NASA EPIC LIES

Your diagram is entirely useless as it makes no attempt to deal with the different reference frames used.
It is just more dishonest garbage.

Don't you see why you are not allowed to add earth's velocities in the first (Bradley) case, instead of subtract them?

Why do you repeat this same lie again after it has been shown to be a lie so many times.
Once more I AM NOT ADDING THE VELOCITIES!
Do you understand that?

In the first case, adding the 2 velocities gives you 0.
In fact, in any generic case of an inertial reference frame, ignoring relativistic corrections adding the 2 velocities will give you 2 times the velocity of the sun.
Instead, I am using the difference.
In any generic case of an inertial reference frame, ignoring relativistic corrections, finding the difference in velocities will give you 60 km/s.

In both cases, I find the difference.

In March the apparent position of Gamma Draconis is in one direction wrt the datum line (+20 arc sec), and in September the apparent position of Gamma Draconis is in the opposite direction wrt the datum line (-20 arc sec). So, the difference is ZERO (20 - 20 = 0)

Do you understand extremely simple math.
You did 20 - 20. That is not the difference of 20 and -20. That is the sum of 20 and -20, or the difference of 20 and 20.

The difference between 20 and -20 is given by 20 - (-20)  = 40.
The simple way of understanding this is what do you need to add to -20 to get to 20?
If you add 0, i.e. following your lies, you are still at -20. However if you add 40, you get to 20.
That means the difference is 40, not your lie of 0.

Do you understand that?

Are you going to admit to your dishonesty now?

The difference between 20 and -20 is given by 20 - (-20)  = 40.
The simple way of understanding this is what do you need to add to -20 to get to 20?
If you add 0, i.e. following your lies, you are still at -20. However if you add 40, you get to 20.
That means the difference is 40, not your lie of 0.

To get to 20 you need to add 40 to -20, but to get to 0 you need to add 20 to -20, and since you have -20 and +20, you (have to) get 0 :
-20 + 20 = 0. You ask the wrong question, since only by twisting logic, by bearing your head in the sand, by lying and by bluffing you can hope (in vain) that your infamous technique of throwing sand in someone's eyes will yield the expecting result. So, keep up keeping your head in the sand, however there is no such a deep hole in which you can hide from the light of truth!!!

Quote from: JackBlack on July 24, 2020, 05:49:43 AM

The difference between 20 and -20 is given by 20 - (-20)  = 40.
The simple way of understanding this is what do you need to add to -20 to get to 20?
If you add 0, i.e. following your lies, you are still at -20. However if you add 40, you get to 20.
That means the difference is 40, not your lie of 0.

To get to 20 you need to add 40 to -20, but to get to 0 you need to add 20 to -20, and since you have -20 and +20, you (have to) get 0 :
-20 + 20 = 0. You ask the wrong question, since only by twisting logic, by bearing your head in the sand, by lying and by bluffing you can hope (in vain) that your infamous technique of throwing sand in someone's eyes will yield the expecting result. So, keep up keeping your head in the sand, however there is no such a deep hole in which you can hide from the light of truth!!!

You can not do math, can you? Look at what you said.

In March the apparent position of Gamma Draconis is in one direction wrt the datum line (+20 arc sec), and in September the apparent position of Gamma Draconis is in the opposite direction wrt the datum line (-20 arc sec). So, the difference is ZERO (20 - 20 = 0).

You wanted to show the difference between two points  (+20 arc sec) and (-20 arc sec).

You said the difference is: ZERO (20 - 20 = 0)

But that is WRONG.

It's not (20 - 20 = 0) it's (20 - -20 = 40)

See how you used "20" on both sides of the equation there when one of those was -20?

Lets use more parenthesis to make it clear.

((+20) - (-20)) = 40

Can you understand your mistake now?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 23, 2020, 09:39:17 AM

Saying "Dr. Sungenis is claiming something" is not a justification for your assertion, nor is it a citation. Where did he say it? What, exactly, did he say? On what basis did he conclude this? In other words...Citation needed.

<Images of unattributed pages describing contrived issue with the (approximately) constant aberration of light from the sun, and only the sun.>

OK, there is a plausible claim that the aberration of light from the sun is a constant amount. This is caused, of course, by the (approximately) constant scalar value of earth's tangential velocity wrt the sun as it orbits, so this is exactly as expected.

But...

Where are those pages from? What about all the other stuff? Do you not remember you claim?

Quote from: cikljamas on July 22, 2020, 10:54:14 AM

This phenomenon occurs for each star in the sky, without exception. ... Moreover, it will occur in both the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, and in the same shapes and proportions. Additionally, the sun and the planets will show the same aberration, approximately 20.5 arc seconds. The only body exempt is the Earth’s moon.

[Original emphasis]

Quote from: cikljamas on July 22, 2020, 03:32:05 PM

Stellar aberration is the same amplitude for all stars and galaxies independent of their distance.

[Original emphasis]

So it's all stars, all galaxies, the sun, and planets, but explicitly not the moon. Is there anything else? Nebulae, I suppose, also moons of other planets, and minor planets and other detritus in the solar system like comets and asteroids. What else? Why would these be excluded? Why is the moon excluded?

Quote

If dr Sungenis was wrong and you are right, then i'd like to see your justification for the assertion that dr Sungenis is wrong and you (the church) are right...

Saying "Dr. Sungenis is claiming something" is not a justification for your assertion, nor is it a citation. Where did he say it? What, exactly, did he say? On what basis did he conclude this? In other words...Citation needed.

What does Dr. Sungenis (or whoever you're getting your ideas from) have to say about extra-galactic things?

Why is the moon excluded?

You wanted to show the difference between two points  (+20 arc sec) and (-20 arc sec).

You said the difference is: ZERO (20 - 20 = 0)

But that is WRONG.

It's not (20 - 20 = 0) it's (20 - -20 = 40)

See how you used "20" on both sides of the equation there when one of those was -20?

Lets use more parenthesis to make it clear.

((+20) - (-20)) = 40

Can you understand your mistake now?

What this minus means? It means that now (in September) you are looking in the opposite direction (wrt the situation in March), but in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March). So what is the difference between 20 arc seconds and 20 arc seconds? 20 arc seconds or 0 arc seconds? You need to know what you are doing so that you can do a meaningful math operation. Once again : In March and in September the earth (in HC scenario) is moving at the same velocity and the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star) are the result (according to HC paradigm) of the ratio between Earth's velocity and the speed of light. In September you only (according to HC model) move in a different direction than in March, hence MINUS sign.

In the second case (HC scenario in the context of the modern cosmology paradigm) the speed of the Earth is not the same, so the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star in March vs September) is not the same, as well. In March as well as in September you are looking in the same direction, your telescope is tilted 191 arc seconds (in March) and 141 arc seconds (in September) arc seconds, and that is why we are allowed to talk about real difference (40 arc seconds) between these two values (191/151) in this (second) hypothetical scenario. Get it?

Saying "Dr. Sungenis is claiming something" is not a justification for your assertion, nor is it a citation. Where did he say it? What, exactly, did he say? On what basis did he conclude this? In other words...Citation needed.

What does Dr. Sungenis (or whoever you're getting your ideas from) have to say about extra-galactic things?

Why is the moon excluded?

Btw, what is your take on the HC explanation for why the sun shows aberration?

Here it is again, only this time in a written form, so to make your analysis of this awkward HC explanation easier :

Modern heliocentrism has a different explanation for why the sun shows aberration, however. The following is from Wikipedia:

A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its true position by κ towards the west (as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the Sun along the ecliptic(which is from west to east, as seen from Earth). The deflection thus makes the Sun appear to be behind (or retarded) from its actual position on the ecliptic by a position or angle κ [20.49552"]. This constant deflection is often explained as due to the motion of the Earth during the 8.3 minutes that it takes light to travel from the Sun to Earth. This is a valid explanation provided it is given in the Earth’s reference frame(where it becomes purely a light-time correction for the position of the eastward-moving Sun as seen from a stationary Earth), whereas in the Sun’s reference frame the same phenomenon must be described as aberration of light when seen by the westward-moving Earth, which involves having Earth’s telescopes pointed “forward” (westward, in a direction toward the Earth’s motion relative to the Sun) by a slight amount. Since this is the same physical phenomenon, simply described from two different reference frames, it is not a coincidence that the angle of annual aberration of the Sun is equal to the path swept by the Sun along the ecliptic, in the time it takes for light to travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265", very nearly κ [20.49552]). Similarly, one could explain the Sun’s apparent motion over the background of fixed stars a sa (very large) parallax effect. ---  Explanation posted as of Dec. 2011

What this minus means? It means that now (in September) you are looking in the opposite direction (wrt the situation in March), but in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March). So what is the difference between 20 arc seconds and 20 arc seconds? 20 arc seconds or 0 arc seconds? You need to know what you are doing so that you can do a meaningful math operation. Once again : In March and in September the earth (in HC scenario) is moving at the same velocity and the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star) are the result (according to HC paradigm) of the ratio between Earth's velocity and the speed of light. In September you only (according to HC model) move in a different direction than in March, hence MINUS sign.

What?  Just because the earth is in the other half of its orbit doesn’t mean astronomers are pointing in the opposite direction. And if they were, they’d not be looking at the same stars.   They can just look at the bit of sky they are interested in.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2020, 09:01:10 AM

What this minus means? It means that now (in September) you are looking in the opposite direction (wrt the situation in March), but in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March). So what is the difference between 20 arc seconds and 20 arc seconds? 20 arc seconds or 0 arc seconds? You need to know what you are doing so that you can do a meaningful math operation. Once again : In March and in September the earth (in HC scenario) is moving at the same velocity and the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star) are the result (according to HC paradigm) of the ratio between Earth's velocity and the speed of light. In September you only (according to HC model) move in a different direction than in March, hence MINUS sign.

What?  Just because the earth is in the other half of its orbit doesn’t mean astronomers are pointing in the opposite direction. And if they were, they’d not be looking at the same stars.   They can just look at the bit of sky they are interested in.

For clarity the change in position has been greatly exaggerated in the diagram above.

Maybe the following paragraph will help you to imagine how greatly the change in position has been exaggerated :

An "angle of parallax” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31" (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it  represents only one 11,613th part of a degree. There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are fine as this we are inclined to  agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”

So if we apply above description to our case 20'' (and if my simple math is correct) on that same vernier we should find it to be one 241,9th part of an inch... I hope that now you are going to be able to conceive the real proportions of this measuring (how extremely lilliputian stellar aberration actually is) i.e. how extremely slightly the astronomer has to tilt his apparatus so to be able to catch Gamma Draconis in a proper way?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 24, 2020, 08:07:34 AM

Saying "Dr. Sungenis is claiming something" is not a justification for your assertion, nor is it a citation. Where did he say it? What, exactly, did he say? On what basis did he conclude this? In other words...Citation needed.

What does Dr. Sungenis (or whoever you're getting your ideas from) have to say about extra-galactic things?

Why is the moon excluded?

Still no citation. Just an image of part of a page from somewhere. Showing the image is OK, but why do you refuse to say where this is published?

That text has some problems.

Since 20.5" of aberration is due to tangential velocity of earth's orbit about the sun, then that would constantly apply to the sun (since the orbital velocity is always tangential to the sun). This will also affect light from stars and other bodies with no motion with respect to the sun, to the extent that earth's orbital motion is tangential (that is, at right angles) to the direction to the star. Note that for stars with no proper motion wrt the solar system, earth's orbital velocity around the sun is tangential to the direction of the star twice per orbit (or, in the special case where the direction to the star is exactly perpendicular to the plane of earth's orbit, it is always tangential), so the maximum aberration for such stars is also 20.5" twice a year. So far so good.

It falls apart with statements like "... in the geocentric model, the sun and planet's [sic] 20.5" movement is caused by their annual traveling with the rest of the star field and thus they will react in the same manner as the stars." This is simply not true. Planets aren't "traveling with the rest of the star field". If they were, they would not move wrt the fixed stars, but they do move with respect to the stars and with respect to the sun. Since their own motion relative to the sun sometimes increases their tangential motion relative to the earth and sometimes decreases it, the aberration can be greater than 20.5".

"The moon, however, does not show a 20.5" movement since it it locked in place by the gravity of the fixed Earth." This is correct, but incomplete. Note that this does not say that the shift due to aberration is zero, which may be what the author wants the reader to incorrectly deduce. In fact, the relative motion between earth ind moon is about 1 km/sec, so the aberration amounts to about 1/30 of that 20.5", but it's not zero.

Nothing there about galaxies. Or any consideration of stars with proper motion. Did you just jump to the conclusion that those are also locked to the same amount of aberration as the sun? Why?

Remember your formula?

Θ= arctan v_to/c

where v_to is the transverse velocity of the observer relative to the star (or, more generally, relative to the object).

The same formula applies to stars as well as the sun. Why would it not? The difference is that, for stars with no proper motion, v_to is usually less than v_{earthorbitalvelocity} because some of the velocity is radial, not tangential to a star. For planets, their velocity relative to earth will sometimes be greater than the orbital velocity of the earth and sometimes less, and tangential velocity can similarly be greater at times.

It's the tangential component of relative velocity between source and observer that matters. Except for the sun itself, the earth's orbital velocity around the sun is only part of that.

Btw, what is your take on the HC explanation for why the sun shows aberration?

I have no problem with the way astronomers and physicists explain the aberration of light. Why should I?

Here it is again, only this time in a written form, so to make your analysis of this awkward HC explanation easier :

Modern heliocentrism has a different explanation for why the sun shows aberration, however. The following is from Wikipedia:

<rehash replaced with link>

You obviously think there is a problem with that explanation. What is it?

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 24, 2020, 10:37:39 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2020, 09:01:10 AM

What this minus means? It means that now (in September) you are looking in the opposite direction (wrt the situation in March), but in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March). So what is the difference between 20 arc seconds and 20 arc seconds? 20 arc seconds or 0 arc seconds? You need to know what you are doing so that you can do a meaningful math operation. Once again : In March and in September the earth (in HC scenario) is moving at the same velocity and the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star) are the result (according to HC paradigm) of the ratio between Earth's velocity and the speed of light. In September you only (according to HC model) move in a different direction than in March, hence MINUS sign.

What?  Just because the earth is in the other half of its orbit doesn’t mean astronomers are pointing in the opposite direction. And if they were, they’d not be looking at the same stars.   They can just look at the bit of sky they are interested in.

For clarity the change in position has been greatly exaggerated in the diagram above.

Maybe the following paragraph will help you to imagine how greatly the change in position has been exaggerated :

An "angle of parallax” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31" (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it  represents only one 11,613th part of a degree. There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are fine as this we are inclined to  agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”

So if we apply above description to our case 20'' (and if my simple math is correct) on that same vernier we should find it to be one 241,9th part of an inch... I hope that now you are going to be able to conceive the real proportions of this measuring (how extremely lilliputian stellar aberration actually is) i.e. how extremely slightly the astronomer has to tilt his apparatus so to be able to catch Gamma Draconis in a proper way?

Having read your posts they boil down to you using outdated Victorian nonsense to prove nonsense. Nothing that you say actually makes any sense whatsoever.
What is it you are trying to prove? From my standpoint, all you have achieved is to confirm the old adage rubbish in rubbish out.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2020, 04:25:22 AM

So does this mean you accept that in March the velocity is 30 km/s while in September it is -30 km/s

Of course not, the earth is stationary, so there is no velocity of the earth whatsoever...



Now, after displaying the diagram above, i can only repeat what i have said in my previous post :

Yes, but they differ by approximately 60 km/s so that you add 30 km/h (which is earth's directional velocity IN ONE ("MARCH") DIRECTION wrt the Sun) to -30 km/h (which is earth's directional velocity IN THE OPPOSITE ("SEPTEMBER") DIRECTION wrt the Sun).

In the second case they differ by approximately 60 km/s again, but this time the earth (being dragged along by the sun) goes IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in March, as well as in September).

So, if modern cosmology was right, in order to be able to see Gamma Draconis through his telescope Bradley should have tipped his telescope in March 192.51 arc seconds and in September 151.26 arc seconds IN THE SAME DIRECTION!!!

Not only that he didn't need to tip his telescope for 191 or/and 151 arc seconds, he would even have had to tip his telescope in the opposite direction in September (in relation to a situation in March), and for quite different amount than it would be the case if the earth was dragged along by the sun in it's galactic journey around the center of the Milky Way.

So, Bradley was wrong presuming that the stellar aberration is the result of the ratio between earth's velocity and the speed of light, modern cosmology is wrong presuming that they can use relativistic corrections so to compensate for being at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5
stellar aberration, and you are wrong hopping that no one will notice enormous amount of your infamous bluffs and twisted logic...

Your whole argument makes no sense whatsoever and falls over from the very starting point when you claim the earth is static. Utter and complete tosh. Why do you waste your time when both the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun are scientific facts. The fact that you refuse to accept this is the real point of contention.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 24, 2020, 05:49:43 AM

The difference between 20 and -20 is given by 20 - (-20)  = 40.
The simple way of understanding this is what do you need to add to -20 to get to 20?
If you add 0, i.e. following your lies, you are still at -20. However if you add 40, you get to 20.
That means the difference is 40, not your lie of 0.

To get to 20 you need to add 40 to -20, but to get to 0 you need to add 20 to -20, and since you have -20 and +20, you (have to) get 0 :
-20 + 20 = 0.

And that means you are adding them, not subtracting them.
That is very easy to understand, so why do you play dumb?
Once again, 20 - (-20) = 40.
The difference between 20 and -20 is 40.
That means in both scenario 1 and scenario 2, the difference in aberration angle is 40.
That is what is measured.
That means there is no problem for HC.
Not a difficult concept.

Why do you insist on playing dumb to pretend there is a problem rather than just admit your dishonesty?

But in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March)

No, if you tilt it the same you will miss the star.
The only way that tilting it in the same direction would work is if Earth is travelling at the same velocity, which means it can't possibly half way around its orbit.

In the second case (HC scenario in the context of the modern cosmology paradigm) the speed of the Earth is not the same

In both cases, the VELOCITY which is what is important, is NOT THE SAME!
That means in neither case you would get a difference of 0.
In both cases the velocity differs by ~60 km/s, and thus the aberration angle differs by ~40 arc seconds.

Again, not a difficult concept, so why do you continue to play dumb?
I find it quite hard to believe anyone is actually that incapable of understanding which just leaves dishonesty as the only motivation.

So why do you keep on pulling the same dishonest BS as if it hasn't already been refuted?


Once more, see if you can answer the very simple questions again:
In the HC model, in an ~inertial reference frame where the sun remains fixed over the year, taking positive to be in the direction Earth is travelling in March, what is:
1 - The velocity of Earth in March?
2 - The velocity of Earth in September?

Remember these are velocities, which have directionality. Their difference must be 60 km/s.

Can you answer these extremely simple questions?
Or will you just resort to more dishonest BS?

I really wish we could get past this with you admitting your mistake so we can move onto more points you get completely wrong about the model.

Quote from: JJA on July 24, 2020, 07:51:24 AM

You wanted to show the difference between two points  (+20 arc sec) and (-20 arc sec).

You said the difference is: ZERO (20 - 20 = 0)

But that is WRONG.

It's not (20 - 20 = 0) it's (20 - -20 = 40)

See how you used "20" on both sides of the equation there when one of those was -20?

Lets use more parenthesis to make it clear.

((+20) - (-20)) = 40

Can you understand your mistake now?

What this minus means? It means that now (in September) you are looking in the opposite direction (wrt the situation in March), but in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March). So what is the difference between 20 arc seconds and 20 arc seconds? 20 arc seconds or 0 arc seconds? You need to know what you are doing so that you can do a meaningful math operation. Once again : In March and in September the earth (in HC scenario) is moving at the same velocity and the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star) are the result (according to HC paradigm) of the ratio between Earth's velocity and the speed of light. In September you only (according to HC model) move in a different direction than in March, hence MINUS sign.

I don't care how confused you are about what direction you are looking.

The difference between +20 and -20 is 40.

You not understanding math is the problem.  You are the one that does not know you are doing when you think 20 - -20 = 0. 

What is it with Flat Earthers being unable to subtract numbers correctly and then deny they made a mistake?

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 24, 2020, 10:37:39 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2020, 09:01:10 AM

What this minus means? It means that now (in September) you are looking in the opposite direction (wrt the situation in March), but in order to catch the star now (in September) you need to tilt the telescope to the same degree (20 arc seconds), again (just as it was the case in March). So what is the difference between 20 arc seconds and 20 arc seconds? 20 arc seconds or 0 arc seconds? You need to know what you are doing so that you can do a meaningful math operation. Once again : In March and in September the earth (in HC scenario) is moving at the same velocity and the amount of arc seconds (to which astronomer has to tilt his telescope to catch the star) are the result (according to HC paradigm) of the ratio between Earth's velocity and the speed of light. In September you only (according to HC model) move in a different direction than in March, hence MINUS sign.

What?  Just because the earth is in the other half of its orbit doesn’t mean astronomers are pointing in the opposite direction. And if they were, they’d not be looking at the same stars.   They can just look at the bit of sky they are interested in.

For clarity the change in position has been greatly exaggerated in the diagram above.

Maybe the following paragraph will help you to imagine how greatly the change in position has been exaggerated :

An "angle of parallax” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31" (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it  represents only one 11,613th part of a degree. There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are fine as this we are inclined to  agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”

So if we apply above description to our case 20'' (and if my simple math is correct) on that same vernier we should find it to be one 241,9th part of an inch... I hope that now you are going to be able to conceive the real proportions of this measuring (how extremely lilliputian stellar aberration actually is) i.e. how extremely slightly the astronomer has to tilt his apparatus so to be able to catch Gamma Draconis in a proper way?

I can conceive the angles just fine.  I can’t conceive how you think 20 = -20. 

You’re the one talking about “looking in the opposite direction”. 

The first clue is in the title....Right from the get go your whole argument is built on a foundation of unfounded conspiracy to do with NASA telling lies. For your belief system this is an absolute requirement for if NASA did not tell lies your whole belief system would come crashing down.

The rotation of the earth is a fact and is so fundemental to the way in which the plant functions, such as it’s equator bulge, the variation of gravity, night and day, the changing position of the stars and planets etc. That’s why the whole Flat Earth movement has spent so much time trying to disprove the crystal clear evidence of Foucault's Pendulum! If the earth didn’t rotate our whole weather system would be totally different, the whole of meteorology is based on the fact that the earth rotates.

The fact that anyone can shoot star trails blows your whole notion out of the window. Your whole argument on the other hand is based on nothing more than a fictional conspiracy and a permanent lapse of reason.

ctg (30/30000) * 3600 = 20 arc seconds
ctg (-30/30000) * 3600 = -20 arc seconds

v1 = 30 km/s => aberration is 20.62 arcseconds.
v2 = -30 km/s => aberration is -20.62 arcseconds.

Θ= arctan vto/c

where vto is the transverse velocity of the observer
relative to the star. For the Earth, this is always its
orbital velocity, +30 to -30 km/s.

However, what does it mean when we say that something "can" go MINUS value (-30 or -20 or -0,001) of something (km or m or cm or mm) per some measure of time (seconds or minutes or hours)?

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

What this MINUS sign really represents?

It means that the earth in September goes at THE SAME orbital speed, only this time the earth is moving in the opposite direction in relation to a situation in March, that's all.

Or if you want to talk about measuring the angle between the datum line and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis in March vs September it is the fact that you've got the same angle in March and in September between the datum line and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis.

The question No 1 is : what is the angle between the datum line and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis in March?

The question No 2 is : what is the angle between the datum line and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis in September?

The question is not : what is the sum of these two angles!?!?!?!?

And even if you wanted to follow (rigorously) the correct mathematical procedure then the sum of these two angles is going to be 0, not 40, because -20 + 20  = 0 ; 20 - 20 = 0 again...

In the second case we would have the different velocities and the different angles (as well as the different shape of star's apparent motion in the sky due to our stellar aberration phenomena (instead of an ellipse it would look like Gamma Draconis draws a straight line in the sky - going back and forward)):

the speed of the solar system = 250 km/s
the speed of the earth = 30 km/s
overall speed of the earth in March = 250+30 = 280 km/s
the speed of light remains the same
So V1 = 280 km/s
Now,
280/300 000 = 0,000933333
ctg 0,000933333 = 0,053476045 * 3600 = 192,5137633 arc seconds

the speed of the solar system = 250 km/s
the speed of the earth = 30 km/s
overall speed of the earth in September = 250-30 = 220 km/s
the speed of light remains the same
So V2 = 220 km/s
Now,
220/300 000 = 0,000733333
ctg 0,000733333 = 0,042016897 * 3600 = 151,2608308 arc seconds

This is the last time i am explaining this to all NASA shills a.k.a. liars and idiots on this forum.

Still no citation. Just an image of part of a page from somewhere. Showing the image is OK, but why do you refuse to say where this is published?

It's from the book Galileo was wrong, church was right : https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/18132933/download-pdf-here-galileo-was-wrong

Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume I, The Scientific Case for Geocentrism, is a detailed and comprehensive treatise that demonstrates from the available scientific evidence that heliocentrism (the concept that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun) is an unproven theory; and that geocentrism (the view that the Earth is in the center of the universe and does not move by either rotation or revolution) is not only supported by the scientific evidence but is admitted to be a logical and viable cosmological position by many of the world's top scientists, including Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Edwin Hubble, Fred Hoyle and many more. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3037853-galileo-was-wrong

Galileo Was Wrong, A Scientific Documentary On Geocentrism

In the area of scientific facts the film is outstanding. This is not something that is to be dismissed. The film is carefully researched and it is meticulous in presenting the technical details. This is enhanced by the graphics that make describing a difficult to understand experiment understandable. There is a lot of material covered in the film. The film does not cut corners in giving the scientific facts. They are marshaled and presented according to relevance. The education level assumed for the audience is fairly advanced as well. So the film challenges the viewers abilities to understand complex and new scientific facts, and its does a very good job of it. Most important though is that the facts are carefully researched and accurate. They are correct fully established science, not made up or misinterpreted. The scientific facts rating of 10 is justly deserved. -- http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/06/18/galileo-was-wrong-a-scientific-documentary-on-geocentrism/

You obviously think there is a problem with that explanation. What is it?

1.  WIKI QUOTE : Since this is the same physical phenomenon, simply described from two different reference frames, it is not a coincidence that the angle of annual aberration of the Sun is equal to the path swept by the Sun along the ecliptic, in the time it takes for light to travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265", very nearly κ [20.49552]). Similarly, one could explain the Sun’s apparent motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) parallax effect. ---  Explanation posted as of Dec. 2011

2. Dr Sungenis : In either case, however, the author fails to note that the result is only a coincidence and not an explanation of aberration. As such he has two different explanations for the 20.5" difference in the sun’s position. The first is formulated from the “Earth’s frame of reference” and is not understood as an aberration but only a “light-time correlation.” The second is formulated from the“sun’s frame of reference…when seen by the westward moving Earth” and is said to be an actual aberration.

So, is the result only a coincidence or not, what do you think?

8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265''

So, how you can justify dividing minutes of time by number of days so to get arc seconds?

ctg (30/30000) * 3600 = 20 arc seconds
ctg (-30/30000) * 3600 = -20 arc seconds
v1 = 30 km/s => aberration is 20.62 arcseconds.
v2 = -30 km/s => aberration is -20.62 arcseconds.

And that means the difference is 40 arc seconds.
And thus your argument is garbage.

However, what does it mean when we say that something "can" go MINUS value

It is quite simple. Even children can understand.
See, in the real world things have direction.
Going 30 km/s in one direction is quite different to going 30 km/s in the other direction.

The full way to do it in 3D space is by using a vector, so the velocity would be for example [30,0,0] km/s at one point in time. Roughly 1/4 of a year later it could be [0,30,0] km/s and then [-30,0,0] after another 1/4, then [0,-30,0] after another 1/4.

For simplicity, if you are just dealing with a single dimension you typically remove the vector expression and just deal with the 1 value.

Likewise, with rotation/angles, an angle alone is not enough information. You need to know the directionality as well.
The standard convention used in math for the xy plane is that rotation is measured counter clockwise. That means if you take the point (1,0) and rotate it 90 degrees, it becomes the point (0,1).
If instead you rotate it -90 degrees, that means it becomes the point (0,-1).

If you actually understood that, you would also realise that all your claims of the Earth magically moving at 280 km/s in March is pure garbage and not based upon the HC model or the accepted model of the universe at all.
Just what makes you think the Earth orbits the sun in a plane aligned with the orbital plane of the sun around the galaxy?
What makes you think this coincides with the Earth moving parallel to the sun in March?
You are just making up more crap.

Or if you want to talk about measuring the angle between the datum line

Before you even try to discuss measuring the angle between the datum line and anything, you need to first define just what this magical datum line is and how you determine where it is.
Until you do, you cannot measure the angle between it and anything.

The question is not : what is the sum of these two angles!?!?!?!?

That is right, the question is actually what is the DIFFERENCE between them.
The difference which you previously claimed was 0. But now that that has been exposed to be pure garbage you now pretend people want to use the sum. The only one using the sum has been you.

The difference, in both inertial frames is 40 arc seconds.
Again, there is no contradiction.
There is just your blatant dishonesty.

It's from the book Galileo was wrong, church was right

Yes, it is from religious garbage, which has absolutely no bearing on reality.
It is preaching, nothing more.

WIKI QUOTE : Since this is the same physical phenomenon, simply described from two different reference frames, it is not a coincidence that the angle of annual aberration of the Sun is equal to the path swept by the Sun along the ecliptic, in the time it takes for light to travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265", very nearly κ [20.49552]). Similarly, one could explain the Sun’s apparent motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) parallax effect.

What wiki page? Can you link please?

It is quite simple. Even children can understand.

Children can understand, but you can't. If you think you can understand, then why don't you answer this extremely simple question :

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

In another words : will you pretend until you die that earth's velocity in September isn't the same as in March?

And if velocity is the same (hence the angle is the same) then there is no difference in the angles, all the difference is that in September the earth goes (in HC theory) in the opposite direction in relation to it's direction of alleged motion in March, hence MINUS sine. And here is the root of your major HC flaw, since if the earth goes in September in the opposite direction that makes it's overall speed 60 km/s slower than in March, and that would produce real 40'' difference which doesn't exist in the first scenario. ONLY THE CHANGE IN SPEED/VELOCITY can make the difference, not THE CHANGE IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION!!! If you think it can, then answer than feel free to answer this extremely simple question :

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

Before you even try to discuss measuring the angle between the datum line and anything, you need to first define just what this magical datum line is and how you determine where it is.

The datum line is the line which connects our astronomer (Bradley) and the real position (according to HC theory) of Gamma Draconis in the sky.

Just what makes you think the Earth orbits the sun in a plane aligned with the orbital plane of the sun around the galaxy?
What makes you think this coincides with the Earth moving parallel to the sun in March?

It doesn't have to coincide with the Earth moving parallel to the sun in March, in case the Earth is moving parallel to the sun in June, then we will be able to notice 40'' difference in December, so your straw of salvation is just an illusion, therefore you have to throw all your hopes in garbage, exactly where they belong.

Going 30 km/s in one direction is quite different to going 30 km/s in the other direction.

How is that different concerning what is of our real concern in this debate?

Once again :

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

However, it makes the whole difference in the second case, since if the earth went in September in the opposite direction that would make it's overall speed 60 km/s slower than in March, and that is not the case, since the earth is at rest since the first day of creation. I know, you can't get over it, but that is your problem, not mine.

Quote

WIKI QUOTE : Since this is the same physical phenomenon, simply described from two different reference frames, it is not a coincidence that the angle of annual aberration of the Sun is equal to the path swept by the Sun along the ecliptic, in the time it takes for light to travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265", very nearly κ [20.49552]). Similarly, one could explain the Sun’s apparent motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) parallax effect.

What wiki page? Can you link please?

No, i can't, since i don't know where to look for it (i've tried though), however here is the screenshot of it taken from Sungenis' book :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2272117#msg2272117

Quote from: JackBlack on July 25, 2020, 04:28:52 AM

It is quite simple. Even children can understand.

Children can understand, but you can't. If you think you can understand, then why don't you answer this extremely simple question :

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

In another words : will you pretend until you die that earth's velocity in September isn't the same as in March?

Well it isn’t.  You really need to learn the difference between speed and velocity.  Velocity is a vector, speed is scalar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

And if velocity is the same (hence the angle is the same) then there is no difference in the angles, all the difference is that in September the earth goes (in HC theory) in the opposite direction in relation to it's direction of alleged motion in March, hence MINUS sine.   And here is the root of your major HC flaw, since if the earth goes in September in the opposite direction that makes it's overall speed 60 km/s slower than in March, and that would produce real 40'' difference which doesn't exist in the first scenario. ONLY THE CHANGE IN SPEED/VELOCITY can make the difference, not THE CHANGE IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION!!!

No.  Of course the direction matters.

If you think it can, then answer than feel free to answer this extremely simple question :

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

That’s a really stupid question.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 25, 2020, 04:28:52 AM

It is quite simple. Even children can understand.

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

Why don't you take some remedial basic math and geometry and physics courses.

Seriously.

Now you are arguing you can't turn around and walk back the way you came.  How can you even function with this level of ignorance?

Learn how negative numbers work before you display any more of your massive math illiteracy.

Well it isn’t.  You really need to learn the difference between speed and velocity.  Velocity is a vector, speed is scalar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Which sign represents vector/velocity in this formula :
Θ= arctan vto/c

No.  Of course the direction matters.

The direction matters only in the second case when there is the difference in speeds (September vs March) due to the changed orbital direction of the alleged earth's motion. You are perfectly aware of this, so fuck off.

That’s a really stupid question.

No, you are a stupid liar.

What I find extraordinary is.

The scientific world was established just around 300 years ago. Since then scientists of various disciplines have been discovering a wide variety of things and we are where we are due to these discoveries. the fact I'm typing on a computer keyboard linked to the Internet is due to a multitude of scientific discoveries and advances.

Astronomy is one such science that has moved on leaps and bounds in the last 50 years mainly due to a variety of technologies, including computers, space travel, and a wide range of non-visible light telescopes. Like most subjects obtaining a PhD in Astronomy or astrophysics takes a great deal of time and effort as well as access to a large range of hight sophisticated equipment. Currently, there are thousands of professional astronomers employed around the world all working on various projects.

We then have people like 'cilkjamas' who knows nothing about astronomy yet thinks that he knows something no professional astronomer knows; that the earth is stationary.  It's akin to a Bonobo emerging from its forest home in the Congo claiming to know more about the workings of the human brain than any living Neurologist. Why I do say that? Like the Bonobo cilkjamas has no way of studying any aspect of astronomy other than what he can see with his naked eye or basic optic, yet he claims he knows something that has somehow eluded the world of astronomy for the past 300 years. I think that's rather odd. Why does he imagine what he thinks is true? Thats the real issue.  Just as I would not go to a Bonobo for a second opinion on any matter relating to the brain I would discount anything that ciljamas has to say on the subject of astronomy.

Its a common theme on this forum, non-professional scientists claiming they know something that has somehow escaped the scientific world, despite the clear evidence to the contrary that is available to all who care to look. The other aspect is their clear ignorance of a subject makes them pursue arguments that are ridiculous prompting them to ask ridiculous questions.

If cilkjamas wants to know about astronomy he should begin by reading a book on the subject:-

https://www.amazon.com/slp/astronomy-books-for-beginners/c9ee9tumf7v6s9t

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

-30 km/s < 0 km/s

To say that something can go -30 km/s is equally absurd as to say that something can go 0 km/s, because if something goes 0 km/s it doesn't go at all, it is at rest. So, in actuality -30 km/s is equal to 30 km/s (vectors/velocities (MINUS sign) are of no significance in the first case, and they matter only in the second case, and i explained why 1000 000 times by now)!!! Since you are all retarded idiots and dirty liars i have to ask you again :

Can something go slower than 0 km/s?

Quote from: Timeisup on July 25, 2020, 12:33:53 PM

Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?

-30 km/s < 0 km/s

To say that something can go -30 km/s is equally absurd as to say that something can go 0 km/s, because if something goes 0 km/s it doesn't go at all, it is at rest. So, in actuality -30 km/s is equal to 30 km/s (vectors/velocities (MINUS sign) are of no significance in the first case, and they matter only in the second case, and i explained why 1000 000 times by now)!!! Since you are all retarded idiots and dirty liars i have to ask you again :

Can something go slower than 0 km/s?

Retarded idiots?

Ask yourself the question, Who around here believes the earth is stationary. Answer that question and you will have found your retarded idiot.

Your question on vectors is simple. Any object that can be said to be moving in a negative direction with respect to a datum can be said to have a negative velocity. If the object is at rest it can be said to have zero velocity, but so what?  I have to say I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The negative is just used to represent the direction the object is moving in as a convenience.

Read this on some basic physics you should find it helpful.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/kinema/nvna.cfm

  I have to say I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Although you are not sure what point i am trying to make, you are somehow sure that i am the one here who is an idiot, not you?

Congratulations! My point is that JackBlack can't use vector/velocity excuse pretending that there is anything in our formula Θ= arctan vto/c
which justifies that -30 km/s (orbital speed in September) can be understood as something different (something different in a sense that MINUS sign can cause coming to the different result (different value for the angle)) than 30 km/s (orbital speed in March). This MINUS sign (which signifies the change in velocity/vector) is of our concern only in the second case when this hypothetical change in velocity (in direction of earth's orbital motion) yields the change in overall speed of the earth. So, since in the first case, there is no change in the speed (changing the direction of motion in this (first) case doesn't produce the change in earth's orbital velocity), there is no change in the angle between the true (the datum line) and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis, either. On the other hand, in the second case the speed of the earth is changed for 60 km/s due to the changed direction of earth's orbital motion, and that is why in this (second) case the velocity change matters. So, what is of our concern in the first case is the speed of the earth only. And only in the second case velocity change matters because this change produces the change in overall speed of the earth. In conclusion : it is a false claim that in the first case there is 40'' difference between -30 km/s (earth's speed in September) and 30 km/s (earth's speed in March), because there isn't. Only in the second case there is 40'' difference because in the second case earth's overall speed is 280 km/s in March, and 220 km/s in September.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 25, 2020, 01:03:05 PM

  I have to say I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Although you are not sure what point i am trying to make, you are somehow sure that i am the one here who is an idiot, not you?

Congratulations! My point is that JackBlack can't use vector/velocity excuse pretending that there is anything in our formula Θ= arctan vto/c
which justifies that -30 km/s (orbital speed in September) can be understood as something different (something different in a sense that MINUS sign can cause coming to the different result (different value for the angle)) than 30 km/s (orbital speed in March). This MINUS sign (which signifies the change in velocity/vector) is of our concern only in the second case when this hypothetical change in velocity (in direction of earth's orbital motion) yields the change in overall speed of the earth. So, since in the first case, there is no change in the speed (changing the direction of motion in this (first) case doesn't produce the change in earth's orbital velocity), there is no change in the angle between the true (the datum line) and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis, either. On the other hand, in the second case the speed of the earth is changed for 60 km/s due to the changed direction of earth's orbital motion, and that is why in this (second) case the velocity change matters. So, what is of our concern in the first case is the speed of the earth only. And only in the second case velocity change matters because this change produces the change in overall speed of the earth. In conclusion : it is a false claim that in the first case there is 40'' difference between -30 km/s (earth's speed in September) and 30 km/s (earth's speed in March), because there isn't. Only in the second case there is 40'' difference because in the second case earth's overall speed is 280 km/s in March, and 220 km/s in September.

Can I ask what the primary source is of all the data you quote?

If you would like some info about the movement of the earth have a look at this:-

https://www.space.com/33527-how-fast-is-earth-moving.html

Congratulations! My point is that JackBlack can't use vector/velocity excuse pretending that there is anything in our formula Θ= arctan vto/c
which justifies that -30 km/s (orbital speed in September) can be understood as something different (something different in a sense that MINUS sign can cause coming to the different result (different value for the angle)) than 30 km/s (orbital speed in March).

Wow.  You really think orbital mechanics theory says the Earth gains a negative velocity when it swings around in it's orbit?

My God, that is a failure on such a massive scale. 

How can you live in such a tiny box you built inside your head, with so little understanding but acting like you're a super genius for seeing past the 'lies' of the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 25, 2020, 01:03:05 PM

  I have to say I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Although you are not sure what point i am trying to make, you are somehow sure that i am the one here who is an idiot, not you?

Congratulations! My point is that JackBlack can't use vector/velocity excuse pretending that there is anything in our formula Θ= arctan vto/c
which justifies that -30 km/s (orbital speed in September) can be understood as something different (something different in a sense that MINUS sign can cause coming to the different result (different value for the angle)) than 30 km/s (orbital speed in March). This MINUS sign (which signifies the change in velocity/vector) is of our concern only in the second case when this hypothetical change in velocity (in direction of earth's orbital motion) yields the change in overall speed of the earth. So, since in the first case, there is no change in the speed (changing the direction of motion in this (first) case doesn't produce the change in earth's orbital velocity), there is no change in the angle between the true (the datum line) and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis, either. On the other hand, in the second case the speed of the earth is changed for 60 km/s due to the changed direction of earth's orbital motion, and that is why in this (second) case the velocity change matters. So, what is of our concern in the first case is the speed of the earth only. And only in the second case velocity change matters because this change produces the change in overall speed of the earth. In conclusion : it is a false claim that in the first case there is 40'' difference between -30 km/s (earth's speed in September) and 30 km/s (earth's speed in March), because there isn't. Only in the second case there is 40'' difference because in the second case earth's overall speed is 280 km/s in March, and 220 km/s in September.

there is the problem with a point of reference, does a race car traveling at 100 mph, on a round circuit go slower on the back side of the track, then when it is going on the front side.of the track? [ the backside of the track is going west the front side of the track is going east ] at one time you have a speed of 100 mph east at the other end 100 mph west, or is that -100 mph east? at no time did the car change it speed at 100 mph.

If the orbital speed of the earth wore to slow it would not maintain its orbit and would crash into the sun.
that is the nature of an orbit.

Children can understand, but you can't. If you think you can understand, then why don't you answer this extremely simple question :
Can something really go slower than 0 km/s?
In another words : will you pretend until you die that earth's velocity in September isn't the same as in March?

No, children can understand but either you can't, or you pretend not to.
Only an idiot would claim that the velocity of Earth in the HC model is the same in September and March.
In order for that to be true, it would need to be going in the same direction, while in reality it has to be going in the opposite direction.
You cannot orbit by going in the same direction.
An orbit is an ellipse, but if Earth had a constant velocity, it's path would be a straight line. Do you not understand the difference between an ellipse and a straight line?

Like I explained last time, that sign (positive or negative) indicates directionality.
For example, to describe a simple 1D case, right can be positive and left is negative.
That means +30 km/s is going 30 km/s to the right.
That means -30 km/s is going 30 km/s to the left.
Only an idiot or a liar would claim they are the same.

Likewise, if they were the same, that means that if you measure the velocity relative to another object, it would be the same.
So far example, if you measure their velocity relative to an object travelling at 220 km/s to the left, both would be 250 km/s to the right.
But in reality, one is 250 km/s to the right, while the other is 190 km/s to the right.

Again, your argument relies upon accepting that these velocities are different, yet you lie and pretend they are the same, as your argument also relies upon that. i.e. your argument relies upon contradicting itself. If you don't have that contradiction in your argument, you will not have a contradiction with the model.
i.e. the contradiction is introduced by you by pretending that 2 different velocities are the same, while also accepting they are different.

If they were the same, then 2 objects starting at the same position, with that velocity would remain together.
But in reality, they grow apart because they are travelling in different directions.

And if velocity is the same (hence the angle is the same) then there is no difference in the angles

And that is the key part, the velocity IS NOT the same. That means there is a difference in angle, which is what you are continually ignoring.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 25, 2020, 04:28:52 AM

Before you even try to discuss measuring the angle between the datum line and anything, you need to first define just what this magical datum line is and how you determine where it is.

The datum line is the line which connects our astronomer (Bradley) and the real position (according to HC theory) of Gamma Draconis in the sky.

You left out the key part, determining where it is.
You are still trying to measure relative to something which you have no idea about.

It doesn't have to coincide with the Earth moving parallel to the sun in March, in case the Earth is moving parallel to the sun

The point is you are not arguing against the HC model, and showing you either have no idea what you are talking about or are just lying like normal.
Earth won't be going parallel to the sun. The orbital plane of Earth is different to the orbital plane of the sun.
In order to do it honestly you would need to accept that velocity is not just a scalar but a vector.
But that means accepting that the directionality is important, and it would destroy your argument.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 25, 2020, 04:28:52 AM

Going 30 km/s in one direction is quite different to going 30 km/s in the other direction.

How is that different concerning what is of our real concern in this debate?

It is crucial.
That is because this difference results in a difference of angle, a difference of roughly 40 arcseconds, a difference you need to ignore to pretend there is a problem.
If the difference wasn't of concern then you would produce the same velocity in March and September in scenario 2. But you don't.

Once again, what is 20-(-20)?
It is 40, not the 0 you claim it is to pretend there is a problem.

This difference of 40 arc seconds occurs in both scenarios.
There is no problem for the HC model.

There is only a problem with you as you have no integrity at all and are continually lying to pretend there is a problem with the HC model. All because you don't give a damn about the truth and want to pretend there is a problem but you can't find any actual problems.

Which sign represents vector/velocity in this formula :
Θ= arctan vto/c

The vto part.
arctan(-x)=-arctan(x).
If you want to avoid the negative numbers, you need something else to deal with the directionality, but either way, if you do it honestly you end up with a difference of 40 arc seconds.

Only a moron or a dishonest liar would claim that turning x degrees to the left is the same as turning x degrees to the right.
But here you are, claiming they are the same.
So no, you the liar here, not us.

-30 km/s < 0 km/s

No it isn't.
That is because you are no longer dealing with a simple number but a vector.

Which of these is larger:
[30,0]
[0,30]
[-30,0]
[0,-30]
[21.2, 21.2]
?

They all have equal magnitude, 30.
But they have different directionality.
This different directionality does not make them less.

A velocity of -30 km/s is not less than 0 km/s.