SMOKING GUN

  • 359 Replies
  • 12386 Views
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2019, 02:05:31 PM »

in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun,


Interesting.

*ah-hem*

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2019, 02:34:51 PM »
Jack, how would you interpret the highlighted passage above (where "a considerable error" phrase appears)?
How about you try coming up with an argument rather than just copying and pasting stuff you seem to not understand?
I see no issue with it.
There is some error in all measurements. Different people will describe it differently.
I fail to see the relevance to the topic.
The planets have a sidereal rotation period and they are not constant. So what?

Where is your smoking gun?
Your argument seems to be based entirely upon your claim that Earth's sidereal rotation period is constant which you are yet to back up.
Stay on topic.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2019, 02:41:01 PM »
<scans of pages from two publications; one looks more than a century old, the other, unattributed, looks somewhat newer>

What's that supposed to show?

What is your interpretation of the highlighted passage above (where "considerable error" phrase appears)???

No idea. There is not enough information to tell what that means.

Quote
In addition :

Isn't it interesting that the orientation of Mars' axis is not aligned (doesn't point towards the sun) with it's perihelion/aphelion unlike in the case of Earth's axis orientation???

Do you mean the earth's line of apsides being about 15° from the line of solstices? No, that's not particularly interesting. It's just happenstance, and it's changing due to precession (I think it's currently increasing, but I'd have to check).

Check out the shape of Mars' analemma compared to earth's to see one effect this difference makes.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2019, 06:13:36 PM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
But as has been pointed out TO YOU numerous times your claim that the sidereal day is NOT always exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." IS FALSE.

Wait, wut?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2019, 05:45:05 AM »
in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun,
Interesting.
Isn't it?

There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
But as has been pointed out TO YOU numerous times your claim that the sidereal day is NOT always exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." IS FALSE.
Wait, wut?
LOL

<scans of pages from two publications; one looks more than a century old, the other, unattributed, looks somewhat newer>

What's that supposed to show?

What is your interpretation of the highlighted passage above (where "considerable error" phrase appears)???
No idea. There is not enough information to tell what that means.

What do you think about ancient measuring of Mars' sidereal (rotational) movement?
Don't you agree that such measuring without telescopes (with naked eyes) is impossible?


In addition :

Isn't it interesting that the orientation of Mars' axis is not aligned (doesn't point towards the sun) with it's perihelion/aphelion unlike in the case of Earth's axis orientation???

Do you mean the earth's line of apsides being about 15° from the line of solstices? No, that's not particularly interesting. It's just happenstance, and it's changing due to precession (I think it's currently increasing, but I'd have to check).

Yes, i mean that, watch again :



Now, let's expand on this a little bit :
Quote
The term "precession" typically refers only to
this largest part of the motion; other changes in the alignment of Earth's
axis—nutation and polar motion—are much smaller in magnitude.

Earth's precession was historically called the precession
of the equinoxes, because the equinoxes moved westward along the ecliptic
relative to the fixed stars, opposite to the yearly motion of the Sun along the
ecliptic.

The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is mostly
attributed to Hellenistic-era (2nd century BC) astronomer Hipparchus, although
there are alternative suggestions claiming earlier discovery. With improvements
in the ability to calculate the gravitational force between and among planets
during the first half of the nineteenth century, it was recognized that the
ecliptic itself moved slightly, which was named planetary precession, as
early as 1863, while the dominant component was named lunisolar precession.
Their combination was named general precession, instead of precession of
the equinoxes.

The first astronomer known to have continued Hipparchus's work on precession
is Ptolemy in the second century. Ptolemy measured the longitudes of Regulus,
Spica, and other bright stars with a variation of Hipparchus's lunar method
that did not require eclipses. Before sunset, he measured the longitudinal arc
separating the Moon from the Sun. Then, after sunset, he measured the arc from
the Moon to the star. He used Hipparchus's model to calculate the Sun's
longitude, and made corrections for the Moon's motion and its parallax (Evans
1998, pp. 251–255). Ptolemy compared his own observations with those made
by Hipparchus, Menelaus of Alexandria, Timocharis, and Agrippa. He found that
between Hipparchus's time and his own (about 265 years), the stars had moved
2°40', or 1° in 100 years (36" per year; the rate accepted today is about
50" per year or 1° in 72 years). He also confirmed that precession
affected all fixed stars, not just those near the ecliptic, and his cycle had
the same period of 36,000 years as found by Hipparchus.


Proclus rejected precession, while Theon of Alexandria, a commentator on
Ptolemy in the fourth century, accepted Ptolemy's explanation. Theon also
reports an alternate theory:

According to certain opinions
ancient astrologers believe that from a certain epoch the solstitial signs have
a motion of 8° in the order of the signs, after which they go back the same
amount. . . . (Dreyer 1958, p. 204)

The theory of trepidation is presented by Theon as an alternative to
precession. There are also many ancient culture theories on precession like, Babylonians, Maya, ancient Egyptian, Indian and Yu Xi.

Hipparchus also studied precession in On the Length of the Year.
Two kinds of year are relevant to understanding his work. The tropical year is
the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from the Earth, takes to return to
the same position along the ecliptic (its path among the stars on the celestial
sphere). The sidereal year is the length of time that the Sun takes to return
to the same position with respect to the stars of the celestial sphere.
Precession causes the stars to change their longitude slightly each year, so
the sidereal year is longer than the tropical year. Using observations of the
equinoxes and solstices, Hipparchus found that the length of the tropical year
was 365+1/4−1/300 days, or 365.24667 days (Evans 1998, p. 209). Comparing
this with the length of the sidereal year, he calculated that the rate of
precession was not less than in a century. From this information, it is
possible to calculate that his value for the sidereal year was 365+1/4+1/144
days (Toomer 1978, p. 218)
. By giving a minimum rate he may have been
allowing for errors in observation.

To approximate his tropical year Hipparchus created his own lunisolar calendar by modifying those of Meton and Callippus in On Intercalary Months and Days
(now lost), as described by Ptolemy in the Almagest III.1 (Toomer 1984, , p. 139).

Now, the question :

If heliocentric theory were true description of reality, wouldn't we witness (due to per century rate of precession) the earth's line of apsides being much farther than about 15° from the line of solstices (in comparison with let's say 1st century situation)??? Earth's line of apsides is never much farther than about 15° from the line of solstices, is it? Let' put it into broader perspective : Mars' line of apsides is about 70° from the line of solstices, isn't it?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 05:52:16 AM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2019, 07:20:44 AM »
in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun,
Interesting.
Isn't it?

And on heliocentric model, the ratio between a mean solar day and a sidereal day corresponds to one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year.  Which is what we observe.

How does the geocentric model account for this?  Coincidence?

If you have no explanation, just say so and I’ll stop asking.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2019, 12:32:14 PM »
in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun,
Interesting.
Isn't it?

And on heliocentric model, the ratio between a mean solar day and a sidereal day corresponds to one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year.  Which is what we observe.

How does the geocentric model account for this?  Coincidence?

If you have no explanation, just say so and I’ll stop asking.

No, this is actually trivial, few years ago i thought i could use this ratio (the difference of one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year) in favor of geocentricity, and then Alpha2Omega responded with one very entertaining comment :

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s, you could achieve that with no need to mess with the rotation period of the Earth or change its orbit. Stars would transit almost 8 minutes earlier each day, and the Sun would transit almost 4 minutes earlier (shifting by about 2° and 1°, respectively each ciklnoon), and there would be 364 cikldays, 365 (now obsolete) solar days, and 366 sidereal days in the year.[nb]Which date should we get rid of? I suggest we remove your birthday from the ciklcalendar; then you'd never have to grow up.[/nb] A real advantage to this is that we could use the same ciklcalendar for three years since common years would be exactly 52 ciklweeks long instead of the current, inconvenient, 52 weeks plus 1 day. While you're at it, you might consider defining the ciklday as 24h 04m 54.851868s and get rid of the need for leap years, too and we could use the same calendar forever. All you have to do is convince the body that oversees civil time to make this little change. It would be kind of inconvenient when the sun transits near midnight, though, so you might find some resistance to the idea.

Accompanying post : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1691932#msg1691932

Haven't you noticed these comments which i have posted on the previous page :

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, Stephen Hawking

“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint  practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach
 
“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor  revolves in an orbit.” Physicist, I Bernard Cohen

“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

Have you noticed this quote :

“…I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2019, 01:45:56 PM »
Yes, i mean that, watch again :
That is a static image, so you don't watch it, and your circled date is useless. You have just drawn in a bunch of crap.

Again, it isn't the axis which aligns, it is the solstice is somewhat close. But who cares? It means nothing.

Now, let's expand on this a little bit :
No. How about you get back on topic or admit your argument is false.
You were focusing on Earth's rotation rate allegedly being 100% constant.
Do you have anything to back that up?

If heliocentric theory were true description of reality, wouldn't we witness (due to per century rate of precession) the earth's line of apsides being much farther than about 15° from the line of solstices (in comparison with let's say 1st century situation)??? Earth's line of apsides is never much farther than about 15° from the line of solstices, is it?
No. Why should we magically expect it to be greater than 15 degrees now?
That starts with the insane assumption that it was 0 back then.
What if it started at -30 degrees? Then what should it be at?
Give it a few hundred/thousand years and then measure again, see if it is still at 15 degrees.

Also note that the orbit can also move to some extent.

Haven't you noticed these comments which i have posted on the previous page :
I certainly have. You quote mine a bunch of people and just present claims saying "well we can pretend it is either way, completely ignoring the lack of justification for either model and the lack of an argument.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2019, 02:11:16 PM »
Jack, how accurate is the Stonehenge TODAY?
I would say : very accurate!!!
If the Stonehenge is still very accurate TODAY, how can it be if Milankovitch was right about his cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession)?
Now, if we add to this continental drift (pay attention to the possible impact in relation to azimuth angle drift), then we get pretty weird situation, wouldn't you say?

The UK (where the Stonehenge is located) and North America are moving further apart. Most sources I looked cite that its about 2.5cm a year but some say up to 10cm . So that's between 12.5 and 50m over the course of 500 years. That's more than enough to create a noticeable error on global positioning coordinates - your driverless car will be "off road" if it uses 500 year old coordinates.

SUMMER SOLSTICE - STONEHENGE :




*

sokarul

  • 15833
  • Discount Chemist
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #39 on: March 24, 2019, 03:09:23 PM »
You are confusing two ideas. The summer solstice will happen every year regardless of anything. The date and time is which changes year to year.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #40 on: March 24, 2019, 03:23:56 PM »
Jack, how accurate is the Stonehenge TODAY?
Who cares.
Your topic was on the rotational period of Earth being constant. That has no bearing on the accuracy of Stonehenge.
Now going to admit you were wrong, or are you going to try and defend your claims of Earth's rotational period being 100% fixed?

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #41 on: March 24, 2019, 04:03:16 PM »
Jack, how accurate is the Stonehenge TODAY?
I would say : very accurate!!!
If the Stonehenge is still very accurate TODAY, how can it be if Milankovitch was right about his cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession)?

SUMMER SOLSTICE - STONEHENGE :

Please explain why would the direction of the sun at the Summer Solstice change?

You start your thread on a completely false premise and carry on presenting more and more false premises.

By the way, what are your values for the distances to the moon and sun? Just curious.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #42 on: March 24, 2019, 06:05:49 PM »
<scans of pages from two publications; one looks more than a century old, the other, unattributed, looks somewhat newer>

What's that supposed to show?

What is your interpretation of the highlighted passage above (where "considerable error" phrase appears)???
No idea. There is not enough information to tell what that means.

What do you think about ancient measuring of Mars' sidereal (rotational) movement?
Don't you agree that such measuring without telescopes (with naked eyes) is impossible?

The article doesn't say how old "ancient" is. It calls out publications from 1872 which refer to drawings of Mars by Huygens and Hooke (presumably through telescopes) from two centuries before that. I presume it is referring to those 17th century observations as "ancient".

When was the paper you highlighted published? It reads like it's from the latter part of the Victorian era or soon after; papers written in those times often used excessively florid but sometimes vague terms like that.

Quote

In addition :

Isn't it interesting that the orientation of Mars' axis is not aligned (doesn't point towards the sun) with it's perihelion/aphelion unlike in the case of Earth's axis orientation???

Do you mean the earth's line of apsides being about 15° from the line of solstices? No, that's not particularly interesting. It's just happenstance, and it's changing due to precession (I think it's currently increasing, but I'd have to check).
Now, let's expand on this a little bit :

Quote
<Treatise on precession>

Now, the question :

If heliocentric theory were true description of reality, wouldn't we witness (due to per century rate of precession) the earth's line of apsides being much farther than about 15° from the line of solstices (in comparison with let's say 1st century situation)???

No. How far apart they are today depends on how far apart, and in which direction, they were 20 centuries ago as well as how fast they move with respect to each other.

Quote
Earth's line of apsides is never much farther than about 15° from the line of solstices, is it?

I have no reason to believe that is correct and plenty of reasons to believe it is not correct. Why do you think this would be true?

Quote
Let' put it into broader perspective : Mars' line of apsides is about 70° from the line of solstices, isn't it?

It could be. How is that relevant to this discussion, anyway?

Have you given up on your original incorrect assertion that the length of the sidereal day is forever fixed at the value it is now?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2019, 06:49:44 PM »
Have you given up on your original incorrect assertion that the length of the sidereal day is forever fixed at the value it is now?
By the way it is worth noting that 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds is the definition of a sidereal day not the current value of the period of the earth's rotation relative to the"fixed stars".

Quote from: Swinburne University
COSMOS - The SAO Encyclopedia of Astronomy, Sidereal Day
On Earth, a sidereal day lasts for 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds, which is slightly shorter than the solar day measured from noon to noon.
But this is simply a definition to enable astronomical time keeping to keep in pace with Solar Time. Which was originally based on the Mean Solar Day.
See:
Quote
Unit of Time: Working Group 4.41, History of the unit of time
The SI second between 1956 and 1967
Following a proposal made by astronomers, in 1956 the International Committee of Weights and Measures defined the SI second as a specific fraction of the tropical year. The tropical year is the interval between two successive passages of the "mean sun" through the "mean spring equinox". As the duration of the tropical year varies, the definition was based on the differential tropical year of the 31st of December 1899 at 12:00pm Universal Time. This fraction of the tropical year was selected from a calculation made in 1895 by Simon Newcomb, who evaluated astronomical observations made in the course of several centuries and determined the ratio of the mean periods of the earth's rotation and the earth's orbit. Since at that time the earth still rotated a little faster than today, the "ephemeris second" defined in 1956 is shorter than today's Universal Time second by about 3.10-8 s. Today's mean solar day is, consequently, almost 3 ms longer than 86 400 ephemeris seconds.
The mean solar day is observed to not only be very slowly lengthening but to have very slight short term variations.
The sidereal day is tied to the the mean solar day by the number of days in the year.

So the definitions of the mean solar day (86,400 seconds) and the sidereal day (23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds) do not change.
But the current values of each do change very slightly.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2019, 11:09:14 PM »
Wow. What a head banger.

Read through the entire thread and couldn't even place what the OP was going on about. Because as soon as he is asked to clarify his question, he immediately runs of on a gish-gallop-copy-pasta adventure.

Even a simple question as to who Dr Robert Sungenis is resulted in almost 40 paragraphs with as many names none of which was Dr Robert Sungenis!

For a smoking gun, that sure is a heck of a lot of smoke.

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2019, 01:14:16 AM »
Wow. What a head banger.

Read through the entire thread and couldn't even place what the OP was going on about. Because as soon as he is asked to clarify his question, he immediately runs of on a gish-gallop-copy-pasta adventure.

Even a simple question as to who Dr Robert Sungenis is resulted in almost 40 paragraphs with as many names none of which was Dr Robert Sungenis!

For a smoking gun, that sure is a heck of a lot of smoke.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Robert A. Sungenis (born ca. 1955) is an American Traditionalist Catholic known for his Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe.

And Robert Sungenis is vehemently opposed to the flat earth, writing documents like this: The Flat Earth Frenzy: Unscientific and Unbiblical

Robert Sungenis was also the "creator, executive producer and actor in The Principle movie, and now author of the new book, Flat Earth/Flat Wrong".

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2019, 04:33:22 AM »


And on heliocentric model, the ratio between a mean solar day and a sidereal day corresponds to one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year.  Which is what we observe.

How does the geocentric model account for this?  Coincidence?

If you have no explanation, just say so and I’ll stop asking.

No, this is actually trivial, few years ago i thought i could use this ratio (the difference of one rotation of the Earth around the sun over a year) in favor of geocentricity, and then Alpha2Omega responded with one very entertaining comment :

By simply redefining the length of the day from 24 hours to about 24h 3m 57s, you could achieve that with no need to mess with the rotation period of the Earth or change its orbit. Stars would transit almost 8 minutes earlier each day, and the Sun would transit almost 4 minutes earlier (shifting by about 2° and 1°, respectively each ciklnoon), and there would be 364 cikldays, 365 (now obsolete) solar days, and 366 sidereal days in the year.[nb]Which date should we get rid of? I suggest we remove your birthday from the ciklcalendar; then you'd never have to grow up.[/nb] A real advantage to this is that we could use the same ciklcalendar for three years since common years would be exactly 52 ciklweeks long instead of the current, inconvenient, 52 weeks plus 1 day. While you're at it, you might consider defining the ciklday as 24h 04m 54.851868s and get rid of the need for leap years, too and we could use the same calendar forever. All you have to do is convince the body that oversees civil time to make this little change. It would be kind of inconvenient when the sun transits near midnight, though, so you might find some resistance to the idea.

Accompanying post : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1691932#msg1691932

Haven't you noticed these comments which i have posted on the previous page :

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, Stephen Hawking

“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint  practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach
 
“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor  revolves in an orbit.” Physicist, I Bernard Cohen

“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

Have you noticed this quote :

“…I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

Great, but none of these quotes answer my question.

The only trivial answer I could find on the linked thread is that if we changed one of the numbers, we’d get a different result.  Not very convincing.

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2019, 05:06:08 AM »
“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle
Read "Yet in principle there is no difference" again and note that "in principle".

The Heliocentric Solar System has one huge practical advantage over the Tychonian System and that is that the orbits are explainable using Newton Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

And those are the "Laws" that enabled the presence and approximate locations of the planets Neptune and Pluto (now a dwarf planet) to be predicted.

The Tychonian System has no such predictive power.
Not only that but the measured distances to even the nearest stars requires that those stars travel at tremendous velocities - about 3000 light years per day!

So, sure, the Tychonian System might show that same planetary motions as seen on the Heliocentric Solar System but that is all it does.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2019, 06:23:26 AM »
1. Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) said in his Phainomena:

A star is visible between the Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), not changing its place, but always revolving upon itself

VERY UNSPECIFIED LOCATION, ISN'T IT?



2. Hipparchos (circa 160-120 B.C.), that the pole was "in a vacant spot forming a quadrangle with three other stars,"

VERY UNSPECIFIED LOCATION, AGAIN...

3. In Hipparchos' (circa 160-120 B.C.) time Polaris was 12°24' away from the pole according to his own statement quoted by Marinus of Tyre and cited by the second-century Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Miss Clerke writes as to this:

{p.454} "The entire millennium before the Christian era may count for an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha (a) Draco (Thuban) had ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah (Polaris) had not yet assumed it."

WELL, HERE WE HAVE STATEMENT ACCORDING WHICH WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THUBAN WAS POLAR STAR BEFORE POLARIS ASSUMED IT, THAT IS MUCH MORE SPECIFIED.

4. Kochab (the beta, ß, star of Ursa Minor), and kappa (?) of Draco, at different times in that epoch, may have been considered as this pole-star, the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole; although the 5th-magnitude b, 4° away in Alexandrian-Greek astronomer Eratosthenes' (276?-196 B.C.) day, perhaps was intended. And this is not unlikely, as this inconspicuous object, for some reason, was sufficiently noteworthy among the Chinese to bear the title How Kung, the Empress.

8. The astrological influences of the constellation Ursa Minor given by Manilius (1st century A.D.) :

"Now where heaven reaches its culmination in the shining Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), which from the summit of the sky look down on all the stars and know no setting and, shifting their opposed stations about the same high point, set sky and stars in rotation, from there an insubstantial axis runs down through the wintry air and controls the universe, keeping it pivoted at opposite poles: it forms the middle about which the starry sphere revolves and wheels its heavenly flight, but is itself without motion and, drawn straight through the empty spaces of the great sky to the two Bears and through the very globe of the Earth, stands fixed, since the entire atmosphere ever revolves in a circle, and every part of the whole rotates to the place from which it once began, that which is in the middle, about which all moves, so insubstantial that it cannot turn round upon itself or even submit to motion or spin in circular fashion, this men have called the axis, since, motionless itself, it yet sees everything spinning about it."

Isn't above description very similar to this Hipparchos' report :

Hipparchos (circa 160-120 B.C.), that the pole was "in a vacant spot forming a quadrangle with three other stars,"






That's not a circle. It's a shape you made up. Kochab was never on the pole, and what basis do you have for selecting Kappa Draconis?

Here's the circle:



QUOTE 1 :
Due to the precession of Earth's rotational axis, Thuban was the naked-eye star closest to the north pole from 3942 BC, when it moved farther north than Theta Boötis, until 1793 BC, when it was superseded by Kappa Draconis.

QUOTE 2 :
Kochab (the beta, ß, star of Ursa Minor), and Kappa (?) of Draco a.k.a. Kappa Draconis, at different times in that epoch, may have been considered as this pole-star, the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole; although the 5th-magnitude b, 4° away in Alexandrian-Greek astronomer Eratosthenes' (276?-196 B.C.) day, perhaps was intended. And this is not unlikely, as this inconspicuous object, for some reason, was sufficiently noteworthy among the Chinese to bear the title How Kung, the Empress.

QUOTE 3 :
The Moon and Sun act on the Earth's rotational bulge, and cause the axis to wobble over a 26,000 year period. The result is that the axis continually moves in a circle of 23 1/2 degrees radius against the background stars. Polaris is therefore only a temporary pole star that will get better into the next century and will then begin to shift away. About the year 1100 BC, the pole made a reasonably close pass to Kochab, and there are old references to Kochab being called "Polaris."

QOUTE 4 :
Kochab is from the Arabic title that it shared with alpha (a Polaris); and it perhaps was this star that the Greek astronomers called Polos, for it was near the pole 1000 years before our era. Burritt's Atlas of 1856 has Kochah.

QUOTE 5 :
The Arabian astronomers knew it as Al Kaukab2 al Shamaliyy, [Allen notes: Kaukab is the same as the Assyrian and Chaldaean word Kakkab, the Hebrew Kohabh; this last also the fighting name of Bar Cochab, the Son of a Star, who was the leader of the second revolt of the Jews in 132-135, during the reign of Hadrian, his shekels bearing a star over a tetrastyle temple. The name was variously written, but correctly as Bar Coziba, from his birthplace.] the Star of the North, an appellation perhaps given by their nomad ancestors to beta (ß Kochab) as nearer the pole in their time.

SO, FIRSTLY WE HAVE SPECULATIONS ABOUT KOCHAB POSSIBLY BEING NAMED AFTER POLARIS, AND NOW WE TALK ABOUT JEWS POSSIBLY GIVING THE NAME TO POLARIS AFTER KOCHAB???

A LOT OF HISTORICAL FUDGING I WOULD SAY...?


[/quote]

Now, i repeat this question :

How accurate is the Stonehenge TODAY?
I would say : very accurate!!!
If the Stonehenge is still very accurate TODAY, how can it be if Milankovitch was right about his cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession)?



CONCLUSION : What we call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solarsystem” because precession is actually due to the motion of the WHOLE solar system (AS ENTIRETY) itself. In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun)

IN ADDITION :


Accompanying citation :
If he did solve the problem using the same geometrical steps, then his solution would
proceed something like the following (see Figure 3). Let the vernal equinox, summer
solstice, and autumn equinox be at T, K, Q, respectively. The deferent circle has center Z,
radius R, and eccentricity e = EZ. Extend the line KE to B and let the distance
d = EB set the scale of the diagram.

The angles TZK, KZQ, and QZT are all known from the season lengths. Then the angles ETB and EQB may
be computed, from which one determines QB, TB, and hence TQ, which gives the deferent radius
R in terms of d. Angles QZB and TZB are then computed, and so KB is determined, whence one finds
R/e and the angle TEZ (both independent of the value of d, of course)
.

So, if in Hipparchus's time Spring was 94 days long and Summer lasted 92 days, then why duration of the Summer wasn't 88 days, the duration of Autumn 90 days, and the duration of Winter 92 days??? Do you see what i mean (the CCW direction of yellow arrows displayed around figure 3 should be reoriented (in CW direction) and wrapped around the illustration on the left side)??? 

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #49 on: March 25, 2019, 08:40:43 AM »
And Robert Sungenis is vehemently opposed to the flat earth, writing documents like this: The Flat Earth Frenzy: Unscientific and Unbiblical

Robert Sungenis was also the "creator, executive producer and actor in The Principle movie, and now author of the new book, Flat Earth/Flat Wrong".

To be fair, cikljamas no longer believes the earth is flat. He thinks it is nonmoving and the universe revolves around it, but not that it's flat.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2019, 11:31:59 AM »
1. Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) said in his Phainomena:

A star is visible between the Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), not changing its place, but always revolving upon itself

VERY UNSPECIFIED LOCATION, ISN'T IT?

So what?

Quote
<rumination about which stars were close to the north celestial pole in BCE times

There is no suggestion in there that any were the star we now call Polaris, which supports precession, which is what really matters.

Quote
Now, i repeat this question :

How accurate is the Stonehenge TODAY?
I would say : very accurate!!!
If the Stonehenge is still very accurate TODAY, how can it be if Milankovitch was right about his cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession)?

Because the only one of those cycles that affects the latitude of Stonehenge is change of axial tilt. The direction of sunrise on the solstice will not change unless latitude changes, but Milankovitch has only a small and slowly-changing axial tilt.

Earlier you mentioned up to 50 meters of continental drift over five centuries and compared that to the width of roads. That change was with respect to North America, however, which is on the opposite side of the mid-Atlantic rift (so they move in opposite directions wrt the rift), not with respect to the equator. For the sake of discussion, however, if we assume the worst case that Stonehenge moved 50 meters due north or south, the change in latitude would be a whopping 0.00045° (1.6 seconds of arc). In other words, even the worst case possible doesn't amount to squat. Now, if the plate movement causes the Eurasian Plate to rotate, that could affect the orientation of Stonehenge wrt the solstice, but you make no mention of that.

Quote
<picture from Stonehenge>

CONCLUSION : What we call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solarsystem” because precession is actually due to the motion of the WHOLE solar system (AS ENTIRETY) itself.

No, this is not correct. Precession results in the movement of the plane of the equator and direction of the Vernal Equinox wrt the inertial reference frame. The orientation of the inertial frame is now established by the directions to several of the most distant observable objects. These are so distant that they are considered to not be changing in direction relative to us at all, to a very high degree of precision.

The apparent locations of solar system bodies as well as more distant objects are usually expressed in right ascension and declination based on the equator and equinox of a specified epoch (a specific moment in time). These days the epoch used is almost always J2000.0 (noon on 1 Jan 2000 UTC) or "Jnow" (the position of the equator and equinox at a time very close to nw). If you tried to locate, say, Jupiter by plotting its Jnow RA and Dec on a star chart based on J2000 coordinates, you'd be off by more than 1/4 degree because there has been that much precession in almost 20 years. The very useful planetarium program Stellarium gives RA and Dec for objects selected in both J2000 and "on date" (i.e. now) epochs by default; Jupiter is currently reported at RA 17h32m37.37s, Dec -22 39'21.7" (J2000) and 17h33m48.34s, -22 40'04.4" (on date). That's a difference of 1m10.97s in RA alone, which is 17.75 minutes of arc; more than 1/4 degree. This is, of course, the similar to stars appearing near Jupiter since it's our coordinates that are affected by precession, not the objects themselves.

Quote
In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun)[/b][/color]

"Wobbling on her axis" means that the system of coordinates we often use to refer to celestial objects moves with respect to all celestial objects. So it, of course, affects how we describe the location of the sun, moon, planets, and extra-solar-system objects all the same since, again, it's what we use as a reference that is changing, not the objects themselves. This certainly doesn't help your argument.

Quote
IN ADDITION :


Accompanying citation :
If he did solve the problem using the same geometrical steps, then his solution would
proceed something like the following (see Figure 3). Let the vernal equinox, summer
solstice, and autumn equinox be at T, K, Q, respectively. The deferent circle has center Z,
radius R, and eccentricity e = EZ. Extend the line KE to B and let the distance
d = EB set the scale of the diagram.

The angles TZK, KZQ, and QZT are all known from the season lengths. Then the angles ETB and EQB may
be computed, from which one determines QB, TB, and hence TQ, which gives the deferent radius
R in terms of d. Angles QZB and TZB are then computed, and so KB is determined, whence one finds
R/e and the angle TEZ (both independent of the value of d, of course)
.

So, if in Hipparchus's time Spring was 94 days long and Summer lasted 92 days, then why duration of the Summer wasn't 88 days, the duration of Autumn 90 days, and the duration of Winter 92 days??? Do you see what i mean (the CCW direction of yellow arrows displayed around figure 3 should be reoriented (in CW direction) and wrapped around the illustration on the left side)???

That doesn't explain how the location of point 'E' is known, or how they know what the eccentricity (length EZ) is.

Where did you get those numbers for the length of seasons in Hipparchus' time? How reliable are they? Given that it's unlikely that the length of each season was known to an accuracy of better than about +/- 1 or maybe even 2 days back then, this level of analysis seems pretty meaningless. What is it you're trying to show?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #51 on: March 25, 2019, 01:12:11 PM »
1. Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) said in his Phainomena:
A star is visible between the Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), not changing its place, but always revolving upon itself
So you are admitting the sky changes. So what?

Or are you complaining that it isn't a circle?

the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole
I take it you missed that part?
Notice how it is 10 degrees away from the pole, not actually at the pole?
They simply called a bright star close to the pole the pole star. It didn't have to actually be on the pole.


Now, i repeat this question :
And I repeat my answer:
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
It has nothing to do with your topic.

Now are you going to admit Earth's rotation isn't constant or provide evidence that it is?
So far you just seem to be repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2019, 08:13:27 AM »
Now, i repeat this question :
How accurate is the Stonehenge TODAY?
I would say : very accurate!!!
If the Stonehenge is still very accurate TODAY, how can it be if Milankovitch was right about his cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession)?

Because the only one of those cycles that affects the latitude of Stonehenge is change of axial tilt. The direction of sunrise on the solstice will not change unless latitude changes, but Milankovitch has only a small and slowly-changing axial tilt.

Earlier you mentioned up to 50 meters of continental drift over five centuries and compared that to the width of roads. That change was with respect to North America, however, which is on the opposite side of the mid-Atlantic rift (so they move in opposite directions wrt the rift), not with respect to the equator. For the sake of discussion, however, if we assume the worst case that Stonehenge moved 50 meters due north or south, the change in latitude would be a whopping 0.00045° (1.6 seconds of arc). In other words, even the worst case possible doesn't amount to squat. Now, if the plate movement causes the Eurasian Plate to rotate, that could affect the orientation of Stonehenge wrt the solstice, but you make no mention of that.

1. 50 meters per 500 years, and Stonehenge is 5000 years old, so you have to multiply 50 m by 10.
2. How do you know in which direction continental drift occurs? Yes, England and North America move in opposite directions wrt the rift, which is East-North-East (i suppose), and i am talking about the change in azimuth angle.


IN ADDITION :


Accompanying citation :
If he did solve the problem using the same geometrical steps, then his solution would
proceed something like the following (see Figure 3). Let the vernal equinox, summer
solstice, and autumn equinox be at T, K, Q, respectively. The deferent circle has center Z,
radius R, and eccentricity e = EZ. Extend the line KE to B and let the distance
d = EB set the scale of the diagram.

The angles TZK, KZQ, and QZT are all known from the season lengths. Then the angles ETB and EQB may
be computed, from which one determines QB, TB, and hence TQ, which gives the deferent radius
R in terms of d. Angles QZB and TZB are then computed, and so KB is determined, whence one finds
R/e and the angle TEZ (both independent of the value of d, of course)
.

So, if in Hipparchus's time Spring was 94 days long and Summer lasted 92 days, then why duration of the Summer wasn't 88 days, the duration of Autumn 90 days, and the duration of Winter 92 days??? Do you see what i mean (the CCW direction of yellow arrows displayed around figure 3 should be reoriented (in CW direction) and wrapped around the illustration on the left side)???

That doesn't explain how the location of point 'E' is known, or how they know what the eccentricity (length EZ) is.

Where did you get those numbers for the length of seasons in Hipparchus' time? How reliable are they? Given that it's unlikely that the length of each season was known to an accuracy of better than about +/- 1 or maybe even 2 days back then, this level of analysis seems pretty meaningless. What is it you're trying to show?

I got those numbers in the first passage of this text : https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/episodes3.pdf

So, i would like to see how your (HC) model explains (geometrically) such differences in the number of days of seasons in Hipparchus days vs our time.

In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun)[/b][/color]

"Wobbling on her axis" means that the system of coordinates we often use to refer to celestial objects moves with respect to all celestial objects. So it, of course, affects how we describe the location of the sun, moon, planets, and extra-solar-system objects all the same since, again, it's what we use as a reference that is changing, not the objects themselves. This certainly doesn't help your argument.

Quote
1. Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) said in his Phainomena:

A star is visible between the Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), not changing its place, but always revolving upon itself

VERY UNSPECIFIED LOCATION, ISN'T IT?



2. Hipparchos (circa 160-120 B.C.), that the pole was "in a vacant spot forming a quadrangle with three other stars,"

WHICH THREE OTHER STARS???

Quote
3. In Hipparchos' (circa 160-120 B.C.) time Polaris was 12°24' away from the pole according to his own statement quoted by Marinus of Tyre and cited by the second-century Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Miss Clerke writes as to this:

{p.454} "The entire millennium before the Christian era may count for an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha (a) Draco (Thuban) had ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah (Polaris) had not yet assumed it."

WELL, HERE WE HAVE STATEMENT ACCORDING WHICH WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THUBAN WAS POLAR STAR BEFORE POLARIS ASSUMED IT, THAT IS MUCH MORE SPECIFIED.

4. Kochab (the beta, ß, star of Ursa Minor), and kappa (?) of Draco, at different times in that epoch, may have been considered as this pole-star, the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole; although the 5th-magnitude b, 4° away in Alexandrian-Greek astronomer Eratosthenes' (276?-196 B.C.) day, perhaps was intended. And this is not unlikely, as this inconspicuous object, for some reason, was sufficiently noteworthy among the Chinese to bear the title How Kung, the Empress.




1. When Earth's axis points to the point designated as POINT 1, the star THUBAN is still the closest star to that point, isn't it?
2. When Earth's axis points to the point designated as POINT 2, the star CAPPA DRACONIS becomes the closest star to that point, isn't it?
3. QUOTE 2 :
Kochab (the beta, ß, star of Ursa Minor), and Kappa (?) of Draco a.k.a. Kappa Draconis, at different times in that epoch, may have been considered as this pole-star, the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole; although the 5th-magnitude b, 4° away in Alexandrian-Greek astronomer Eratosthenes' (276?-196 B.C.) day, perhaps was intended. And this is not unlikely, as this inconspicuous object, for some reason, was sufficiently noteworthy among the Chinese to bear the title How Kung, the Empress.

So, the question is this : Where (at that imaginary circle that Earth's axis allegedly draws in the sky) it's KOCHAB's turn to become the closest star to the point which is aligned with the Earth's axis?

4. QUOTE 1 :
Due to the precession of Earth's rotational axis, Thuban was the naked-eye star closest to the north pole from 3942 BC, when it moved farther north than Theta Boötis, until 1793 BC, when it was superseded by Kappa Draconis.

So, THUBAN was the naked-eye CLOSEST to the north pole, or directly above the north pole???

5. Same amount of the displacement of the stars should match the same amount of the displacement of the sun.

For example, think about this :

Even stranger is the fact that the sun now appears to set many kilometres off its usual point on the horizon, and the stars are no longer where they should be. Is the Earth shifting on its axis, causing the very look of the sun and stars to change?

These are the drastic conditions Northern Canadians, whose lives depend from childhood on their knowledge of the most minute details of the Arctic land and skies, say they see all around them. These observations by Inuit elders are detailed in a groundbreaking new documentary, Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, by acclaimed Nunavut filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk ( The Fast Runner, The Journals of Knud Rasmussen) and environmental scientist Ian Mauro.

When the filmmakers presented some of their findings at the Copenhagen conference on climate change last year, the media picked up on these views of the Inuit subjects, film co-director Ian Mauro says, and alarm bells started to ring in the scientific community. "We had a litany of scientists come back to us, responding after seeing this news, saying, 'This was great to be speaking to indigenous people about their views, but if you continue to perpetuate this fallacy that the Earth had tilted on its axis, [the Inuit].... would lose all credibility.' And so there was really this backlash by the scientific community."

Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

The scientific explanation is that the warming Arctic air is causing temperature inversions, which in turn cause the light of the sunset to refract so that the sun appears to be setting a few kilometres off-kilter. "There is so much garbage in the air, it's refraction that's causing our elders to think our world has tilted," Kunuk says.


Inuit elders say that now they have full extra hour for hunting because the sun is setting in quite different direction than before, and so the day is one hour longer, although the position where the sun has used to rising isn't change much.

Now, if Polaris is still in it's place, and the sun's path has changed, then the sun and the stars have changed their positions in the "Inuit" sky disproportionately...

The only way is to compare the sun vs the stars...

6. There is one interesting flaw in the following animation (do you agree with me on this) :


Accompanying video :
The Precession of the Equinoxes Explained with Graham Hancock :
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 08:32:50 AM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2019, 10:22:07 AM »
*A)* POLARIS IS STILL IN IT'S PLACE

The amount of change will depend on your field of view.  Polaris is .67 degrees from the celestial north pole, so over the entire night, say 12 hours, it will move 1.33 degrees.  More accurately, it will trace an arc, radius of .67 degrees, around the CNP.  In 12 hours, the arc will form a semi-circle with diameter of 1.33 degrees.

The width of the fingernail on your pinky is about 1.5 degrees, so w'ere talking a VERY SMALL bit of motion to the unaided observer.  That's why Polaris can be called the North Star.  It points to True North at all times within 1 degree.

If you are looking through a telescope, however, there can be a lot of motion.  In my telescope, with my widest field of view eyepiece, I can see a true field of view of 1.6 degrees.  Calculation is apparent FOV (which is dependent on eyepiece design) divided by magnification (which is telescope focal length divided by eyepiece focal length).

For my 1500mm scope with a 30mm eyepiece with 82 degree apparent FOV, you get:

82x30/1500= 1.64.

So in this eyepiece, when centered on the CNP, Polaris makes an arc near the edge of the field of view.  It will move 1/4 way around in six hours.

With greater magnification, if Polaris is in the eyepiece at any time, it will move out of the eyepiece through the night...unless you have automatic tracking, which will hopefully keep Polaris in your field of view.

So, yes, it's a relatively small movement.  Whether you notice it depends on how zoomed in (magnified) you are.  To a terrestrial observer, it stands still.  To a casual telescope observer, it barely moves.  But if you are really trying to zero in on the celestial north pole for purposes of telescope alignment, it moves a lot.

----------------------

There is a very slight rotation of Polaris around the true north celestial pole, requiring those of us who need polar alignment to adjust for it.



---------------------------------

*B)* According to the following personal testimonies the sun is not in it's place, any more :

Pieter van den broek
It is realy true. Always around Christmas days,  sun  is not shining in our livingroom  for six weeks beceause it is blocked by the roof of the houses in our backside. (We alway's notice when the sun  shines in our living room it is nice warmth) Today, 22-12-2018, we see the sun shining in our living room, partely above the rooftops.
So the story is true, or the houses in the front of my house have gone  down.



« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 10:47:06 AM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2019, 12:47:17 PM »
...
Earlier you mentioned up to 50 meters of continental drift over five centuries and compared that to the width of roads. That change was with respect to North America, however, which is on the opposite side of the mid-Atlantic rift (so they move in opposite directions wrt the rift), not with respect to the equator. For the sake of discussion, however, if we assume the worst case that Stonehenge moved 50 meters due north or south, the change in latitude would be a whopping 0.00045° (1.6 seconds of arc). In other words, even the worst case possible doesn't amount to squat. Now, if the plate movement causes the Eurasian Plate to rotate, that could affect the orientation of Stonehenge wrt the solstice, but you make no mention of that.
1. 50 meters per 500 years, and Stonehenge is 5000 years old, so you have to multiply 50 m by 10.

You were the one marveling over 50 m in 500 years, so I used that. Multiply the change in latitude by ten and you get 0.0045° (16 seconds of arc) which still ain't squat, and that's assuming the worst of the possible worst cases. Using more reasonable values for change in latitude due to plate movement, and you're probably back in the 50 meter range, but this time over 5000 years instead of 500.

Quote
2. How do you know in which direction continental drift occurs? Yes, England and North America move in opposite directions wrt the rift, which is East-North-East (i suppose), and i am talking about the change in azimuth angle.

The azimuth angle of sunrise at the solstice is not affected by change in longitude, so that component of the motion doesn't matter. ENE is nominally 67.5° azimuth (using true north as zero, NE is 45°, and due east is 90°), so the northing component of 5 meters per century (assuming the total relative motion is split between N America and Eurasia)  is

5 m/century * cos 67.5° = 2 m/century.

After 50 centuries, that's 100 m (0.0009° or 3 arcseconds) change in longitude. A pittance. If you use a more moderate estimate of relative plate motion instead of the largest, this, of course, goes down to an even smaller pittance. Maybe all of that relative motion is N America moving wrt the earth as a whole and England is fixed. In that case, the result is zero change in latitude due to this cause.

Again, if the Eurasian plate, which England is riding on, rotates wrt the earth as a whole, than that will likely make a bigger difference in where all sunrises are wrt the monuments that make up Stonehenge, but that, too, is apparently negligibly small.

Quote
...
So, if in Hipparchus's time Spring was 94 days long and Summer lasted 92 days, then why duration of the Summer wasn't 88 days, the duration of Autumn 90 days, and the duration of Winter 92 days??? Do you see what i mean (the CCW direction of yellow arrows displayed around figure 3 should be reoriented (in CW direction) and wrapped around the illustration on the left side)???
...
Where did you get those numbers for the length of seasons in Hipparchus' time?
...
I got those numbers in the first passage of this text : https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/episodes3.pdf

Here's what it says:
... the lengths of the seasons, which Hipparchus took as 94½ days for spring and 92½ days for summer, and it also follows that there are 88⅛ days in autumn and 90⅛ days in winter.

Quote
So, i would like to see how your (HC) model explains (geometrically) such differences in the number of days of seasons in Hipparchus days vs our time.

I already had solstice and equinox dates and times from 2000 through 2020, gathered from https://greenwichmeantime.com/longest-day/equinox-solstice-2010-2019/ and similar, in a spreadsheet. Over that span, the modern season lengths are:
DaysWinterSpringSummerAutumn
Mean 88.990 92.751 93.653 89.849
St.D.  0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005

In Hipparchus' time, perihelion was during autumn, so autumn was the shortest season. Now it's during winter, and winter is the shortest season. This change is mostly due to precession of the equinoxes, which causes the the line of equinoxes to move wrt the line of apsides over the long term, so the relative lengths of the seasons change slowly with time. Where's the problem?

Quote



1. When Earth's axis points to the point designated as POINT 1, the star THUBAN is still the closest star to that point, isn't it?
2. When Earth's axis points to the point designated as POINT 2, the star CAPPA DRACONIS becomes the closest star to that point, isn't it?
3. QUOTE 2 :
Kochab (the beta, ß, star of Ursa Minor), and Kappa (?) of Draco a.k.a. Kappa Draconis, at different times in that epoch, may have been considered as this pole-star, the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole; although the 5th-magnitude b, 4° away in Alexandrian-Greek astronomer Eratosthenes' (276?-196 B.C.) day, perhaps was intended. And this is not unlikely, as this inconspicuous object, for some reason, was sufficiently noteworthy among the Chinese to bear the title How Kung, the Empress.

So, the question is this : Where (at that imaginary circle that Earth's axis allegedly draws in the sky) it's KOCHAB's turn to become the closest star to the point which is aligned with the Earth's axis?

If it were me, based on that chart, I'd pick Kochab as the pole star over Kappa Draconis since Kochab almost two magnitudes brighter and not much (if any) further from the pole. Since Thuban isn't much brighter than κ Dra, Once the pole precessed to the point where it was about evenly separated from them, Thuban would be preferred.

Quote
4. QUOTE 1 :
Due to the precession of Earth's rotational axis, Thuban was the naked-eye star closest to the north pole from 3942 BC, when it moved farther north than Theta Boötis, until 1793 BC, when it was superseded by Kappa Draconis.

So, THUBAN was the naked-eye CLOSEST to the north pole, or directly above the north pole???

Since the chances of any particular star being directly above the north pole are vanishingly small, "closest" is the obvious choice. Why do you think this is important?

Quote
5. Same amount of the displacement of the stars should match the same amount of the displacement of the sun.

For example, think about this :

Even stranger is the fact that the sun now appears to set many kilometres off its usual point on the horizon, and the stars are no longer where they should be. Is the Earth shifting on its axis, causing the very look of the sun and stars to change?

<Anecdotes>

Now, if Polaris is still in it's place, and the sun's path has changed, then the sun and the stars have changed their positions in the "Inuit" sky disproportionately...

The only way is to compare the sun vs the stars...

And careful measurement of this says nothing is amiss. So, where's the problem, other than possibly-garbled stories being wrong?

Quote
6. There is one interesting flaw in the following animation (do you agree with me on this) :



Those circular movements as shown are consistent with each other if I'm looking at it right (one arrowhead is nearer the viewer than the vertical white line, and the other is "behind" the white line). If one is right both are right; if one is wrong, both are wrong. What's the problem?

Quote
Accompanying video :
The Precession of the Equinoxes Explained with Graham Hancock :


What is sufficiently interesting in that video to make it worth watching?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2019, 01:05:57 PM »
*A)* POLARIS IS STILL IN IT'S PLACE
...

There is a very slight rotation of Polaris around the true north celestial pole, requiring those of us who need polar alignment to adjust for it.
...

That's right. Polaris is close to the pole, but not exactly on it. It will be closest in about 20 years. This displacement is also evident in star trail photos.

Did you write that, or borrow it from someone else?

Quote
*B)* According to the following personal testimonies the sun is not in it's place, any more :

Pieter van den broek
It is realy true. Always around Christmas days,  sun  is not shining in our livingroom  for six weeks beceause it is blocked by the roof of the houses in our backside. (We alway's notice when the sun  shines in our living room it is nice warmth) Today, 22-12-2018, we see the sun shining in our living room, partely above the rooftops.
So the story is true, or the houses in the front of my house have gone  down.

More anecdotes. Maybe someone cut down a tree he hadn't noticed, or he's just wrong, or...

The sun is on the ecliptic right where it's supposed to be. If it were off by even a little, astronomers all over the world would notice, and eclipse predictions would not work in a noticeable way.

Sorry, but without real and reliable data that verifies them, these stories are nothing more than poppycock.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2019, 01:41:01 PM »
I'll take it by you continually ignoring your original topic that you admit that you were completely wrong and that Earth's sidereal day is not constant and thus your smoking gun is crap and no argument for Earth being stationary.


1. 50 meters per 500 years, and Stonehenge is 5000 years old, so you have to multiply 50 m by 10.
Wow, 500 m. You think it is so big. But on the scale of Earth that is roughly 0.0045 degrees, i.e. basically nothing.
How big is the rock they use?

As already pointed out, the precision of the equinoxes has no effect on it.
That won't magically change where he solstice occurs in relation to Stonehenge. It will still be due south, with basically the same axial tilt.
And as shown above, continental drift will do basically nothing as well.

So once again, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

So, i would like to see how your (HC) model explains (geometrically) such differences in the number of days of seasons in Hipparchus days vs our time.
Until you can show those numbers are reliable, there is no need to explain anything.

6. There is one interesting flaw in the following animation (do you agree with me on this) :
No one would.
If the red line is correct, then the yellow line must be correct.
If the yellow line is incorrect then the red line must be incorrect.

Stop just rambling on with mountains of copy-pasted BS.
Pick a topic and stick to it. Discuss each issue in turn, don't just bring up more and more to try and bury your failure.

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2019, 02:02:07 PM »
*A)* POLARIS IS STILL IN IT'S PLACE

The amount of change will depend on your field of view.  Polaris is .67 degrees from the celestial north pole, so over the entire night, say 12 hours, it will move 1.33 degrees.  More accurately, it will trace an arc, radius of .67 degrees, around the CNP.  In 12 hours, the arc will form a semi-circle with diameter of 1.33 degrees.

The width of the fingernail on your pinky is about 1.5 degrees, so w'ere talking a VERY SMALL bit of motion to the unaided observer.  That's why Polaris can be called the North Star.  It points to True North at all times within 1 degree.
So what?

Quote from: cikljamas
*B)* According to the following personal testimonies the sun is not in it's place, any more :

Pieter van den broek
It is realy true. Always around Christmas days,  sun  is not shining in our livingroom  for six weeks beceause it is blocked by the roof of the houses in our backside. (We alway's notice when the sun  shines in our living room it is nice warmth) Today, 22-12-2018, we see the sun shining in our living room, partely above the rooftops.
So the story is true, or the houses in the front of my house have gone  down.




I believe that your "personal testimonies" are mistaken especially without and photographic or other evidence to back it up.
And what would it prove anyway?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2019, 06:21:27 PM »

The sun is on the ecliptic right where it's supposed to be. If it were off by even a little, astronomers all over the world would notice, and eclipse predictions would not work in a noticeable way.

Sorry, but without real and reliable data that verifies them, these stories are nothing more than poppycock.

Wouldn't it be far-fetched to presume that all these INUIT people hallucinate?

"...Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

For how much the sun has to shift in order to produce such result (allowing Inuit People 1 extra hour of day-light for hunting)?

The answer is : one half of a degree!!!

For example :

At December 8th at Latitude 67, 46 N the Sun rises at 13 h 07 min and sets at 14 h 29 min (the sun is above the horizon for 1 h 21 min)
At December 8th at Latitude 67, 10 N the Sun rises at 12 h 46 min and sets at 15 h 04 min (the sun is above the horizon for 2 h 18 min)

If scientists were aware (which they certainly are) of this 0,5 degrees shift of the sun all they would have to do is to adjust their eclipse-calculations for these 0,5 degrees change, supposing that no change affected the Moon.

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2019, 06:37:18 PM »

The sun is on the ecliptic right where it's supposed to be. If it were off by even a little, astronomers all over the world would notice, and eclipse predictions would not work in a noticeable way.

Sorry, but without real and reliable data that verifies them, these stories are nothing more than poppycock.

Wouldn't it be far-fetched to presume that all these INUIT people hallucinate?

"...Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

For how much the sun has to shift in order to produce such result (allowing Inuit People 1 extra hour of day-light for hunting)?

The answer is : one half of a degree!!!

For example :

At December 8th at Latitude 67, 46 N the Sun rises at 13 h 07 min and sets at 14 h 29 min (the sun is above the horizon for 1 h 21 min)
At December 8th at Latitude 67, 10 N the Sun rises at 12 h 46 min and sets at 15 h 04 min (the sun is above the horizon for 2 h 18 min)

If scientists were aware (which they certainly are) of this 0,5 degrees shift of the sun all they would have to do is to adjust their eclipse-calculations for these 0,5 degrees change, supposing that no change affected the Moon.
And what has all that to do with your "SMOKING GUN"?