaboration :

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :

HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East

---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :

In Midnight scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards West

In Noon scenario :

-  Observer is at rest
-  Real motion of the Full Moon is towards East
-  Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards East


---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

CONCLUSION :

1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.

2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.

3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #114 on: July 23, 2017, 02:10:33 PM »
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?
The only one showing their stupidity/dishonest here is you.

I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433
No, you asserted a bunch of crap which had already been refuted.

Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
TAKE YOUR ZIG ZAG BS TO ITS OWN THREAD WHERE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN REFUTED REPEATEDLY!!!
Stop trying to bring it up in other threads so you can pretend it is new and hasn't been refuted.

I am not going to discus your zig zag BS here.

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #115 on: July 31, 2017, 07:53:17 PM »
If you look at some of Feynman's diagrams on reflection and refraction-this could possibly be due to a lensing effect if the light source is beneath the surface of the earth.  It may work with a sun @ another points(s) as well, I just am not actively researching that as much right now.   

Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« Reply #116 on: August 07, 2017, 02:17:19 PM »
If you look at some of Feynman's diagrams on reflection and refraction-this could possibly be due to a lensing effect if the light source is beneath the surface of the earth.  It may work with a sun @ another points(s) as well, I just am not actively researching that as much right now.   
Care to elaborate more cause right now I'm not seeing how that helps.