North - South

[aljhoa]

"Moon hoax not" is a hoax! I saw this video long time ago (almost as soon as it was published), but certainly i am not impressed with deceptive arguments which are not very smart.

The main point of the segment is;
when two men quarrel, a third man wins
translate.google.com
kada su dva muškarca svađe, treći muškarac pobijedi

Al

[cikljamas]

The main point of the segment is;
when two men quarrel, a third man wins
translate.google.com
kada su dva muškarca svađe, treći muškarac pobijedi

Al

So, if this is kind of an end then why shouldn't we end it with the third man?

P.S. Al, you speak croatian very well!

[Saros]

@cikljamas, I don't understand what you're saying.

Since lunar eclipses occur always at Full Moon, it makes sense to ask why does the Full Moon lunar cycle last all night long (the full moon lasts between twenty four to forty eight hours on average), and an eclipse, only an hour?
If the Moon is behind the earth and orbiting the ecliptic plane thereby shaded by the Umbral shadow blocking the "ray of sunshine" from reaching her resulting in what we see and call an eclipse, then, "why does the MOON remain on the ecliptic plane only an hour?"

And then how does the MOON mysteriously rise the 5° above the Earth and begin anew to receive the precious light to continue her cycle? When it takes "days" for the Moon to go from one position and phase onto another on her 29 day cycle.

Can you please make yourself clear, as what you wrote doesn't make sense to me?

[sturgeon]

More "hoaxes" here;

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cikljamas]

@cikljamas, I don't understand what you're saying.

Can you please make yourself clear, as what you wrote doesn't make sense to me?

Does this make it clearer:



EXPLANATION:

A typical total lunar eclipse lasts about 1 hour and the moon clears the penumbra or shadow of the earth in about 7 hours. That means that the moon has moved about 1/2 way around the earth in about 7 hours.

The heliocentric theory ignores the DAILY orbit of the moon and allows for a monthly orbit only!! On closer examination, this proves to be a deadly counterfeit system because it cannot account for the movement of the moon during an eclipse. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The Moon rotates about its own axis in 27.322 days, which is also the time that it takes to complete ONE orbit around the Earth. As a result, the Moon always presents nearly the same face to the Earth. Whereas the actual rate of rotation is uniform, the distance through which the Moon moves in its orbit from day to day varies somewhat. Accordingly, the face that the Moon turns to Earth is subject to a corresponding cyclical variation, the lunar globe oscillating slightly (as seen over time by a terrestrial observer) with a period nearly equal to that of revolution. The amount of this apparent oscillation, which is called libration, is commonly between 6 and 7 degrees." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 299).

The heliocentric theory IGNORES the moon's daily orbit and cannot account for the rapid movement of the moon during a lunar eclipse

The heliocentric system has the moon moving very, very slowly around the earth. One month is required to complete its orbit.

This ignoring of the moon's daily orbit is done in order to get the earth rotating.

The moon is supposed to move at a speed of about 2,000 mph (3,219 km) or about 13° per day to an observer on earth. Just to slow!!!

@ Saros, have you ever commented these photos:

Full Moon and Sun - same side of the Earth:







What does it mean? Same side of the Earth?

They laugh us in our faces, they spit at our intelligence, don't you realize that?

How long are you going to tolerate these repugnant lies?

What kind of evidence do you need?

Would you believe it if i showed you the uncharted tundra of ice and snow which lays in perpetual darkness behind Antartic rim?

Would atmosphere surrounding a globe, according to your opinion, permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature?

What about the irrefutable results of " Airy's 'failure' " experiment?

What about scientists that gave up science in order to embrace false religion?

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scien-
tific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it
their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork. My studies show that the
“Enlightenment” was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by mili-
tant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The
falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed
by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who
themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise—a pattern that
continues today. I find that through the centuries (including right up to
the present day), professional scientists have remained about as reli-
gious as the rest of the population—and far more religious than their
academic colleagues in the arts and social sciences.
—Rodney Stark, “False Conflict: Christianity is not Only Compatible
with Science—it Created it,” The American Enterprise, Oct-Nov 2003.

Saros, how do you expect of me to convince such world about anything?

People are stuck in matrix!

We live in a Truman show!

Would you blame it on God?

Aushwitz was "masterpiece" of evil humans, we shouldn't blame it on God if we are honest and sincere people!

But, are we honest and sincere people, or we rather prefer darkness instead of light of truth?

We deny God, and then we are surprised when everything goes wrong.

We get what we deserve!

I just can not grasp it, that degree of human stupidity...

Robert Millikan credited “the Great Architect” with designing “this amazing plan of creation.” When challenged that life and nature result from “blind, unintelligent chance,” Millikan replied by quoting Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” Instead of calling Creation an accident, he credited and thanked God.
(Robert Millikan, The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan, Prentice-Hall, 1950, p. 264.)

“The most amazing thing in all life, the greatest miracle there is, is the fact that a mind has got here at all, ‘created out of the dust of the earth.’ This is the Bible phrase, and science today can find no better way to describe it.”
(Robert Millikan, Evolution in Science and Religion, Yale Univ Press, 1927, p. 69.)

Addressing the American Chemical Society, he said “Everyone who reflects believes in God.” He had no patience that “many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientist can do.”
(Robert Millikan’s Address to the American Chemical Society Meeting, The Commentator, June 1937.)

In a speech to University College (1903), Kelvin said: “Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.” (Kelvin, as cited in Yahya 2002). “The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p. 267, as cited in Bowden 1982, 218).

“To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” (Millikan, as cited in Grounds 1945, 22). “I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).

To the question, “Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck - have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?” Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” (Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139).

“As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom. Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent oreternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter.” (Planck, as cited in Eggenstein 1984, Part I; see “Materialistic Science on the Wrong Track”).

[Saros]

Thank you for the thorough reply. It will take me some time to process the information

EDIT:

Please take into account this. You're observing the lunar eclipse from a particular spot on the Earth's surface, and from that spot the Moon obviously moves quickly, as it travels at a speed of about 2,000 mph (3,219 km). Of course you will have eclipse totality for a short period of time ~ 1 hr, and it won't last one day at your particular observational spot.

Also, perhaps you have forgotten that the Moon is claimed to be 384000 km away, so the circumference of the circle it makes each month is around 2.5 million km.

How far does the Moon travel in its orbit around the Earth each month?

Regarding the Full Moon being on the same side of the sky as the Sun. This is not possible. The Full Moon has to be on the opposide side. You can have the New Moon on the same side, and then you can have a solar eclipse if they cross each others' path.


Look at this explanation as well:

What is the orbital period of the Moon?

The Moon takes 29.5 days to return to the same point on the celestial sphere as referenced to the Sun because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun; this is called a synodic month (lunar phases as observed from the Earth are correlated with the synodic month).

So why are the sidereal and synodic lunar months not equal in length?

Remember that the Earth moves in its own orbit around the Sun. The synodic period is related to the lunar phases; it depends on the relative locations of the Sun-Earth-Moon. If we start measuring at Full Moon, then one sidereal month later we will not yet be back to a Full Moon, since the Moon must travel further in its orbit around the Earth to reach the same relative Sun-Earth-Moon alignment...all because during the 27.3 days of the sidereal month, the Earth moved along in its orbit around the Sun and now the Moon must "catch up" to this new position. It takes it just over 2 days to do so.

By the way, there is nothing related to the Moon's orbit/phases/eclipses that is not explained by science and in great detail.

Unfortunately, you're making unfounded statements like the following:

"The heliocentric theory IGNORES the moon's daily orbit and cannot account for the rapid movement of the moon during a lunar eclipse"

Please, first get familiar with what science has already explained and then prove they are lying. I don't think you would be able to though.

Start from here, for instance: The Moon phases

They don't ignore the Moon's daily orbit and most definitely don't fail to explain the 'rapid' movement of the Moon during an eclipse.

I am sorry, but as if you're purposefully trying to manipulate by providing disinfo. Or simply you make mistakes too often. Which is not a good indicator anyway. Fortunately, anyone can check and see whether what you claim is true or not.

Of course, there is always the possibility that what we're told is bull****, and it is just a perfect but not a truthful explanation. However, your arguments to prove that they are lying are not strong at all. By the way, if they were you would have already attracted a lot of attention.

[cikljamas]

@ Saros, we are comparing 1 h vs 5 days (at least) or even 1 h vs 2 weeks, are you aware of the magnitude of this discrepancy?

Now, it's my turn to suspect your behaviour as hypocritical...

In order to cover up the truth that the moon (and the sun and stars) daily orbits above the Earth clockwise, liars invented daily counter-clockwise rotation of the Earth, monthly counter-clockwise orbit (and rotation on it's axis) of the Moon around the Earth, as well as annually counter-clockwise revolution of the Earth around the Sun...

My opinion is that the moon completes her daily revolution above the Earth 43 minutes later than the sun...Compare my assertion with this Curious About Astronomy: Why are most months 30 or 31 days long?

Do you know what is the main heliocentric argument in favor of Earth's rotundity? Alleged rotundity of the Moon and of the Sun! Believe it or not!

1. There is no rotation of the Earth!

2. There is no orbital motion of the Earth around anything!

We feel no motion of the World on which we all live. Furthermore, no experiment in all physics has ever demonstrated that the World moves around the Sun, or that it rotates on an axis. From the standpoint of our senses, therefore, it seems simply common sense to attribute the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars to those objects themselves, rather than to some multi-component, contorted movement of the World. Certainly, to a good approximation, the stars appear to go around us as if they are each attached to the inner surface of a huge celestial sphere, which is itself rotating above our heads from east to west on a celestial north-south polar axis.

3. Gravitation is a hoax!

The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of "action at a distance." Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it" (See Hoffman, 1983). But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagate at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it.

The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein's Special Relativity (SR), an experimentally well established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum. Indeed, as astronomers we were taught to calculate orbits using instantaneous forces; then extract the position of some body along its orbit at a time of interest, and calculate where that position would appear as seen from Earth by allowing for the finite propagation speed of light from there to here. It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth's gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously. Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers.

These objections were certainly not new when I raised them. They have been raised and answered thousands of times in dozens of different ways over the years since General Relativity (GR) was set forth in 1916. Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is "What is the speed of gravity?" It is only heard less often in the classroom because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question by hastily assuring students that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, leaving the firm impression, whether intended or not, that the question of gravity's propagation speed has already been answered.

Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: "If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S', and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J', when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light" Eddington, 1920, p.94). See Figure 1.

Indeed, it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton's Universal Law is unconditionally infinite (e.g., Misner et al., 1973, p.177). This is usually not mentioned in proximity to the statement that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low-velocity, weak-field limit because of the obvious question it begs about how that can be true if the propagation speed in one model is the speed of light, and in the other model it is infinite.

The same dilemma comes up in many guises: Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?

Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align? READ MORE:The Einstein Hoax

4. Gravitational lensing is a hoax!

5. Refraction is a hoax! must see

6. Aberation of starlight, Fresnel drag and heliocentric paralax are hoaxes!

7. Theory of relativity is a hoax!

And there is the "quasar distribution problem." In 1976 a heliocentrist of sorts, Y. P. Varshni, analyzed the spectra of three hundred eighty-five quasars (the farthest known stars from earth). One hundred fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings, all of which had the same red-shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among astronomers. To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:

". . .the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

Exit, Einstein.

In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. After four hundred years it ‘appears’ that God is right. Have we not now ‘evolved’ full circle to the pre-16th century world view? St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said: "Numerous experiments have confirmed its (geocentrism’s) stability; none have dislodged it."

8. "Airy's failure" equals Heliocentric wet dreams failure!

9. MMX "null result" equals Heliocentric wet dreams null result!



All that s h i t has been invented to cover up the one and only truth:

A - The Earth is immobile!
B - The surface of the Earth is flat!

[Saros]

@ Saros, we are comparing 1 h vs 5 days (at least) or even 1 h vs 2 weeks, are you aware of the magnitude of this discrepancy?

I don't follow. Everything related to the lunar phases, orbit, moonrises and moonsets is well explained. Please tell me what exactly you don't understand.

Now, it's my turn to suspect your behaviour as hypocritical...

In order to cover up the truth that the moon (and the sun and stars) daily orbits above the Earth clockwise, liars invented daily counter-clockwise rotation of the Earth, monthly counter-clockwise orbit (and rotation on it's axis) of the Moon around the Earth, as well as annually counter-clockwise revolution of the Earth around the Sun...

...And you came up with this, which by the way is a completely unfounded accusation. Please provide evidence for your claims. Are you a medium? How do you know it is exactly as you say?

My opinion is that the moon completes her daily revolution above the Earth 43 minutes later than the sun...Compare my assertion with this Curious About Astronomy: Why are most months 30 or 31 days long?

Your opinion? So you only have opinions but you're sure science lies. The current explanation provided by science is invalid due to the fact that you have a different opinion. Seriously? Doesn't sound very convincing.

Do you know what is the main heliocentric argument in favor of Earth's rotundity? Alleged rotundity of the Moon and of the Sun! Believe it or not!

That is not the main argument! How about the video footage from space? You can say it is fake, but you don't have any other evidence either. Do you have a photo of the flat Earth from space? Do you have any evidence the Earth is surrounded by an ice rim?

[cikljamas]

Saros, you know very well what the word TROLL means, don't you?

So, i must admit that you had had some brilliant moments from time to time while you participated seriously in this thread, but now all that has left of that brilliance is trolling, what a pity...

Don't you want to be free? But in order to become free you first have to break free your mind, and to be able to break free your mind you have to be person with integrity, and to become person with integrity you first have to be a brave man.

But to become a brave man you have to give some value and purpose to your life, but to make your life worthy of living, you have to be aware of real reality, and of the true trueness of which real reality is consisted, but to be aware of true trueness of real reality you first have to open your eyes...

Otherwise, you keep on living in Truman show, and hopefully, as time goes by, you may even deserve to play major role in this humiliated dystopia which you obviously embrace as your stile of living and ultimate choice of empty values.

But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

You cannot be both, man of truth and man of lies, and unfortunately i already see what is your choice, so be it...

God bless you!

P.S. The best ending ever

[Saros]

Saros, you know very well what the word TROLL means, don't you?

So, i must admit that you had had some brilliant moments from time to time while you participated seriously in this thread, but now all that has left of that brilliance is trolling, what a pity...

Don't you want to be free? But in order to become free you first have to break free your mind, and to be able to break free your mind you have to be person with integrity, and to become person with integrity you first have to be a brave man.

But to become a brave man you have to give some value and purpose to your life, but to make your life worthy of living, you have to be aware of real reality, and of the true trueness of which real reality is consisted, but to be aware of true trueness of real reality you first have to open your eyes...

Otherwise, you keep on living in Truman show, and hopefully, as time goes by, you may even deserve to play major role in this humiliated dystopia which you obviously embrace as your stile of living and ultimate choice of empty values.

But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

You cannot be both, man of truth and man of lies, and unfortunately i already see what is your choice, so be it...

God bless you!

P.S. The best ending ever

Explain to me how come you think you're right, Wild Heretic thinks he is right, and I am a troll just because I don't agree with either of you. Why should I agree with you? By the way, you share diametrically different worldviews, but both act exactly the same way, 100% confident you know the absolute truth, and your belief in the model you have chosen is infallible. You don't have any evidence though. Just empty accusations and claims which under scrutiny turn out to be made up or exaggerated. Moreover, no one else is even bothering to reply here any more, so I cannot be a troll as I keep the discussion going if you haven't noticed that. I cannot imagine how you consider yourself rational and at the same time present youtube videos as evidence!? Tell me how I will become free if I believe in your fictional model? I don't believe in models which are based on nothing, but opinions. I don't have to. I don't even believe in the convex model(no one has expected that from me), but at least it is useful in explaining the observable phenomena pretty well. It is a functioning model. Please explain to me how the FE model explains anything better, because I haven't noticed that so far. By saying that scientists lie you don't make your argument stronger at all.

[cikljamas]

@ Saros, please don't make me laugh!

Now, you are going to see how this whole matter is unbelievably simple:

All i've got to do is to challenge you on one single issue:

1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!

Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!

As simple as that!

I don't even have to do anything more than to prove to you that the Earth doesn't spin on it's "axis", and just for the record: i already have done that.

As soon as it becomes obvious that the Earth is immovable everything else immediately fall to pieces...

[Hrothgar]

Just curious

What is holding up the com satellites or were all those 15ft dishes in peoples yards from 30 years ago just a big hoax?

[ethan]

1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!
Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!

Well there have been numerous people who have gone to space...im sure they all seen the world rotate...but oh I forgot...they are liars.
What do you think their "agenda" would be for creating an entire false universe? What would they have to gain by that?
Its not that hard to go to space, Rocketships are just heavy armored firecrackers.
I don't see why they couldn't possibly leave the atmosphere.

All I need is the water experiment...Honestly if water turned into "plates" mid air I would listen more to what your saying...
But the fact is that gravity makes liquid objects SPHERES.
The core of earth is liquid. The deeper you dig the hotter it gets...
until the drill your digging with...MELTS. (7 mile hole is the deepest we've dug, not humanly capable of going deeper)
It makes perfect sense for a molten earth to be formed into a sphere shape due to the suns gravity.

Nothing as far as I know exists in the natural shape of a "plate". It just makes no logical sense.
Atoms aren't plates. Magnetic fields aren't plates. Why would earth be the only thing different from nature.
Maybe its not different...Maybe earth is a sphere.

@Saros, I gotta give you some credit. You've done a great job of staying neutral in the discussion, as a good scientist should be.

[ethan]

Also...Some Astronauts have come out and said that...aliens are real.

yet none of them have ever said...the earth is flat.

Kinda funny when you think about it.

[Saros]

@ Saros, please don't make me laugh!

Now, you are going to see how this whole matter is unbelievably simple:

All i've got to do is to challenge you on one single issue:

1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!

Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!

As simple as that!

I don't even have to do anything more than to prove to you that the Earth doesn't spin on it's "axis", and just for the record: i already have done that.

As soon as it becomes obvious that the Earth is immovable everything else immediately fall to pieces...

OK, fair enough. Now explain to me how if this is indeed true it proves that the Earth is flat? It doesn't. None of that proves the Earth is flat. It is possible that science is wrong about certain things, but this has to be proven, you know. If you can prove that you might even win a Nobel Prize in physics. By the way, there are experiments proving it spins, but you think they are a hoax. I agree there seems to be no videos showing the Earth spin convincingly though. Also for some reason most videos who supposedly show the Earth from space appear to be CGI. But once again it doesn't prove the Earth is flat. Unless you have better evidence, I don't see how you can prove anything. It is just words and your opinion. The truth is that since you cannot go to space and check yourself you gotta believe in something, but you cannot be certain if you're right. I might be wrong too, but I don't see evidence the Earth is flat, therefore I prefer to stick to the current model even though some aspects of it seem suspicious, at least it is functioning well and explains stuff.