SMOKING GUN

  • 359 Replies
  • 68546 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #270 on: April 26, 2019, 05:44:08 AM »
After all : define one STELLAR year if you can!
What one STELLAR year actually means is this : How many times the Earth REALLY rotated on it's axis after 365,25 days.
"Stellar Day" is defined as is "Calendar Year", "Tropical Year", "Sidereal Year" and "Anomalistic Year" but I've yet to see "Stellar Year" defined.
I have never seen "Stellar Year" defined other than in "Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memories of Ray Summers".
As that says, 365.25 solar days is simply a Julian Year and that is the year that astronomers use so such a definition is possible.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #271 on: April 26, 2019, 05:48:50 AM »
In the moment when sidereal year is over, how many times earth allegedly rotated on it's axis?
Let's say 366,25 times
How many times the earth REALLY rotated on it's axis after sidereal year is over?
Well if we are assuming that it is 366.25 times, then it is 366.25 times.
It doesn't magically change.
It does, because you are assuming that it is 366,25 + 20 min (without taking into consideration precession of Earth's axis, and if you take precession effect then it would be 366,25 days + 20 min + 4 sec)!

There are more STELLAR rotations in the same period (in one sidereal year) than SIDEREAL rotations
You are yet to substantiate this in any way.
I already explained it to you :
STELLAR rotations are REAL sidereal rotations (366,25 + 20 min (without taking into consideration precession of Earth's axis) + 0,01*365 seconds = 1')

Or within Solar Year FOR : there are 366,25 sidereal rotations and 366,25 + 1' stellar rotations.

So, you can't use one FOR when calculating the length of one sidereal day, and another when calculating the length of one stellar day.

Again, there is no missing $1. You are just lying about it.
Prove it mathematically!!!
« Last Edit: April 26, 2019, 03:00:09 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #272 on: April 26, 2019, 03:12:00 PM »
It does, because you are assuming that it is 366,25 + 20 min
No, you said it was 366.25 times.
If instead you instead want to focus on the tropical year, then Earth has rotated w.r.t. the moving position of the vernal equinox 366.25 times.
This would then mean that Earth has actually rotated less than 366.25 times.

I already explained it to you :
STELLAR rotations are REAL sidereal rotations (366,25 + 20 min (without taking into consideration precession of Earth's axis) + 0,01*365 seconds = 1')
No, you didn't explain it. You just repeatedly asserted the same refuted BS.
You have no justification for where your magical 1' comes from.

On the other hand I did explain it, in both a qualitative way to show why it is like that, and a quantitative way to show what the difference would be.

You were unable to deal with it in any rational way so you just ignore it.

So, you can't use one FOR when calculating the length of one sidereal day, and another when calculating the length of one stellar day.
Then again, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about or are blatantly lying about it.
To put it simply, the different days are the time it takes Earth to rotate about its axis in different reference frames.
The reason they are different is the use of different reference frames.

Prove it mathematically!!!
I already proved you wrong about your BS claims about the length of days, why would this be any different?

How about you focus on the length of the days first.

Perhaps start with the actual definitions.
Just what do you mean when you say "tropical year", "sidereal year", "sidereal day", "solar day" and "stellar day"?
Make that abundantly clear so it isn't a case of us using the accepted definitions from one group while you are pretending it means a potato.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #273 on: April 26, 2019, 03:39:16 PM »
Jack, you can calculate one sidereal day in your way (how many times earth rotated around it's axis in one tropical year), and then you can also calculate one stellar day in your way (how many times earth rotated around it's axis in one sidereal year), and naturally the result would be : one sidereal day is shorter than one stellar day.

However, although you claim that this is the right way how to calculate the length of one sidereal day and the length of one stellar day, i am pretty sure that this is not the right way how to determine the length of sidereal & stellar day.

Why?

Because one sidereal day is the time it takes the star to come back at the same position in the sky, and one stellar day is the time it takes the earth to rotate once around it's axis.

Since the earth precesses in CW direction (looking from above) and rotates in CCW direction (looking from above) it means that one stellar day must be shorter than one sidereal day.

So, as i said in one of my recent posts :

Earth's axis precesses in CW direction
Earth allegedly rotates in CCW direction
So, Earth's axis "runs away" from the motionless stars, isn't that so?
Running away from the stars means what?
Means that one stellar day must be shorter than one sidereal day, isn't that so?
If Earth's axis precessed in the same direction in which the earth allegedly rotates, then Earth's axis would have to go in the same direction as particular meridian on the earth (going "in" the stars, not running away from them), and that would yield an opposite result : sidereal period would be shorter than stellar (rotational) period.
Can it be more simple than that?

Since the stellar day is for the very obvious (precession) reason shorter than one sidereal day (if the earth precessed in CCW then it would be the other way around) then it follows that for the same obvious reason you can't calculate the length of one stellar day using one FOR and then calculate the length of one sidereal day using another FOR.

We know that one stellar day is shorter (due to the direction of the precession of Earth's axis) than one sidereal day, so if you come with the opposite (wrong) result after using your method of calculation, then it is proof in itself that you are using the wrong method of calculation.

Now, how about answering this question :

Jack, your mum gives you 50 $, your dad gives you 50 $, you buy some item for 97 $
Now, 3 $ has left
1 $ you put in your pocket
1 $ you give back to your mum
1 $ you give back to your dad
You own your mum 49 $
You own your dad 49 $
So, 49 + 49 = 98
98 + 1 (that one $ which is in your pocket) = 99 $
Where the fuck is 1 $ (difference)???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #274 on: April 26, 2019, 04:55:53 PM »

Now, how about answering this question :

Jack, your mum gives you 50 $, your dad gives you 50 $, you buy some item for 97 $
Now, 3 $ has left
1 $ you put in your pocket
1 $ you give back to your mum
1 $ you give back to your dad
You own your mum 49 $
You own your dad 49 $
So, 49 + 49 = 98
98 + 1 (that one $ which is in your pocket) = 99 $
Where the fuck is 1 $ (difference)???

You didn't account for the price of the item, $97. Split it.
Mum is owed $48.5
Dad is owed $48.5

Give mum $1 = $49.5
Give dad $1 = $49.5

Pull out of your pocket the 4 quarters you attempted to abscond with and give them each their 50 cents back.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #275 on: April 26, 2019, 06:29:29 PM »
Jack, you can calculate one sidereal day in your way (how many times earth rotated around it's axis in one tropical year), and then you can also calculate one stellar day in your way (how many times earth rotated around it's axis in one sidereal year), and naturally the result would be : one sidereal day is shorter than one stellar day.
Neither you nor Jack can calculate "one sidereal day" as "how many times earth rotated around its axis in one tropical year" - "number of times" is a pure number!.
Don't be ridiculous! "One sidereal day" is a period of time measured in units of time, say in SI seconds, and is currently 86164.09053083288 SI seconds.

Neither can you calculate "one stellar day" as "how many times earth rotated around its axis in one sidereal year" - once again "number of times" is a pure number!
That is also quite ridiculous! "One stellar day" is a period of time measured in units of time, say in SI seconds, and is currently 86164.098903691 SI seconds.
"One stellar day" is calculated from the earth's angular velocity as 2 π/ΩN where ΩN is the "Nominal angular velocity of the Earth" currently 7.292115146706 4 x 10-5 rad/sec.

Go and read, USEFUL CONSTANTS and Parameters of Common Relevance of Astronomy, Geodesy, and Geodynamics By E. Groten (President of IAG Sub-commission 3).

Maybe it doesn't fit too well into your Geostationary nonsense, well tough get used to it!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #276 on: April 26, 2019, 06:32:48 PM »
Now, how about answering this question :

Jack, your mum gives you 50 $, your dad gives you 50 $, you buy some item for 97 $
Now, 3 $ has left
1 $ you put in your pocket
1 $ you give back to your mum
1 $ you give back to your dad
You own your mum 49 $
You own your dad 49 $
So, 49 + 49 = 98
98 + 1 (that one $ which is in your pocket) = 99 $
Where the fuck is 1 $ (difference)???
The situation started with Jack stony broke, Mum and Dad, having $50 each and the store with no cash but a $97 item - total cash of $100 and goods valued at $97.
and ended with Jack having $1 and a $97 item (total value $98), still poor Mum and Dad having $1 each and the store having $97 cash - total cash of $100 and goods valued at $97.
So all ended up "fair and square".

So who is this fraud coming along and adding two sums of $49 owed and $1 cash? I suppose you also add apples + oranges and call the answer  bananas? Oh, it's cikljamas. That explains a lot.


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #277 on: April 26, 2019, 10:17:12 PM »
Jack, you can calculate one sidereal day in your way (how many times earth rotated around it's axis in one tropical year), and then you can also calculate one stellar day in your way (how many times earth rotated around it's axis in one sidereal year), and naturally the result would be : one sidereal day is shorter than one stellar day.
No, that wasn't how I calculated it. It was calculated such that there is an additional day for the tropical or sidereal year.

However, although you claim that this is the right way how to calculate the length of one sidereal day and the length of one stellar day, i am pretty sure that this is not the right way how to determine the length of sidereal & stellar day.
Based upon what?
You wanting to claim there is some massive problem, nothing else.

Again, when Alpha made those claims he was referring to quite specific definitions.
I made it quite clear what they were and you just ignore because you have no concern for the truth and instead just want to pretend there is some problem with HC.
Grow up, it is pathetic.

Deal with them as defined by those claiming the differences. If you use a different definition you are no longer representing what they say.


Because one sidereal day is the time it takes the star to come back at the same position in the sky
Again, that doesn't happen.

Since the earth precesses in CW direction (looking from above) and rotates in CCW direction (looking from above) it means that one stellar day must be shorter than one sidereal day.
No it doesn't. You are yet to justify that in any way.

So, Earth's axis "runs away" from the motionless stars, isn't that so?
No, it isn't so.
Again, you either have no idea what you are talking about or are willfully lying to everyone.

Can it be more simple than that?
Yes, by ignoring all your BS and instead focusing on the actual definitions which I provided above.
The stellar day has a longer period of time to make up the missing day and thus will be longer.

We know that one stellar day is shorter than one sidereal day
No, we don't know that. That is just what you are baselessly asserting.
You can't use your own assertion to dismiss the disproof of that assertion.
Based upon the definitions we KNOW that the stellar day must be longer.

Now, how about answering this question :
How about you stop spamming pathetic bullshit and deal with your claims which have been repeatedly refuted and which you are completely unable to rationally defend?

Once you have admitted your were wrong I will deal with your pathetic riddle, but I will do it with something far more fitting for you, a thieving bellhop who steals from 3 guests.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #278 on: April 26, 2019, 11:38:40 PM »
Bye bye!
Run away, you little soul!

Quote from: cikljamas
How come you didn't even try to refer to my refutation of your blatant misinterpretation of HC theory?

Where did you refute my "blatant misinterpretation of HC theory"?

Read this again!
Now, I've done my best to answer your questions so what about finally commenting on this:
Now would you finally care to answer what you believe are the laws of physics, including motion and gravitation, that govern how things move.

If you do not agree with Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation just what rule does your Universe follow?

The answer is in the last sentence of this video :

So, "All the theories collapse when you cannot see the stars in outer space."

But when it comes to astronomy your claimed lack of any possibility of learning anything about what is outside the earth means that there's no point carrying on.

I'd say we are done here then. There's no point in debating with nothing when it comes to the Universe.
Especially as you keep claiming deception on our part. I said I was no astronomer and could easily be mistaken.
For my own satisfaction, I'll keep looking at the matter of precession etc, though it's obviously no point trying to debate it with you.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #279 on: April 27, 2019, 04:03:23 AM »
So who is this fraud coming along and adding two sums of $49 owed and $1 cash? I suppose you also add apples + oranges and call the answer  bananas?

Rabinoz, thanks for providing for us one of the best descriptions of HC modus operandi.

@Jack, let's scrutinize one (among many) example on which basis we are going to see if there is really no way how we could discern observational differences between HC and GC theory :

During the New Moon phase, according to HC theory Moon's motion (around the Earth) is in an opposite direction wrt the direction of orbital motion of Earth-Moon system :



Now, since the "apparent" motion of the Moon is in CW direction (and the "real" motion of the Moon is in CCW direction) and the "apparent" motion of the stars is also in CW direction, then whenever is New Moon phase the stars would (if HC theory were true description of our reality) need more time to catch up the Moon than during the Full Moon phase.

So, the slowest apparent motion of the Moon (between the stars) would be at Full Moon phase, the fastest apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) would be at New Moon phase, and the speed of the apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) during two phases in between New Moon and Full Moon would be moderate.

On top of that Tycho Brahe noticed that the Moon moves between the stars faster than expected during New Moon and Full Moon phase. His observation would be consistent (principally) with the speed of the "apparent" (looking from HC FOR) motion of the Moon during New Moon phase, but it is utterly inconsistent with the speed of the "apparent" (allegedly) motion of the Moon at Full Moon phase when the apparent motion of the Moon would be slowest (than at any other Moon phase) if HC theory were true description of our reality.

ANOTHER HUGE HC SMOKING GUN :

On stellar aberration :

In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-
sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”),
which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years,
it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's
quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :

”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that
the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter
explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of
the two suppositions is the right one?”


In short, the convinced Copernican Boškovic
proposed the right thing for the wrong reason
. He supposed that a
water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric
theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked
stick, Airy made a straight hit.”
His experiment was powerless to
show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only
apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot
bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the
contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.

Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.


@ Rabinoz, what is your theoretical explanation for this :



Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years.

Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25 days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally? Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,  the universe keeps  turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down. (Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation). As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

IN ADDITION :

Nutation, rotation, acceleration at night (as a compound effect of rotational and revolving motion of the earth in the same direction), and deceleration during the daytime (as a combined (canceling out) effect of rotational and revolving motion of the earth in the opposite directions), revolution, acceleration and deceleration as a compund effect in March and combined (canceling out) effect in September (For in HC scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec.), Earth is jumping up and down wrt the center of the ecliptic, wobbling motion (precession), obliquity of the ecliptic (Ecliptic is moving up and down wrt the stationary stars), and despite all these perturbances (many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.), as well as the cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally), the Earth has to rotate exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time.

To believe all this you have to be completely crazy!!!
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 03:57:45 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #280 on: April 27, 2019, 04:10:49 AM »
but I've yet to see "Stellar Year" defined.

exceptionally good; outstanding year.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #281 on: April 27, 2019, 04:13:57 AM »
but I've yet to see "Stellar Year" defined.

exceptionally good; outstanding year.
lol
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #282 on: April 27, 2019, 05:08:06 AM »
So who is this fraud coming along and adding two sums of $49 owed and $1 cash? I suppose you also add apples + oranges and call the answer  bananas?

Rabinoz, thanks for providing for us one of the best descriptions of HC modus operandi.

And why is it "HC modus operandi" when you sum the amount owed (49 + 49 = 98) and add that to the "(one $ which is in your Jack's pocket)"
and get 99 $.

The "amount owed" is the apples the "$ in Jack's pocket" is the oranges and the "99 $" is the bananas.
Why is "amount owed" + "$ in Jack's pocket" supposed to be a meaninful value?

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #283 on: April 27, 2019, 05:50:29 AM »
Rabinoz, thanks for providing for us one of the best descriptions of HC modus operandi.
Why is "amount owed" + "$ in Jack's pocket" supposed to be a meaninful value?
It isn't, you finally figured this out, bravo!
However, i used this example of twisted logic to demonstrate JB's modus operandi.
JB constantly rapes logic, and then he sells that raped logic in the form of mathematical calculations.
When you rape logic, then your mathematical calculations are worthless.
That is a moral lesson of my "mathematical" riddle, which exposes how (JB's) twisted logic can be disguised (wrapped) in mathematical equation.

Rabinoz, do you remember these words :

You have failed to take advantage of this situation : to use an opportunity to become famous :
If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h

During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

Closer observer = 106 551 km/h
Farther observer = 107 913 km/h

The speed of the moon : 2r*pi/27,5*24 = 3674 km/h
The speed of the earth : 2r*pi/365,25*24 = 107 460 km/h

107 460 - 3674 = 103 786
Closer observer : 106 551 - 103 786 = 2765 km/h
Farther observer : 107 913 - 103 786 = 4127 km/h
2765/381 800 = 0,00724
4127/381 800 = 0,01080
ctg (0,00724) = 0,41
ctg (0,01080) = 0,61
0,61 - 0,41 = 0,20

Does this difference exist in reality??? That is the question!!!
The core of my method of verification allows us to determine whether such difference (between the apparent speeds of the moon for two hypothetical observers placed at the Arctic circle (4127 km/h vs 2765 km/h)) exists or not - by providing a LATERAL MOTION of the observers at the Arctic circle, as i explained in the following video :



 
« Last Edit: April 27, 2019, 05:52:53 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #284 on: April 27, 2019, 06:10:09 AM »
Rabinoz, thanks for providing for us one of the best descriptions of HC modus operandi.
Yes, pointing out the dishonesty of people like you with you blatantly misrepresenting the HC model and making so many baseless claims about it.

@Jack, let's scrutinize one (among many) example on which basis we are going to see if there is really no way how we could discern observational differences between HC and GC theory :
So finally decided you have had your ass handed to you far too many times for you to keep going so now you will just jump ship and start on a completely new topic?

How about first you admit you were wrong about the stellar day vs sidereal day?

The garbage you are bringing up again is still just as much garbage as it was before.
Your zig zag argument is pure garbage.
Your claims about Earth's rotation being exact are pure garbage.
Your claims about aberration and Airy's failure are pure garbage.

Either defend your lies regarding the difference between the stellar and sidereal day or admit you were wrong. Then we can move on.

It isn't, you finally figured this out, bravo!
No, we knew that from the start. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, but it is your typical BS.

However, i used this example of twisted logic to demonstrate JB's modus operandi.
And just succeeded in demonstrating your own.
You just make up numbers with no meaning and blatantly misrepresenting GC, HC or both.

You have no rational defence of any of your claims.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #285 on: April 27, 2019, 06:12:07 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
@ Rabinoz, what is your theoretical explanation for this :


Another of your unsourced and hence useless images! How about giving some background?

But, if it is what I suspect it looks like a poor example of a photo of "earthshine" and it needs little "theoretical explanation". Here are some better examples:

HDR Crescent Moon With Earthshine
     
Crescent Moon and Earthshine - 3
     
What is earthshine? Posted by EarthSky in ASTRONOMY ESSENTIALS

Quote from: cikljamas
Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric system makes more sense.
No, "the geocentric system" does not make more sense" in physics. The "the geocentric system" completely fails even Newtons Laws of Motion and Universa; Gravitation.

Quote from: cikljamas
For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time.
No, it does not! We have been through this before and the "23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds" is really 86164.09053083288 seconds and is more correctly called
"Conventional duration of the sidereal day" or "defined sidereal day". The "sidereal day" does vary very slightly though on average only increases by about 2 ms per century.

Quote from: cikljamas

How can it do so when so many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?
  • Why do you say that those effects are all "impeding its rotation"? Some might reduce the moment of inertia of the earth and increase its angular velocity
  • As explained above and numerous times before (but you refuse to listen) the sidereal day does not stay precisely constant!

Quote from: cikljamas
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years.
Says who? Again just another unsupported statement from you!
But yes it does appear that more recent observations indicate that Venus may have slowed down by 6.5 minutes.
Quote from: UNIVERSE TODAY: Space and astronomy news
Is Venus’ Rotation Slowing Down?
New measurements from ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft shows that Venus’ rotation rate is about 6.5 minutes slower than previous measurements taken 16 years ago by the Magellan spacecraft. Using infrared instruments to peer through the planet’s dense atmosphere, Venus Express found surface features weren’t where the scientists expected them to be.
Please remember that the rotational period of Venus is 116d 18h 0m and that Venus has an extremely thick dense "atmosphere" making the surface invisible.
But why do you accept data like that, derived purely from spacecraft data, when you claim that all space missions are faked.

Quote from: cikljamas
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25 days.
No again! The Earth DOES NOT have to revolve around the sun exactly in 365.25 days and in fact it certainly does not do that.
One sidereal year is defined as 365.256363004 mean solar days but the actual value can vary considerably from year to year as I told you quite clearly earlier!

Remember this?
Look at the variation in the following tropical year's duration from the mean value of 365.24219 SI days. The years are from the northern winter solstice:
Date/time Winter Solstice      Deviation
 2007-12-22 06:04:04.2       +10.51 minutes
 2008-12-21 12:03:19.7       -11.86 minutes
 2009-12-21 17:40:13.2      +15.91 minutes
 2010-12-21 23:44:53.2      -11.94 minutes
 2011-12-22 05:21:41.8      +3.58 minutes
 2012-12-21 11:14:01.9      +2.85 minutes
 2013-12-21 17:05:38.3      +0.86 minutes
 2014-12-21 22:55:15.2      +0.48 minutes

The sidereal year is always the 20 or so minutes longer.

Quote from: cikljamas
How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally?
It does NOT so all that is quite irrelevant!

Quote from: cikljamas
Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,  the universe keeps  turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down. (Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation). As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.
All that is quite unnecessary because your initial surmise was completely false!

Quote from: cikljamas
<< I'll ignore that crap until you can respond rationally to the earlier material. >>

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #286 on: April 27, 2019, 06:18:27 AM »
Rabinoz, thanks for providing for us one of the best descriptions of HC modus operandi.
Why is "amount owed" + "$ in Jack's pocket" supposed to be a meaninful value?
It isn't, you finally figured this out, bravo!
However, i used this example of twisted logic to demonstrate JB's modus operandi.
I didn't "finally figure it out". My first post on that should have made it obvious that I knew how deceptive you were being!

You are the one twisting logic by making completely incorrect claims (such as the sidereal day and year having to be exactly constant) then trying to show that tose are not possible.

That is the classic Strawman Fallacy but, because of your own pathetic ignorance of astronomy, you probably did not even realise it!

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #287 on: April 27, 2019, 06:31:55 AM »
Rabinoz, do you remember these words :

You have failed to take advantage of this situation : to use an opportunity to become famous :
If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h

During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

Closer observer = 106 551 km/h
Farther observer = 107 913 km/h

The speed of the moon : 2r*pi/27,5*24 = 3674 km/h
The speed of the earth : 2r*pi/365,25*24 = 107 460 km/h

107 460 - 3674 = 103 786
Closer observer : 106 551 - 103 786 = 2765 km/h
Farther observer : 107 913 - 103 786 = 4127 km/h
2765/381 800 = 0,00724
4127/381 800 = 0,01080
ctg (0,00724) = 0,41
ctg (0,01080) = 0,61
0,61 - 0,41 = 0,20

Does this difference exist in reality??? That is the question!!!
The core of my method of verification allows us to determine whether such difference (between the apparent speeds of the moon for two hypothetical observers placed at the Arctic circle (4127 km/h vs 2765 km/h)) exists or not - by providing a LATERAL MOTION of the observers at the Arctic circle, as i explained in the following video :



GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO :

98250 km (Moon's translation across the sky in one hour : in apparently straight line (i subtracted about 3000 km (3500*29=101500))
380 000 km (the distance between the Moon and closer observer on the edge of the Arctic circle)
385 200 km (the distance between the Moon and farther observer on the opposite edge of the Arctic circle)
 
CLOSER OBSERVER :  98250/380 000 = 0,258 (ctg) = 14,496
FARTHER OBSERVER : 98250/385 200 = 0,255 (ctg) = 14,308

THE DIFFERENCE = 0,188 degrees

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

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO :

3500 km (diameter of the Moon)
434 km (the distance which an observer at the Arctic circle crosses in one hour (46,8*111km = 5194,8 km/12 = 432,9)
5200 km (the diameter of the Arctic circle)

CLOSER OBSERVER : 3500-434 = 3066 km/h
FARTHER OBSERVER : 3500+434 = 3934 km/h

CLOSER OBSERVER = 3066/380 000 = 0,00806 (ctg) = 0,462
FARTHER OBSERVER = 3934/385 200 = 0,01021 (ctg) = 0,5851

THE DIFFERENCE = 0,123

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

THE OVERALL DIFFERENCE = 0,188-0,123 = 0,065 degrees

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

0,188/0,005 = 37,6
0,123/0,005 = 24,6

37,6-24,6 = 13 %

or simply :

0,065/0,005 = 13 %

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :



CONCLUSION :

If the Moon orbits the stationary earth then the observed difference in Moon's translation (across the sun's disc), in one hour period for the two observers positioned on the opposite sides of the Arcitc circle (after applying my method of verification explained in the video above) will be 0,188 degrees.

However, if the real motion of the Moon around the spinning earth were in the same direction in which earth allegedly turns on it's axis, then the difference in the apparent translation of the Moon (across the sun's disc), in one hour period (after applying my method of verification explained in the video above) would be 0,123 degrees.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #288 on: April 27, 2019, 02:09:48 PM »
[zig-zag BS]
We have been over your zig-zag BS plenty of times.
You would get the same result for GC and HC.
You saying otherwise is just you lying yet again.

Now like I said how about you stick to the one topic?

Are you going to defend your lies regarding the stellar and sidereal day?
Or will you admit you were wrong and most likely just lying to everyone to pretend there are issues with HC when there are not?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #289 on: April 27, 2019, 05:02:51 PM »
Rabinoz, do you remember these words :

You have failed to take advantage of this situation : to use an opportunity to become famous :
If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h

During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.
Go and ask Macarios!

Quote from: cikljamas

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :
Totally incorrect! There may be no way to detect linear or purely translational motion might but rotary motion can be and is regularly measured.
Read AGAIN:
"GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser" is installed in Italy and is able to measure the rate of the earth's rotation very accurately.
See First Results of GINGERino, a deep underground ring-laser
And note that it starts with:
Quote
1. Introduction
Ring laser gyroscopes (RLG) are, at present, the most precise sensors of absolute angular velocity for an Earth based apparatus. They are based on the Sagnac effect arising from a rigidly rotating ring laser cavity.
The resolution is quite impressive.
Quote
The Gross Ring ”G” at the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory has obtained a resolution on the Earth rotation rate of 3 × 10−9 (about 15 × 10−14 rad/s with 4 hours integration time).

That paper did not give the rotation rate, just the stability etc.
But this paper does: Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa

And the result is:
Quote
Earth Rot. Rate (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec
which is  ;) guess what  ;) a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours - the GINGER result is more precise than that.

The GINGERino deep underground ring-laser proves that the earth rotates on its axis at (7.2921150±0.0000001)×10−5 radians/sec.
Note that previously I quoted "the "Nominal angular velocity of the Earth" currently 7.292115146706 4 x 10-5 rad/sec".
The GINGER results agree with that within the stated accuracy for those results and what is more:
One "stellar day" should be 2 x π/(earth's angular velocity) and the GINGERino results give 2 x π/7.2921150×10−5 or 86164.101 SI sec which agrees with the previously shown "stellar day" of 86164.099 SI sec.
Note that, as expected, this is slightly longer than the "defined sidereal day" of 86164.091 SI sec rounded to the same number of digits..

The rotation of the earth can be measured and is done regularly.

Quote from: cikljamas
CONCLUSION :

If the Moon orbits the stationary earth then the observed difference in Moon's translation (across the sun's disc), in one hour period for the two observers positioned on the opposite sides of the Arcitc circle (after applying my method of verification explained in the video above) will be 0,188 degrees.

However, if the real motion of the Moon around the spinning earth were in the same direction in which earth allegedly turns on it's axis, then the difference in the apparent translation of the Moon (across the sun's disc), in one hour period (after applying my method of verification explained in the video above) would be 0,123 degrees.
If you are talking about silly ZIG-ZAG ideas so and ask Macarios! I'm not getting into any silly debates about that.

It is a silly debate because simply changing the reference frame from a rotating earth to a non-rotating earth cannot change any optical observations made from earth.

If a neo-Tychonian Solar system is proposed (and I imagine that is what Robert Sungenis believes) with the same elliptical orbits around the sun but with the frame of reference change from a sun-centred one to one with a stationary earth.

Optical observations from earth, including solar eclipses etc, would be identical but it would alter the physics of the situation because it involves changing angular velocities.

I still think that all you "SMOKING GUNs" have misfired because of damp powder.
 


*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #290 on: April 28, 2019, 08:46:16 AM »
1. Obviously, you have nothing to say on this :


@Jack, let's scrutinize one (among many) example on which basis we are going to see if there is really no way how we could discern observational differences between HC and GC theory :

During the New Moon phase, according to HC theory Moon's motion (around the Earth) is in an opposite direction wrt the direction of orbital motion of Earth-Moon system :



Now, since the "apparent" motion of the Moon is in CW direction (and the "real" motion of the Moon is in CCW direction) and the "apparent" motion of the stars is also in CW direction, then whenever is New Moon phase the stars would (if HC theory were true description of our reality) need more time to catch up the Moon than during the Full Moon phase.

So, the slowest apparent motion of the Moon (between the stars) would be at Full Moon phase, the fastest apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) would be at New Moon phase, and the speed of the apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) during two phases in between New Moon and Full Moon would be moderate.

On top of that Tycho Brahe noticed that the Moon moves between the stars faster than expected during New Moon and Full Moon phase. His observation would be consistent (principally) with the speed of the "apparent" (looking from HC FOR) motion of the Moon during New Moon phase, but it is utterly inconsistent with the speed of the "apparent" (allegedly) motion of the Moon at Full Moon phase when the apparent motion of the Moon would be slowest (than at any other Moon phase) if HC theory were true description of our reality.

2. Obviously you have nothing to say on this :

On stellar aberration :

In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-
sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”),
which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years,
it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's
quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :

”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that
the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter
explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of
the two suppositions is the right one?”


In short, the convinced Copernican Boškovic
proposed the right thing for the wrong reason
. He supposed that a
water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric
theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked
stick, Airy made a straight hit.”
His experiment was powerless to
show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only
apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot
bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the
contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.

Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.


3. Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :

GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :

If Space is orbiting Earth then we calculate relative to Earth:
Sun moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/24 = 39 165 188.4 km/h
Moon moves (2*Pi*384 400)/24 - 3679.5 = 96 956.2 km/h
Now:
Closer observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 381800) = 14.245 degrees per hour ; difference 0.425
Farther observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 387000) = 14.065 degrees per hour ; difference 0.605
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :

If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h
During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

Now if you change his number 681 km/h (which he got by dividing circumference of Arctic circle by 24 hours) with 434 km/h (which i got by dividing diameter of Arctic circle by 12 hours AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO TO COMPLY WITH THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) then you get even worse (for you) result (greater discrepancy = smaller number for HC scenario) than i got in the following calculation :

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO :

3500 km (diameter of the Moon)
434 km (the distance which an observer at the Arctic circle crosses in one hour (46,8*111km = 5194,8 km/12 = 432,9)
5200 km (the diameter of the Arctic circle)

CLOSER OBSERVER : 3500-434 = 3066 km/h
FARTHER OBSERVER : 3500+434 = 3934 km/h

CLOSER OBSERVER = 3066/380 000 = 0,00806 (ctg) = 0,462
FARTHER OBSERVER = 3934/385 200 = 0,01021 (ctg) = 0,5851

THE DIFFERENCE = 0,123

So, what do you have to say on this???
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 08:55:09 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #291 on: April 28, 2019, 11:33:18 AM »
Heliocentric
In a year.

Aphelion 94.5 million miles from sun.

Perihelion 91.4 million miles from sun.

Difference if 3.3%.

Geocentric
In a day

Sun at noon 3,000 miles. (No flatters can even agree on a number)


Sun at sunset ~15,000 miles( obviously again no one distance is agreed on by flatters)

Change of 80%

Change in apparent sun size is where?

Earth is round.


ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #292 on: April 28, 2019, 02:37:26 PM »
1. Obviously, you have nothing to say on this :
No, I have plenty to say (and have already refuted 2 of those piles of BS before), but it is just you running off on another topic after repeatedly having your ass handed to you. That seems to be the only tactic you know.
You repeatedly assert BS again and again, looking for whatever dishonest way you can find to get out of the refutations, or just ignoring them and reasserting the same BS, before then ditching the topic entirely either by derailing the thread or just no longer posting in it.

How about you focus on what you were discussing before running away yet again?
Do you admit you were wrong about the sidereal day and stellar day?
If so, were you intentionally lying to everyone?

If not, then defend your BS before moving on.

Once you have done that we can move onto your ignorance of relative motion and blatant misrepresentation of the HC model (either due to ignorance or intentional dishonesty) (I can even let you pick which one you want to focus on out of those three, 2 of which we have already been over plenty of times and you continually being disproven and continually refusing to admit you were wrong and bringing the same refuted nonsense up yet again.)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 02:40:03 PM by JackBlack »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #293 on: April 28, 2019, 03:05:22 PM »
1. Obviously, you have nothing to say on this :
If it's me you are talking about I have plenty I could say about the rubbish you think and write but I'm utterly sick of wading through videos and other voluminous material only to find that it's faked (at least once quite intentionally by you!), a total lie (possibly because you swallow other peoples' lies) or simply wrong.

Get the message!

Quote from: cikljamas
@Jack, let's scrutinize one (among many) example on which basis we are going to see if there is really no way how we could discern observational differences between HC and GC theory :
If that's all you've been raving on about, provided you assume an infinite velocity of light, that's a given!
In a properly constructed geostationary system, there should be "no way how we could discern observational differences between" a Heliocentric Solar System and a Geostationary Solar System.

The so-called neo-Tychinoc System, one with the correct elliptical orbits, is such a system.

Quote from: cikljamas
During the New Moon phase, according to HC theory Moon's motion (around the Earth) is in an opposite direction wrt the direction of orbital motion of Earth-Moon system:



Now, since the "apparent" motion of the Moon is in CW direction (and the "real" motion of the Moon is in CCW direction) and the "apparent" motion of the stars is also in CW direction, then whenever is New Moon phase the stars would (if HC theory were true description of our reality) need more time to catch up the Moon than during the Full Moon phase.
Total utter garbage! "The "apparent" motion of the Moon" has absulute nothing to do with the sun or the phase of the moon.
The only significant difference in the moon's angular velocity around the earth is due it's position on its elliptical orbit - a maximum at the perigee and minimum at apogee.

But, I've given up trying to tutor you, only to get kicked in the teeth for it so go and read it for yourself in say, Online Astronomy eText: The Sky
The Motion of the Moon


Quote from: cikljamas
So, the slowest apparent motion of the Moon (between the stars) would be at Full Moon phase, the fastest apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) would be at New Moon phase, and the speed of the apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) during two phases in between New Moon and Full Moon would be moderate.
Incorrect!

Quote from: cikljamas
On top of that Tycho Brahe noticed that the Moon moves between the stars faster than expected during New Moon and Full Moon phase. His observation would be consistent (principally) with the speed of the "apparent" (looking from HC FOR) motion of the Moon during New Moon phase, but it is utterly inconsistent with the speed of the "apparent" (allegedly) motion of the Moon at Full Moon phase when the apparent motion of the Moon would be slowest (than at any other Moon phase) if HC theory were true description of our reality.
Another unsubstantiated claim by you! Tycho Brahe may have said that but in future, you post references or get ignored!

Quote from: cikljamas
2. Obviously you have nothing to say on this :
It has already been said numerous times! Get used to it!

Quote from: cikljamas
On stellar aberration :

In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”), which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years, it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr.:
”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of the two suppositions is the right one?”

That is totally incorrect! How many times to I have to say the same thing to YOU? Read:
          Flat Earth Debate / Re: ARISTARCHUS « Message by rabinoz on November 16, 2018, 10:11:46 PM »,
          Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distortion of science « Message by rabinoz on December 09, 2018, 09:15:03 PM »[/b][/url]
          lat Earth Debate / Re: The distortion of science « Message by rabinoz on December 19, 2018, 07:54:31 AM »

Quote from: cikljamas
In short, the convinced Copernican Boškovic proposed the right thing for the wrong reason.
He supposed that a water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked stick, Airy made a straight hit.” His experiment was powerless to show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.
You ignore the well-substantiated relativity and have all these problems because you stick with you "aether theories" but seem to have no idea whether your aether is:  fully entrained, partly entrained or not entrained at all etc, etc!

Quote from: cikljamas
Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at rest with respect to sun and stars moving around.
Starting from an earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.

Not quite correct. If the velocity of light were infinite "it makes no" visible "physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at rest with respect to sun and stars moving around".

But the velocity is not infinite, leading to Bradley's observation of Stellar Aberration, and it make a tremendous physical difference when you consider Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

The motions of the planets to very good accuracy, etc, can be readily explained in the Heliocentric Solar System using those laws.
On the other hand the Geostationary Solar Solar system with its massive sun and the other planets is completely impossible to explain using any known laws.

You might respond with a lot of hand waving and claim that Mach's Principle explains it all as does Robert Sungenis in ROBERT SUNGENIS - All his Bits from The Principle Movie Space Documentary.
But also see, Welcome to Geocentrism Debunked and its numerous links.

Quote from: cikljamas
3. Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :

GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :
Once again and every time you ask, go and ask Macarios!
Quote from: cikljamas
So, what do you have to say on this???
Nothing!

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #294 on: April 28, 2019, 03:22:12 PM »
During the New Moon phase, according to HC theory Moon's motion (around the Earth) is in an opposite direction wrt the direction of orbital motion of Earth-Moon system:



Now, since the "apparent" motion of the Moon is in CW direction (and the "real" motion of the Moon is in CCW direction) and the "apparent" motion of the stars is also in CW direction, then whenever is New Moon phase the stars would (if HC theory were true description of our reality) need more time to catch up the Moon than during the Full Moon phase.
Total utter garbage! "The "apparent" motion of the Moon" has absULUte nothing to do with the sun or the phase of the moon.
The only significant difference in the moon's angular velocity around the earth is due it's position on its elliptical orbit - a maximum at the perigee and minimum at apogee.

2. Obviously you have nothing to say on this :
It has already been said numerous times! Get used to it!
Get use to this :

If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable
extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we
have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the
picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even
Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux
took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great
Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way
galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of
about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is
not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way
itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the
local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are
theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of
light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our
spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put
through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical
theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all
the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican
truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash
with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with
the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic
conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5
stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by
the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around
the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed
would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would
become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220
km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post-
Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the
earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio
changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too.
But it does
not.
Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment,
paraded and promoted as a truth.


 ”Not true,” the theorists will object, “such out-dated reasoning in
a space knowing place cuts no ice with us. Relativity has no
difficulty with that kind of supposed contradiction.” I dare to
differ. Their Einsteinian panacea, foreshadowed by the
prevarications of Fresnel's “We cannot decide,” Lorentz's “We
cannot measure
,” and Poincaré's “We cannot observe" is mere
eyewash
.

Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.

This will be judged to be patently “unthinkable” or worse.
Bradley's unobservable and by Airy's failure emasculated “stellar
aberration” remains indispensable for holding on to a Big Bang
and a universe expanding into space or expanding space.
Manifestly, such a post- Copernican cosmos could not differ
much physically from the pre- Copernican one. To say that this is
a difference of motion only is nonsense. It allows me to agree
with Stephen W. Hawking: “You cannot disprove a theory by
finding even a single observation that disagrees with the
predictions of the theory.


Conclusion: Einstein's cure-all cures
nothing!
Assuredly, I do not claim that the foregoing proves my
modified Tychonian hypothesis. Experimentally, however, it
undoubtedly has the soundest credentials.
More than three
centuries of efforts to disprove it have already come to naught.
The pseudo-heliocentric universe popularized for the benefit of
the man-in-the-street has, in fact, not a leg to stand on.


3. Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :

GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :

If Space is orbiting Earth then we calculate relative to Earth:
Sun moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/24 = 39 165 188.4 km/h
Moon moves (2*Pi*384 400)/24 - 3679.5 = 96 956.2 km/h
Now:
Closer observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 381800) = 14.245 degrees per hour ; difference 0.425
Farther observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 387000) = 14.065 degrees per hour ; difference 0.605
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :

If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h
During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

Now if you change his number 681 km/h (which he got by dividing circumference of Arctic circle by 24 hours) with 434 km/h (which i got by dividing diameter of Arctic circle by 12 hours AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO TO COMPLY WITH THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) then you get even worse (for you) result (greater discrepancy = smaller number for HC scenario) than i got in the following calculation :

HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO :

3500 km (diameter of the Moon)
434 km (the distance which an observer at the Arctic circle crosses in one hour (46,8*111km = 5194,8 km/12 = 432,9)
5200 km (the diameter of the Arctic circle)

CLOSER OBSERVER : 3500-434 = 3066 km/h
FARTHER OBSERVER : 3500+434 = 3934 km/h

CLOSER OBSERVER = 3066/380 000 = 0,00806 (ctg) = 0,462
FARTHER OBSERVER = 3934/385 200 = 0,01021 (ctg) = 0,5851

THE DIFFERENCE = 0,123

So, what do you have to say on this???
Nothing!

No wonder!!!
Cheers!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #295 on: April 28, 2019, 03:28:35 PM »
Longitudinal lines start at the north pole, the diverge all the way to the equator. They then start to converge again and all end up at the south pole. But on a flat earth the lines would always diverge. No one has ever noticed this? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #296 on: April 28, 2019, 03:32:28 PM »
Longitudinal lines start at the north pole, the diverge all the way to the equator. They then start to converge again and all end up at the south pole. But on a flat earth the lines would always diverge. No one has ever noticed this?
Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000500840089-9.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CONCENTRATION%20CAMPS%20PERSECUTION%20OF%20JEWS%20%20%28DI%20SEARCH%29_0010.pdf
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 03:39:16 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #297 on: April 28, 2019, 04:42:13 PM »
Get use to this :
<< I ignore unsubstantiated "quotations"! Get used to it. >>

3. Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :
<< What has what Macarios said got to do with me! GO AND ASK MACARIOS!
There is no "ZIGZAG argument"!
It makes absolutely no difference to any purely visual observation from earth
       whether the earth rotates counterclockwise once each 24 hours and 150,000,000 km from a stationary sun or
       the sun orbits clockwise once each 24 hours and 150,000,000 km from a stationary earth.
If you post a cogent argument, not your silly video, I might look in more detail.



Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #298 on: April 28, 2019, 04:58:38 PM »
Quote from: Wikipedia
In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates:
     1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference); and
     2. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

Notice the second postulate: "the laws of physics are invariant... in all... non-accelerating frames of reference...".
This means that one can "take on" any object's frame of reference and their physics will be equally correct regardless of their frame of reference.
From any object's frame of reference, it is stationary and the rest of the universe moves about it. For example, a observer stationary relative to the ground sees a car drive by at 20 km/hr, but the car sees the observer fly backwards at (-)20 km/hr.

Therefore, by taking on the frame of reference of the Earth, one obtains a correct geocentric model of physics, while the frame of reference of the Sun gives a correct heliocentric model.

In other words, GC and HC are equally correct.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #299 on: April 28, 2019, 05:36:50 PM »
Quote from: Wikipedia
In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates:
     1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference); and
     2. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

Notice the second first postulate: "the laws of physics are invariant... in all... non-accelerating frames of reference...".
This means that one can "take on" any object's frame of reference and their physics will be equally correct regardless of their frame of reference.
From any object's frame of reference, it is stationary and the rest of the universe moves about it. For example, a observer stationary relative to the ground sees a car drive by at 20 km/hr, but the car sees the observer fly backwards at (-)20 km/hr.
All that is quite correct until you get to the acceleration involved in the car turning.

Quote from: Koresh
Therefore, by taking on the frame of reference of the Earth, one obtains a correct geocentric model of physics, while the frame of reference of the Sun gives a correct heliocentric model.

In other words, GC and HC are equally correct.
No, there is a big difference. They can "look (almost) the same to an earth-based observer but there is still a big difference.

Look at your first postulate again, "1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference);"
The rotating earth, orbiting the sun, in the Heliocentric Solar System is not an inertial system (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference).

Rotation and orbiting both involve acceleration and so one cannot arbitrarily take one or one the other a frame of reference.
The accelerations are small and on earth are usually negligible - in other words, a person on earth would hardly know the difference.
There are, however, a few effects that can be measured on earth:
  • The slight ellipticity of the earth (it is not quite spherical but almost a perfect ellipsoid),
  • The Coriolis and related Eötvös effect and
  • Gyroscopic effects as used in marine gyroscopic compasses and gyro-theodolites to determine true North.
Strictly speaking, even a sun centred system is not an inertial frame of reference because the solar system is presumed to orbit the Galactic centre.
But the centripetal acceleration involved is so small compared to those of the rotating earth orbiting the sun that it can be ignored except in Cosmology.

Einstein was originally attracted to "Mach's Principle" which included the relativity of inertial effects but he realised that this could not be fitted to the reality of how the Universe behaved.
So even in General Relativity rotary motion is "more or less absolute" and I say "more or less" because, from what I have seen, that "fixed inertial reference frame" is quite open to conjecture.
The nearest explanation seems to be that the reference framt for rorary motion is "spacetime" not that that seems very satisfactory - but it's a whole topic of its own.

The bottom line is that rotary motion, such as the earth's rotation, can be and is regularly measured.