North - South

[aljhoa]

@cikljamas start thinking 3D.

The celestial equator is a great circle on the imaginary celestial sphere, in the same plane as the Earth's equator. In other words, it is a projection of the terrestrial equator out into space.[1] As a result of the Earth's axial tilt, the celestial equator is inclined by 23.4° with respect to the ecliptic plane.

Celestial equator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Celestial sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In astronomy and navigation, the celestial sphere is an imaginary sphere of arbitrarily large radius, concentric with a particular celestial body. All objects in the observer's sky can be thought of as projected upon the inside surface of the celestial sphere, as if it were the underside of a dome or a hemispherical screen. The celestial sphere is a practical tool for spherical astronomy, allowing observers to plot positions of objects in the sky when their distances are unknown or unimportant.



The axis of a planet remains oriented in the same direction with reference to the background stars regardless of where it is in its orbit. Northern hemisphere summer occurs at the right side of this diagram, where the north pole (red) is directed toward the Sun, winter at the left.
Axial tilt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Al

[cikljamas]

Al, it seems that you think that my access to wikipedia is restricted... Well, it is not...

Al, tell me something that i don't know, something new!

[cikljamas]

Stanley Kubrick died 5 days after showing Warner the final cut of Eyes Wide Shut...

Stanley Kubrick and The Saturn Death Cult

The schizophrenia goes on:

In essence, everything hinges on the question of whether or not electricity exists in space. The mainstream view is that it does not; we argue that it does. Everything else flows from that.

What we are attempting to do is bring about a scientific revolution; The Electric Revolution. This Revolution will have as far-reaching consequences as the Copernican revolution, which was also based on one simple idea, is the Earth or the Sun at the centre?

Like the Copernican revolution, the data can be interpreted in both ways; Copernicus did not phrase his argument that the Sun was at the centre; he merely suggested that it was an awful lot easier to interpret the data if, for the sake of calculation alone, one pretended that it was. In the same way, I believe we are essentially suggesting that it’s an awful lot easier to explain the observed behaviour of the universe if one allows electricity to have a role. Yes, you can develop a gravity-only model that gives the right answers, but having to live with 96% of the resulting universe being dark and unobservable is no better than having to have multiple levels of epicycles to explain the planetary motions around the earth.

That’s why it’s so simple. Just assume electricity is there and it all becomes a whole lot easier.”
—Bob Johnson

Read more: The Simple Electric Universe | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

[aljhoa]

Al, tell me something that i don't know,

Shining Stars i.e. Suns "Running in Circles" Above Equator of the Flat Earth Create a "Taurus".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...JA4EFJn4#t=346

Torus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A diagram of Earth’s location in the Universe in a series of eight maps that show from left to right, starting with the Earth, moving to the Solar System, onto the Solar Interstellar Neighborhood, onto the Milky Way, onto the Local Galactic Group, onto the Virgo Supercluster, onto our local superclusters, and finishing at the observable Universe.
File:Earth's Location in the Universe SMALLER (JPEG).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








Al

[cikljamas]

Although the United States does not officially define a boundary of space, the U.S. definition of an astronaut, which is still held today, is a person who has flown more than 50 miles (~80 km) above mean sea level. (This is approximately the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere.) This definition of an astronaut had been somewhat controversial, due to differing definitions between the United States military and NASA.[8]

International law defines the lower boundary of space as the lowest perigee attainable by an orbiting space vehicle, but does not specify an altitude. Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is approximately 150 km (90 mi), whereas an object can maintain an elliptical orbit with perigee as low as about 130 km (80 mi) with propulsion. Above altitudes of approximately 160 km (100 mi) the sky is completely black.

The thermosphere extends from an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) to between 200 miles (320 km) and 375 miles (600 km). The temperature increases with altitude from about *130/ F (*90/ C) to the thermopause where the maximum temperature occurs. The maximum temperature is about 2,960/ F (1,475/ C) during the day and about 440/ F (225/ C). U.S. astronaut wings are awarded to anyone who travels to an altitude of 50 miles or higher, regardless of whether they completed an orbit of the Earth. At an altitude above 60 miles (100 km) wings and other lift and control surfaces no longer work since the atmosphere is too thin to generate lift and aerodynamic stabilization. This is an area of complete silence outside the craft because the atmosphere is too thin to carry sound waves. All but one *millionth of the atmosphere lies below 60 miles altitude. An altitude of 93 miles (150 km) is the lowest altitude at which a satellite in a circular orbit can orbit the Earth for at least one revolution without propulsion. At this altitude it takes 87.5 minutes to complete one revolution of Earth. This altitude is the most commonly accepted definition of where space begins but it is not explicitly stated in any treaty or international agreement. An altitude of 80 miles (129 km) is about the lowest altitude (perigee) at which a satellite in an elliptical orbit can pass through the Earth's atmosphere and still remain in orbit. At an altitude of approximately 100 miles (160 km) the sky is totally black. Stars do flicker and the area between stars is black since there is not enough air to scatter light rays.



At about 85km altitude temperatures start to rise until they hit the Kármán line which is 100km high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 200km whereby it starts to level off, although other sources say it continually rises. Temperatures can vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as… wait for it… 2 500 degree C.

We are told most satellites orbit the Earth at altitudes of over 500km to avoid atmospheric drag, with a few circling in Medium Earth Orbit which goes up to 35,786km!

Excuse number one comes from a few websites such as Wikipedia who wish to insult our intelligence to the max. Here is the main explanation for why satellites aren’t converted into man-made meteorites:

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2500°C (4530°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

Errr… wait a minute. I thought it is the sun that causes those few atoms of gas to heat up to 2500°C? Oh, it is.

Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation.

So, we can't see it (the Sun), but we can feel it??? Weird, ain't it?

And now, something completely consistent with NASA modus operandi:

Must See: 9/11 and flight 175

Totally trustworthy Totally trustworthy!!!

Al, why don't you show me some more convincing photos made by NASA?

[Saros]

Yeah, cikljamas! The thermosphere and the resulting satellite nonsense is indeed a very intriguing topic. How does it fit within the flat earth model though? Why is the temperature increasing? Is it because we're getting increasingly closer to the Sun? Also, could you please explain the day/night cycle within the flat Earth model?

[aljhoa]

So, we can't see it (the Sun), but we can feel it??? Weird, ain't it?

And now, something completely consistent with NASA modus operandi:

Must See: 9/11 and flight 175

Totally trustworthy Totally trustworthy!!!

Al, why don't you show me some more convincing photos made by NASA?

@cikljamas
First, you are posting in the Renewable Energy forum.
Second, the subject of your thread is North – South
Third, your thread belongs in the General Discussion.
Forth, you don’t do your homework e.g. Must See: 9/11 and flight 175
Five, "you are still on the flat earth."


Al

[cikljamas]

Hi Saros, welcome to energetic forum, glad to see you here!

First of all, allow me to summarize arguments against Earth's rotation hoax theory:

1. Imagine that we live in the house placed in the North Pole region, or that we fix the web cam on the roof of our northern house and direct it (web ca,) to the sun.

What would happen?

For several summer months the sun would change it's position in the sky very slowly (due to Earth's orbital motion), but in this period of time sun wouldn't change noticeably it's position in the sky due to Earth's daily-rotational motion, in other words we wouldn't be able to notice sun's daily circular path across the sky because we would stand directly in the line with Earth's axis, which means: our northern house wouldn't make any circle at all or in the worst case it would make such a small circle (if we were somewhat out of straight Earth's axis line) that it couldn't have any such effect which could yield any noticeable sun's parallax in the sky.

Sun would be practically immovable spot in the sky (just like stars are).

Why don't we have until this day any such video which could easily prove Earth's daily rotation?

Because the Earth is not revolving at all, and because the Earth's surface is flatly flat!

2. If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?

Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.

If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.

How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???

3. If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating-static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?

If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist.

If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth (i.e., from west to east in direction), an airplane would have to travel much faster to fly from Los Angeles to Miami than from Miami to Los Angeles. And the required speed to fly west-to-east at cities close to the equator would be much greater than speed needed to go from, say, Toronto to Moscow (since the Earth’s speed of rotation closer to the North Pole would be less than farther to the south).

If the atmosphere were static then we would have opposite situation, it would be almost impossible to fly west to east, and it would be too easy (and twice faster then it is on the immovable Earth) to fly east to west.

4. If the Earth were suffering a daily rotation it would generate an incredible deflection on all flying matters in air atmosphere. 5) The inertial motion is terminated in air atmosphere, and thus all dropped objects should land behind their starting positions on a rotating Earth.

5. THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

6. To be pression or to be gravity? The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness.

7. True vs False Path of the Sun (thanks to Wild Heretic)

8. NO CAUSE OF EARTH'S ROTATION WHATSOEVER: retains the state of illusion. The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis. What is the cause of Earth’s rotation? No one has attributed the cause of Earth’s rotation to any type of action or force even though they have attributed the cause of orbital motion (revolution) to Newton’s law of gravity.

9. NO CAUSE OF THE ROTATION OF THE AIR-LAYER: 2) The rotation of the air-layer next to the rigid Earth is without cause, and lacks a technique and tool. Perhaps, one may envision the whole rigid sphere undergoes a rotation about its polar axis. But, how one can envision the air atmosphere (the surface layer) rotates with the rigid sphere without an engineering method (e.g.air foil). In addition, what maintains the air’s rotation for tens of thousands of years (we are practical people) without stop. The rotation of the background air is the greatest hoax ever invented by mankind.

If there is no Earth axial or orbital motion, we have to accept flat earth model because all geocentric as well as concave-earth models () are stupid and impossible (in reality) models!

In addition i would remind us to this marvellous excerpt from mr. Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe":

It will be seen also by reference to the diagram that when the sun is on the outer path, A, the portion of the disc of light which passes over England is much smaller than when it is on the inner path, B. Hence, the short days and winter season from the first position, and the longer days and summer season from the second. Thus day and night, long and short days and nights, morning and evening twilight, winter and summer, the long periods of alternate light and darkness at the northern or polar centre of the earth, arise from the expansion and contraction of the sun's path, and are all a part of one and the same general phenomenon.

The whole of these explanations have reference only to the region between the sun and the northern centre. It is evident that in the great encircling oceans of the south, and the numerous islands and parts of continents, which exist beyond that part of the earth where the sun is vertical, cannot have their days and nights, seasons, &c., precisely like those in the northern region. The north is a centre, and the south is that centre radiated or thrown out to a vast oceanic circumference, terminating in circular walls of ice, which form an impenetrable frozen barrier. Hence the phenomena referred to as existing in the north must be considerably modified in the south, For instance, the north being central, the light of the sun advancing and receding, gives long periods of alternate light and darkness at the actual centre; but in the far south, the sun, even when moving in his outer path, can only throw its light to a certain distance, beyond which there must be perpetual darkness. No evidence exists of there being long periods of light and darkness regularly alternating, as in the north. In the north, in summer-time, when the sun is moving in its inner path, the light shines continually for months together over the central region, and rapidly develops numerous forms of animal and vegetable life.

Thus it is a well ascertained fact that the constant sunlight of the north develops, with the utmost rapidity, numerous forms of vegetable life, and furnishes subsistence for millions of living creatures. But in the south, where the sunlight never dwells, or lingers about a central region, but rapidly sweeps over sea and land, to complete in twenty-four hours the great circle of the southern circumference, it has not time to excite and stimulate the surface; and, therefore, even in comparatively low southern latitudes, everything wears an aspect of desolation.

See also first post - page 2 - twilight experience comparison (England vs New Zealand)

Read more: CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, WINTER AND SUMMER; AND THE LONG ALTERNATIONS OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS AT THE NORTHERN CENTRE.

@ Aljhoa, for those renewable energy guys who went astray to general discussion: Interview with Nikola Tesla from 1899

Rare Snowden Interview Blacked Out By Media

Yeah, cikljamas! The thermosphere and the resulting satellite nonsense is indeed a very intriguing topic. How does it fit within the flat earth model though?

Perfectly!

Why is the temperature increasing? Is it because we're getting increasingly closer to the Sun?

Could be, what do you think?

Also, could you please explain the day/night cycle within the flat Earth model?

See above

Cheers!

[aljhoa]

If a "moon & sun" are under a "glass dome", why an astronaut wears a space suite?



Secrets of the moon - Aliens claim rights to our moon!

Secret Space Program |


Al

[Saros]

If a "moon & sun" are under a "glass dome", why an astronaut wears a space suite?



Secrets of the moon - Aliens claim rights to our moon!

Secret Space Program |


Al

Personally, I am not sure astronauts ever set foot on the Moon or even managed to get into space.

[Saros]

Cikljamas,

Thank you for your extensive response. I'm actually pretty much familiar with the evidence. It is indeed quite interesting.

However, does the flat Earth model provide any explanation as to why the Moon appears upside down in the Southern Hemisphere? I am kind of stuck on that one. If the surface is flat why is the Moon upside down? What do you think?

[cikljamas]

Cikljamas,

Thank you for your extensive response. I'm actually pretty much familiar with the evidence. It is indeed quite interesting.

You welcome!

However, does the flat Earth model provide any explanation as to why the Moon appears upside down in the Southern Hemisphere? I am kind of stuck on that one. If the surface is flat why is the Moon upside down? What do you think?

To be honest, never heard of it...

However, have you ever think about this:

[IMG][/IMG]

EXPLANATION

the new moon occurs when the moon is positioned between the earth and sun...Most people will be mystified if you ask them where to look for a full moon or a new moon. If you understand the geometry of the illumination, the answer is obvious. A new moon must rise and set with the Sun. A full moon must rise around sunset and set around sunrise.

So, New Moon you can exclusively see between 9 a.m. and 3 p. m.
It means you can't see New Moon in the night, right?
If so, someone has to be able to explain these photographs:
PanSTARRS comet: Remarkable time-lapse video captures comet's trek across skies of Georgia | Mail Online

But, since there is whole bunch of pictures like this, our deluded scientist tried to explain it by totally preposterous theory so called "the reflection of a reflection"!?!?!? Bear in mind that we "can't see" New Moon in the night sky!!!

Many have laboured hard to make it appear that these phenomena are the result of what they have assumed to be light reflected from the earth--"Earth light," "the reflection of a reflection." The sun's light thrown back from the moon to the earth and returned from the earth to the moon! It seems never to have occurred to these "students of imagination" that this so-called "earth-light" is most intense when the moon is youngest, and therefore illuminates the earth the least. When the operating cause is least intense, the effect is much the greatest.

How about this (lunar eclipses whilst the sun is still above the horizon):

"In the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590; November 3rd, 1648; June 16th, 1666; and May 26th, 1668; the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still apparently above the horizon. Those horizontal eclipses were noticed as early as the time of Pliny." On the 17th of January, 1870, a similar phenomenon occurred; .and again in July of the same year.


Now we have another exotic explanation of insane scientist so called "refraction of the earth's atmosphere":

The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards--thus proving that if refraction operated at all, it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth's shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon's surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility.

Full Moon and Sun - same side of the Earth:







Bonus photo: http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net...ce-photo-2.jpg

AGAINST EARTH'S ORBITAL MOTION 1

AGAINST EARTH'S ORBITAL MOTION 2

Earth's surface is flat, so every phenomenon have to be in accordance with this fact. If the Moon is really upside down in the southern hemisphere we have to be able to harmonize it with FET. Defending true scientific facts we should not have fear of dealing with any possible question, no matter how hard it could be. I just have to admit that so far i haven't had any notion about this particular phenomena but i am still willing to examine it... For the beginning you could contribute by presenting some more details about the issue that you've just put forward...

Cheers!

[Saros]

The Moon below the Equator

Why do the constellations and the Moon appear upside down from the Southern Hemisphere?

Stand on your head to see my Moon

[cikljamas]

@ Saros, i would say this is a hoax...

First example - picture taken from Huston Texas (NORTHERN HEMISPHERE):



Video from which above picture has been taken out:

UPSIDE DOWN MOON UNKNOWN MOON PHASE

Second example - picture taken from Zagreb Croatia (NORTHERN HEMISPHERE TOO)



Video from which above picture has been taken out:

Moon in front of clouds Croatia April 15th 2014.

This has reminded me of these funny argument (another widely well known hoax) that you can find in post #6 written by Hrothgar:

I know the earth spins due to one simple test. Pull the plug on your drain and watch which direction the water swirls. If your in the north it will drain counter clockwise, in the south clockwise.

My answer to these funny argument was:

http://www.energeticforum.com/255833-post7.html

Did you see this (Hilarious - must see):

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

Hoaxes are in the air everywhere i look around

[Saros]

Cikljamas,

I am a bit disappointed with your reply. What is a hoax?

Anyone in the Southern hemisphere can confirm the Moon is upside down in comparison to what we see in the Northern hemisphere.

I asked you this question, because I don't see how it fits within the flat Earth model. What makes it suddenly flip?

I am sure you can come up with a better explanation, but please don't tell me something that can be observed by millions is a hoax. Ask anyone who lives south of the equator to confirm this if you don't believe me.

This doesn't necessarily deny the flat Earth, but I just don't know how to explain it. Maybe there is a way to rationalize it.

Your pictures are funny. I also live on the planet Earth, and I have been looking at the Moon forever. It is always the same pattern, and it has never been upside down in the Northern hemisphere when it is full moon.

By the way you should know that if you take a photo through a telescope it is upside down. That is not the case here. In the southern hemisphere it is observed upside down with the naked eye!

As for the Moon in front of the clouds. You cannot be serious? Have you been on a plane above the clouds? Have you seen the Moon? Please I thought you're not trolling and now it actually seems you're. I challenge you to suggest another explanation, because right now it doesn't make sense.