North - South

[aljhoa]

In addition try to explain away more than two hours difference between duration of June sunlight in London and December sunlight in Buenos Aires (southern counterpart latitude (to London's latitude)):


How in the world anyone can explain these two hours difference by using model of round spinning earth?

It is your choice: whom are you going to believe: scientists or yourself (your own common sense)?

If you are still afraid to choose your own common sense instead of blind belief in scientific dogma (which is mostly monstrous hoax and insult for human intellect) then my only advice to you would be: take time to learn how to think independently (out of the box), take time to find enough courage to believe yourself rather than anyone else, especially if "anyone else" means "frauds and liars"!

51°30′N 0°08′W London England United Kingdom
34°36′S 58°23′W Buenos Aires Argentina
51°42′S 57°52′W Stanley Falkland Islands United Kingdom
List of cities by latitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunrise and Sunset for United Kingdom – England – London – coming days
Sunrise and Sunset for Falkland Islands – Stanley – December 2014

run in circles
1. Lit. to run in a circular path.
2. and run around in circles Fig. to waste one's time in aimless activity. Stop running in circles and try to organize yourself so that you are more productive. I have been running around in circles over this matter for days.
run in circles - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Running in circles United Pursuit Band lyrics - YouTube

Al

[Saros]

T
If you are still afraid to choose your own common sense instead of blind belief in scientific dogma (which is mostly monstrous hoax and insult for human intellect) then my only advice to you would be: take time to learn how to think independently (out of the box), take time to find enough courage to believe yourself rather than anyone else, especially if "anyone else" means "frauds and liars"!

You know very well that you're trolling but pretend really hard to hide it by being serious while presenting ridiculous arguments(if I am wrong, I am sorry). I don't believe you're serious, because obviously you're smarter than that. Actually, your posts seem to be written by a pathological liar. You're talking about common sense, but showing none at all. Everyone knows that the day and the night are 12 hours each only twice per year during the spring and fall equinoxes in the northern and the southern hemispheres. What you're doing is not thinking outside the box but fantasizing and living in a dream world. On top of that with no first-hand evidence whatsoever this is just philosophy and fiction, plus the so-called understanding of this concept is totally useless. It doesn't have any practical applications. I told you, the only way for flat Earth to be true is if all celestial bodies are fake and don't really exist. If you provided some meaningful evidence I might have considered your point of view, but since you're just trolling and giving me ridiculous arguments I have no choice but disregard the notion.

[cikljamas]

You know very well that you're trolling but ....

Oh, yeah, my apology, i just have forgotten for the moment to take in account that holly grail of heliocentric maniacs: Earth's axial tilt...Rory, Rory, how come you forgot it too?

But, let see something about that stinky heliocentric holly grail:

Why doesn't the latest sunset fall on the longest day of the year?

Dr Fred Watson answers:

In essence, it all comes down to how we measure time.

As a rule the sun isn't a very reliable time keeper, Watson points out, mainly because the Earth orbits the sun in an elliptical pattern, running faster when it is closest to the sun in January and slower when it is furthest away from the sun in July.

"It's slightly faster in [the Southern Hemisphere] summer than in our winter," says Watson.



Yeah, right, only it is not the Earth which orbits the sun faster, but contrary it is the sun that orbits the Earth faster, and that is only possible convincing explanation and reasonable answer to above question.

That is why we are not surprised at all to see the comment of dr Watson's explanation like this:

Alan Cooper :

I believe that if you asked him to compare the magnitudes of the two effects mentioned, Dr Watson would agree that the difference between solar time and clock time due to the geometric effect of the tilted axis is actually greater than that due to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. So the reference to the earth speeding up and slowing down as the major factor in the successively delayed times of sunrise is in fact a bit misleading.

Dr Watson just couldn't use "Earth's axis tilt" argument in this particular case, although he couldn't use Flat Earth hypothesis as an argument too, so he left his readers unsatisfied and pissed off (with very good reason) ...

We are going to remind our readers once again of some very important facts:

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...

Some have objected to the conclusion here drawn, on the ground that the latitude of New Zealand is considerably less than that of England; but the objection falls before. the fact that the abruptness of twilight and the coldness. of the summer nights are observed far out south beyond New Zealand. The author cannot here quote from any recognized work, but he has often been assured that this, is the common experience of navigators, and especially of whaling crews, who often wander over the vast waters beyond the latitude of 50 degrees. A remarkable illustration of this experience occurred some years ago in Liverpool. At the termination of a lecture, in which this subject had been discussed, a sailor requested leave to speak, and gave the following story:--

"I was once confined on an island in South Tasmania, and had long been very anxious to escape; one morning I saw a whaling vessel in the offing, and being a good swimmer, I dashed into the sea to reach it. Being observed from the ship, a boat was sent out to pick me up. Immediately I got on board, we sailed away directly southwards. There happened to be a scarcity of hands, and I being able-bodied, was at once put to work. In the evening I was ordered aloft, and the captain cried out 'Be quick, Jack, or you'll be in the dark!' Now the sun was shining brightly, and it seemed far from the time of sunset, and I remember well that I looked at the captain, thinking he must be a little the worse for grog. However, I went aloft, and before I had finished the order, which was a very short time, I was in pitch darkness,--the sun seemed all at once to drop behind or below the sea. I noticed this all the time we were in the far south, whenever the sun was visible and the evening fine; and I only mention it now as corroborating the lecturer's statement. Any mariner, who has been a single season in the southern whaling grounds, will tell you the same thing."

In addition, one thing that you surely didn't know about Earth's axial tilt nonsense:

It goes without saying that, besides being a chronicle of ancient events, the Bible offers a wealth of profound wisdom, solace, and spiritual guidance to countless people. Unfortunately for those with analytical minds, it also presents a maze of contradictions, incongruities, discrepancies, and a host of things which simply do not add up. This has resulted in argument, bitter recrimination and in some cases outright hostility between those who take the Bible's doctrines literally, and those who require cold, unambiguous logic.

But then there are those, taking into account all available data, try very hard to equate Biblical reference with contemporary scientific rationale. Particularly in the case of the Book of Genesis.

Which brings us to George Francis Dodwell (1879-1963) BA, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, Government Astronomer for South Australia from 1909 to 1952 and a valued member of ASSA for over 40 years including its presidency. He was also a nephew of Sir Frank Watson Dyson KBE FRS who was Astronomer Royal for Scotland (1905-10) and for England (1910-33).

Additional to this illustrious background, those who knew him (including a few present-day members) will attest that George Dodwell, besides being likeable and friendly, was an intelligent, extremely scientifically informed gentleman.

And in a professionally-written, logically set out, painstakingly researched and wonderfully detailed manuscript – running to some 400 closely-typed foolscap-sized pages – entitled "The Obliquity Of The Ecliptic", Mr Dodwell expounds his unequivocal conviction that the Great Flood (vide Noah), lacking not one iota of its original Biblical detail, took place as recently as 2345 BC.

And not only that. The event, he insists with unshakeable confidence, was responsible for altering the axial tilt of the Earth from its former 5 degree to its present 23.5 degrees. These conclusions are no less than incredible, especially in the climate of the scientific understanding of his day (he died only six years before the Moon landing ) and his impeccable scientific credentials.

By any standards, nonetheless, his arguments and supporting data are persuasive, and were it not for generally accepted alternative evidence, even convincing. In his research he discovered that the record of ancient and medieval observations of the obliquity of the ecliptic (the axial tilt of the Earth) did not tally with the accepted 'Newcomb Formula' and set out on a voyage of investigation to find the reasons for the discrepancies. In short, with enormous patience and single-minded diligence, he started from scratch. Nor did he allow himself to leave any stone unturned. In his manuscript he cites the Egyptian Dynasties, the Aztec Empire and Stonehenge among many other references; his tenacity and apparent logic are irreproachable.

And it's all there, in its detailed glory, for anyone with the time, the patience, the fortitude and an open mind to examine at the Mortlock Library, Adelaide. Mr Dodwell also sent a copy of his manuscript to the Royal Society but this august body decided against publication on the grounds that 'errors of ancient observations needed further discussion'. And so far as I know, there the matter ended.

Which was a great pity. The manuscript represented nearly thirty years of painstaking hard work and whether his conclusions were astonishingly right or shatteringly wrong, they were remarkable enough to deserve an airing.

Whatever may be the outcome will remain to be seen, but there is plenty of precedent for the ultimate success of theories that appeared inconclusive when first formulated. Take Copernicus, for example.

We have no way of knowing how the future will change our thinking but, who knows, the inestimable George Francis Dodwell's beliefs may yet be vindicated, dramatically changing our scientific direction...

Stranger things have happened...

The greatest cover-up would be one nobody would believe nor consider to be a cover-up! It would consist of a fact everybody considers to be true, yet would be the greatest lie ever told, in plain sight. In other words, if you would try to expose it to people, they would snicker and laugh you to scorn, as they are taught to consider the skeptics stupid or uneducated dupes!

[Saros]

OK, you have provided some perhaps good evidence. I will look through it and let you know. You're probably a true believer in this, but I just don't get it how come you're so confident even though you might very well be wrong too. It is a bit fanatical. Not to mention that if it is flat you would encounter a whole bunch of other issues to explain like what is beyond the ice ring and so on...I am convinced convex Earth has been proven much more categorically than flat Earth. That is why it is currently the accepted model. By the way, I am not a proponent of heliocentrism, but it makes much more sense for the Earth to be a sphere, as we have lunar eclipses, sun eclipses etc. The Earth might theoretically be static though, but it doesn't mean it is flat automatically. During lunar eclipses you could clearly see the Earth's shadow covering the Moon's disc. It could be another body, but no evidence has been found that it is so. Anyway, thank you trying to convince me. I appreciate your effort, sorry for saying you're a troll, but you do act like one especially when you make mistakes and pretend you're right, and then admit you were wrong.

[cikljamas]

OK, you have provided some perhaps good evidence. I will look through it and let you know. You're probably a true believer in this, but I just don't get it how come you're so confident even though you might very well be wrong too. It is a bit fanatical.

As Wild Heretic would say: Experiments Saros, experiments!!! What do i mean? Here it is:

I am convinced convex Earth has been proven much more categorically than flat Earth.

Why wouldn't you just read through this whole thread once again (step by step - post by post), but this time really carefully?

That is why it is currently the accepted model.

No it is not, this is why it is currently the accepted model:

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

By the way, I am not a proponent of heliocentrism, but it makes much more sense for the Earth to be a sphere, as we have lunar eclipses, sun eclipses etc. The Earth might theoretically be static though, but it doesn't mean it is flat automatically.

It doesn't mean it is flat automatically, but it is flat for another reasons! Absolutely plain surfaces of the oceans, lakes, rivers and other waters on the plain surface of the earth are the best proofs for FET!

Anyway, thank you trying to convince me.

You welcome!

Anyway, thank you trying to convince me.

No, no, i make mistakes (and when i realize them, i promptly admit them), but i never pretend!

@ Saros, one final advice: just look up to sky (towards the sun) (the best time is one hour or so before the sunset) (wear sunglasses) for a second, or for a fraction of a second and answer to yourself (not to anyone else - it's dangerous these days - beware of spanish inquisition) is this celestial object (the sun) 150 000 000 km away?

And if you really want to be honest towards yourself (not towards anyone else - it's dangerous these days as i have said) try to answer once again (but absolutely sincerely this time) to yourself, not to anyone else to this question:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256172-post44.html

Giving to yourself one and only possible right answer to that question you will also enable yourself (finally) to see through the black curtain - the greatest deception in the history of mankind!

God bless you!

P.S. God (Bible) can't be wrong!

[Saros]

I agree that the ocean surface doesn't make sense to be curved at all(at least from a common sense point of view), and it hasn't been shown categorically that it is either. I agree that the Earth most likely doesn't spin as this cannot be experienced by anyone, anywhere. Moreover, how high do we need to fly in order to actually see it spinning? I agree with you on those. About the Sun being 150 million km away, I agree it is suspicious too. Especially considering the fact that the Sun and the Moon somehow both share a similar size in the sky. I agree that more evidence is needed to support convex Earth and the debate shouldn't be considered finished. However, provided we don't have any firm scientific evidence of the contrary, we must be very careful before making bold, unverified statements. The flat Earth model should first explain every single phenomenon the same way the convex model has done. Then I am sure if it were done it would be accepted even by science, but it has to be done in a proper scientific manner and not in a forum, but at a university or a research institute accompanied with the necessary math etc. You will still find it difficult to convince the world that organizations like NASA and the other space agencies are all lying though.
Same is true for Wild Heretic and his attempts to prove concave Earth. It all sounds very interesting, but when it comes to the exact details you and him fail at some point. You should be able to convince even the biggest skeptics if you're really right. That is not easy at all. But if people don't buy it, then I guess something is wrong with the way you present your arguments. By the way, why exactly you deny the concave Earth model? Wild Heretic claims it is undeniable truth. Do you see the similarity between you two?

[cikljamas]

I agree that the ocean surface doesn't make sense to be curved at all(at least from a common sense point of view), and it hasn't been shown categorically that it is either. I agree that the Earth most likely doesn't spin as this cannot be experienced by anyone, anywhere. Moreover, how high do we need to fly in order to actually see it spinning? I agree with you on those. About the Sun being 150 million km away, I agree it is suspicious too. Especially considering the fact that the Sun and the Moon somehow both share a similar size in the sky. I agree that more evidence is needed to support convex Earth and the debate shouldn't be considered finished. However, provided we don't have any firm scientific evidence of the contrary, we must be very careful before making bold, unverified statements. The flat Earth model should first explain every single phenomenon the same way the convex model has done. Then I am sure if it were done it would be accepted even by science, but it has to be done in a proper scientific manner and not in a forum, but at a university or a research institute accompanied with the necessary math etc. You will still find it difficult to convince the world that organizations like NASA and the other space agencies are all lying though.
Same is true for Wild Heretic and his attempts to prove concave Earth. It all sounds very interesting, but when it comes to the exact details you and him fail at some point. You should be able to convince even the biggest skeptics if you're really right. That is not easy at all. But if people don't buy it, then I guess something is wrong with the way you present your arguments. By the way, why exactly you deny the concave Earth model? Wild Heretic claims it is undeniable truth. Do you see the similarity between you two?

I have no intention to convince the world, if i can't convince you what are my chances to convince the world?

I am not genius, i am average guy, but i am not stupid either, and you know it...

But if i convinced you my efforts would pay off, don't you think so?

If people don't buy it and my arguments are valid then i guess people are stupid, if people don't buy it and my arguments are not valid then i guess people are smart.

Now, seriously: it is about religion, not about science, that is the root of all major problems in today's world!

Julian Huxley (grandson of Darwin's bulldog T.H.Huxley) at centennial celebration in Chicago 1959. proclaimed:

Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself. This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. . . .In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. . . .Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.

Contrary to above horrific example of repugnant degeneration of human mind and soul i would like to remind us to marvelous wise words of great english righter and philosopher G.K.Chesterton:

‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws...‘If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a stepmother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.’ READ MORE: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’

What Jim Tour, Ph.D., a professor at Rice University, who is ranked in the top ten most cited chemists in the world has to say about evolution: James Tour at Georgia Tech

Dawkins straightened out - hilarious

PILTDOWN MAN VS ECLIPSE OF 1919 WHICH MADE EINSTEIN, EINSTEIN - WHICH ONE IS THE GREATEST HOAX OF 20th-CENTURY SCIENCE?



There is no science in today's science!!!

After reading Behe's "Darwin's black box" no reasonable man can remain evolutionist!

Naming Darwin’s Black Box to the National Review’s list of the 100 most important nonfiction works of the twentieth century, George Gilder wrote that it “overthrows Darwin at the end of the twentieth century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning.” Discussing the book in The New Yorker in May 2005, H. Allen Orr said of Behe, “he is the most prominent of the small circle of scientists working on intelligent design, and his arguments are by far the best known.” From one end of the spectrum to the other, Darwin’s Black Box has established itself as the key text in the Intelligent Design movement—the one argument that must be addressed in order to determine whether Darwinian evolution is sufficient to explain life as we know it, or not.

After reading Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe" no reasonable man can remain round earther!

So, read the book ("Earth, not a globe"), don't read just reviews because all of them are absolutely deceptive!

[Saros]

So what do you think about the Concave Earth explanation supplied by Wild Heretic? Why do you think it can't be true? He is very convinced it is correct, and just like you provides a ton of proven facts. But you guys both have certain phenomena left unexplained. I see that currently flat earthers, for instance, don't know what causes the lunar eclipses. How can you be sure the model is correct if you have so many unknowns? What if people really went into space? How can you be 100% sure all, absolutely all pictures are fake? I understand that the whole thing is suspicious, but I find it achieavable to reach at least the altitude reached by Felix Baumgartner. Also, if you really want to convince people, why don't all flat Earthers organize and try to reach the ice rim, and find out if there is a such a thing or not? It is not that hard.

[aljhoa]

Also, if you really want to convince people, why don't all flat Earthers organize and try to reach the ice rim, and find out if there is a such a thing or not? It is not that hard.

@cikljamas, the proof of the Flat Earth can be found in the link provided.



Sky Mapping


Al

[cikljamas]

Or to put it straighter: If the moon is a sphere and the earth is a sphere too, and the moon is orbiting the earth due to earth's gravitational field, and if earth's gravitational field is the main reason for the fact that we always see just one side of the moon, then someone HAVE TO EXPLAIN DUE TO WHAT KIND OF MIRACULOUS FORCE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL PULL ALLOWS SUCH ASTONISHING MOON'S ACTION?

WHATEVER THIS MIRACULOUS FORCE IS, FLIPPING MOON (BY ITSELF) IS A VERY STRONG PROOF AGAINST HELIOCENTRICITY AS WELL AS AGAINST GEOCENTRICITY (WHICH IGNORES UNAVOIDABLE FLAT EARTH FACTS)!

That is why main stream maniacs absolutely ignore so well documented fact that the moon is flipping over!!!

And it is absolutely irrelevant if these moon's flips happen on the regular basis (or even all the time since God created the universe) or if it have begun to happen just recently, in both cases it is impossible to harmonize moon's flips over with heliocentric (or geocentric without FET) fraud!!!

That's small heliocentric and geocentric flaw with respect to my newest discovery which is going to blow your mind:




Let's point up the crucial assertion from another source:

Since the rotational period is exactly the same as the orbital period, the same portion of the Moon's sphere is always facing the Earth.

According to one another source:

In other words, it takes the Moon the same amount of time to rotate around once as it does for the Moon to go around the Earth once. Therefore, Earth-bound observers can never see the 'far-side' of the Moon.

So, every time (monthly) when sidereal revolution of the Moon is completed Moon should stop to rotate on it's axis (EDITED) for two days in order to show the same face to spectators on the Earth, otherwise every month Moon would reveal more and more of his hidden side and through 14 months we could survey entire surface of Moon's spherical body.

SINCE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN WE MUST CONCLUDE:

1. THERE IS NO ROTATION OF THE MOON ON IT'S AXIS
2. IF 1 (see above) THEN HELIOCENTRIC THEORY IS FALSE BECAUSE WE DO SEE ALWAYS THE SAME FACE OF THE MOON.
3. IF 1 (see above) THEN GEOCENTRIC THEORY IS FALSE TOO FOR THE SAME (see number 2) REASON.

So what do you think about the Concave Earth explanation supplied by Wild Heretic? Why do you think it can't be true? He is very convinced it is correct, and just like you provides a ton of proven facts. But you guys both have certain phenomena left unexplained. I see that currently flat earthers, for instance, don't know what causes the lunar eclipses. How can you be sure the model is correct if you have so many unknowns? What if people really went into space? How can you be 100% sure all, absolutely all pictures are fake? I understand that the whole thing is suspicious, but I find it achieavable to reach at least the altitude reached by Felix Baumgartner.

@ Saros, scroll up to post #92 and watch again all three videos, first two videos totally destroy Wild Heretic wild dreams about concave earth. Wild Heretic have tried to ridicule third video (aviation pt2) but he can't neither refute arguments presented in that video.

Secondly, advocating his funny theory Wild Heretic uses many quotes from Rowbotham's "Earth, not a globe", but it is so ridiculous, as if i would use quotes from Bible to refute existence of God.

Also, if you really want to convince people, why don't all flat Earthers organize and try to reach the ice rim, and find out if there is a such a thing or not? It is not that hard.

@ Al, this video is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zQA5-gJx1U

[Saros]

About the Moon, the whole rotation thing is very fishy. I don't believe tidal forces would synchronize its rotation so precisely.

Wild Heretic, indeed uses Rowbotham's work to prove Concave Earth, which I agree is extremely pathetic, and your analogy is quite fitting.

I wish we could research/discuss the Earth shape issue though, instead of being fanatical and extreme in our views. Wild Heretic doesn't accept other opinions as if concave Earth is 100% fact and his two funny experiments prove it all. You kind of act the same in your stubbornness. Why is it so difficult to keep your options open and just research before forming a strong opinion about something? After all, we can't possibly know the true shape. All we can know is that perhaps something is not right in the official explanation. In my book, a perfectly correct model doesn't exist yet, and it has to be presented and proven. Perhaps the flat Earth model is closer to the truth, I don't know for sure yet.

[aljhoa]

51°30′N 0°08′W London England United Kingdom
34°36′S 58°23′W Buenos Aires Argentina
51°42′S 57°52′W Stanley Falkland Islands United Kingdom
List of cities by latitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunrise and Sunset for United Kingdom – England – London – coming days
Sunrise and Sunset for Falkland Islands – Stanley – December 2014

@cikljamas as always you are "running in circles",
you ignore the proofs
or can't grasp them.

Going back,
on your flat map of the UN (where the sun runs in circles above the equator) and
one lap represents 24 hours;
show the calculations that determine the length of day for London and Stanley of Falkland Islands.

You can use the following or whatever is easier for you.
Angular velocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proportionality (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[cikljamas]

Wild Heretic, indeed uses Rowbotham's work to prove Concave Earth, which I agree is extremely pathetic, and your analogy is quite fitting.

I wish we could research/discuss the Earth shape issue though, instead of being fanatical and extreme in our views. Wild Heretic doesn't accept other opinions as if concave Earth is 100% fact and his two funny experiments prove it all. You kind of act the same in your stubbornness. Why is it so difficult to keep your options open and just research before forming a strong opinion about something? After all, we can't possibly know the true shape. All we can know is that perhaps something is not right in the official explanation. In my book, a perfectly correct model doesn't exist yet, and it has to be presented and proven. Perhaps the flat Earth model is closer to the truth, I don't know for sure yet.

Yeah, your are right, you are smart guy, that is why i was so delighted when you joined to the energetic forum.

There is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis, and we know it on the basis of many experiments which have proved beyond any reasonable doubt the true fact of Earth's immobility.

If the Earth is immobile then the Moon has to be much closer to be able to orbit Earth with moderate speed, but if it comes close enough to the Earth then everything else (all other celestial bodies) have to come close enough to the Earth too...

Then geocentrists have to face next issue regarding close position of the Sun:

Geocentrists who are not flat earthers have to defend earth rotation hypothesis, otherwise they can't explain days and nights on Earth. But, if Earth doesn't spin (and it doesn't-which you've excellent explained using flight airline schedules) then they have to get rid of earth tilt hypothesis because if Sun is orbiting TILTED and SPHERICAL Earth it can't produce 6 months of North Pole daylight, it can't produce even 24 hours continuous North Pole daylight. When you get rid of earth tilt hypothesis then you could still theorized geocentric Earth, but not in the context of The Earth as we know it, because Sun which daily revolve this time UN-TILTED but still SPHERICAL Earth (at close distance) could produce 6 months of North Pole daylight but during these 6 months, on SPHERICAL Earth such close revolving Sun couldn't cast any light not just to South Pole but to much wider/larger part of southern hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South America etc...)...So, if the Earth is not spinning than it has to be flat.

About the Moon, the whole rotation thing is very fishy. I don't believe tidal forces would synchronize its rotation so precisely.

@ Saros, i've just realised that i made one more mistake: i was wrong concluding against Moon's rotation on the basis of difference between sidereal and synodic period...

It seemed to me for a moment like a nice and elegant way of debunking Moon's rotation hoax, but it would have been to easy if i could had done it in so simple and so unrealistic fashion... Astronomers are liars but they are just not that stupid... Too pity!

So, we have to refute my above elegant (but wrong) argument against Moon's rotation, and we have to continue our search for another (and this time valid) compelling argument of that kind.

You see, you know and i know that the rotation of the Moon just can't be so precisely synchronized but to find absolutely compelling proof against Moon's rotation is just not going to be so easy as i thought it could be. However i have no intention to give up...

So, let's be open, and persistent. If "persistent" is just another word for "stubborn" then sorry!

@ Al, read carefully my post #108 and then try to answer this:

Why in Falkland Islands Sun rise (on December 21th) at 4,29, and sun set at 21,10, and why in London (on June 21th) Sun rise at 4,43 and set at 21,21?

[Saros]

I just found out something interesting regarding the calculations of moonrise and moonset. Obviously, it is not that perfect as we have assumed. The calculations are only roughly correct, which in my opinion suggests there might be a hoax behind it. As if the whole thing is adjusted according to what we observe, and not based on some absolute math and geometry.


The rising and setting of the Sun and Moon is defined here to be the instant when the upper limb of the object is seen to cross a mathematically FLAT HORIZON by an observer at sea level. Real observing situations on land rarely approach this idealised model, and for my uses calculating rise and set times to the nearest minute is fine.

The following factors need to be addressed:

The Sun and Moon vary in position against the stars over a period of one day - the Moon moves about 12 degrees per day on average.
There are latitudes on Earth where the Sun and Moon can be above or below the horizon for days at a time. The algorithm has to detect and report these circumstances.
The time of Moonset will be about 50 minutes later each night after New Moon. There will be at least one day in each lunation during which the Moon does not set, and one day where the Moon does not rise. The algorithm must report these days.
You must calculate the altitude of the Sun and the Moon as seen by the observer on the surface of the Earth - allowing for parallax from the geocentric coordinates.
You must correct for the effects of atmospheric refraction (not relevant for the twilights).
You must allow for the size of the Sun or Moon's disc (except for the twilights).

Moonrise and set, Sunrise and set and twilight times for any latitude and time zone using a quadratic fit to a table of altitudes over the day for each object- QBASIC routines listed with references

[cikljamas]

I just found out something interesting regarding the calculations of moonrise and moonset. Obviously, it is not that perfect as we have assumed. The calculations are only roughly correct, which in my opinion suggests there might be a hoax behind it. As if the whole thing is adjusted according to what we observe, and not based on some absolute math and geometry.


The rising and setting of the Sun and Moon is defined here to be the instant when the upper limb of the object is seen to cross a mathematically FLAT HORIZON by an observer at sea level. Real observing situations on land rarely approach this idealised model, and for my uses calculating rise and set times to the nearest minute is fine.

The following factors need to be addressed:

The Sun and Moon vary in position against the stars over a period of one day - the Moon moves about 12 degrees per day on average.
There are latitudes on Earth where the Sun and Moon can be above or below the horizon for days at a time. The algorithm has to detect and report these circumstances.
The time of Moonset will be about 50 minutes later each night after New Moon. There will be at least one day in each lunation during which the Moon does not set, and one day where the Moon does not rise. The algorithm must report these days.
You must calculate the altitude of the Sun and the Moon as seen by the observer on the surface of the Earth - allowing for parallax from the geocentric coordinates.
You must correct for the effects of atmospheric refraction (not relevant for the twilights).
You must allow for the size of the Sun or Moon's disc (except for the twilights).

Moonrise and set, Sunrise and set and twilight times for any latitude and time zone using a quadratic fit to a table of altitudes over the day for each object- QBASIC routines listed with references

@ Saros, thanks, it is going to take a while before i examine all these informations, but it is already obvious that behind this heavenly complexness we must be able to find much more proofs (then we already presented) against the universal vastness of astronomical lies...

I wonder, how you are gonna comment next discrepancy:

In the Cook's Strait Almanack for 1848, it is said:

"At Wellington, New Zealand, December 21st, sun rises 4 h. 31 m., and sets at 19 h. 29 m., the day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, sun rises at 19 h. 29 m., and sets at 16 h.

At Wellington, New Zealand, December 21st THIS YEAR sun rises 5 h. 44 m., and sets at 20 h. 54 m., the day being 15 hours 09 minutes. June 21st, sun rises at 7 h. 47 m., and sets at 16 h. 59 m.

Regarding my "mistake" that i made trying to prove falsity of heliocentricity and geocentricity on the basis of difference between sidereal and synodic revolution with respect to Moon's "rotation" (on it's "axis"), i have to admit that this mistake gave me some food for thought:

If we suppose that the moon rotates clockwise then my "mistake" would be valid argument because whole thing would be utter impossibility, but since this heliocentric (counter clockwise) model (of rotating moon) is as sinister as it is "round rotating earth" model we have to ponder on it much more carefully...

The main question that rises out of this "mistake" of mine is this:

DOES THE MOON ROTATES AT ALL AND IF IT DOESN'T WHY THEY SAY IT DOES? Maybe this question could confuse you a bit, but i am convinced that by giving a try to answer this question we are going to discover much more serious helio/geo flaws hidden behind the black curtain than just etymological issue concerning imprecise definition (of rotation).

We could put it this way:

We only ever see one side of the moon, why is that? Is it because the moon has a synchronous rotation? No. The moon doesn't rotate at all, it just travels in a circle.

Stand in the middle of a race track and watch a car drive around it... you only see one side of the car - does that mean the car has a synchronous rotation? No!

Sure, during a lap around the track, the driver's side of the car will face east/west/north/south, but that's not because it's rotating - it's because it's travelling in a circle!

What would you call it if the car was in a device like a gimbal of a gyroscope so that its inertia kept it aligned to one direction and it was taken around the track on the back of a truck?
It has gone around the track but you have seen all sides but it didn't rotate.

What do you call that?

I would call that "hammer throw":



What do they hide? Maybe they hide stuff like these:

IT is more than three centuries and a half since Fernando de Magulhane observed that the moon, during a solar eclipse, was not perfectly opaque. He says:--

"On the forenoon of October 11th, 1520, an eclipse of the sun was expected. At eight seconds past ten a.m. the sun, having then reached the altitude of 42°, began to lose its brightness, and gradually continued so to do, changing to a dark red colour, without any cloud intervening that could be perceived. No part of the body of the sun was hid, but the whole appeared as when seen through a thick smoke, till it passed the altitude of 44½°, after which it recovered its former lustre."

During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with "explanations," often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre, of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body the light on the other side.

"In this faint light the telescope can distinguish both the larger spots, and also bright shining points, and even when more than half the moon's disc is illuminated, a faint grey light can still be seen on the remaining portion by the aid of the telescope. These phenomena are particularly striking when viewed from the high mountain plateaus of Quito and Mexico."

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!

Besides the fact that when the moon is only a few hours old, and sometimes until past the first quarter, the naked eye is able to see through her body to the light shining on the other side, both fixed stars and planets have been seen through a considerable part of her substance, as proved by the following quotations:

"On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . . The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery.". READ MORE: Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter XIV. Examination of the So-Called ''Proofs'' of the Earth's Rotundity: Moon Transparent

Also, when i read idiotic theories like these ORIGIN OF THE MOON, it just makes me puke...

So, they say that the moon rotates because it has to be a spherical body, and because the Earth has to be spherical body and has to rotate, although there is no such evidence for any of these claims.