North - South

[Saros]

I see what you mean. The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all. How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very suspicious. I am just wondering how to prove that the Moon is not where they say it is, and perhaps not what they say it is? What experiment has to be done?

[aljhoa]

I am just wondering how to prove that the Moon is not where they say it is, and perhaps not what they say it is? What experiment has to be done?

Triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@ 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?

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 you do not answer my questions, what kind of Master are you?
There is nothing significant;
can’t see you that both the location and the time are off by about 10 minutes?

Here is one more proof of the Flat Earth,
Salar de Uyuni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[Saros]

Also, something else that might be of interest to you. Have you checked this article on Wikipedia: Antipodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding flight times and the YT aviation videos, which I noticed have received lots of comments:

Air travel between antipodes

There is no no-stop scheduled flight between any two antipodal locations by commercial flight—or anything even close. The longest non-stop scheduled flight was the discontinued (as of November 2013) Singapore Airlines Flight 21 between Newark, New Jersey and Singapore, covering 15,343 km (9,534 miles) in about 18.5 hours flight time, and this was far from a journey between nearly-antipodal locations (Madrid and Auckland are 19,590 km apart; Buenos Aires and Beijing are 19,260 km apart; Johannesburg and Honolulu are 19,188 km apart; New York City and Perth are 18,700 km apart).[12] A flight between antipodal locations by non-supersonic travel would be exceedingly difficult for passengers, let alone sleep-deprived crew.

Check out the sunrise and sunset times for two antipodal cities: Cordoba, Spain and Hamilton, New Zealand for 21 June 21 December.

Hamilton - 21 Jun 2014 07:34 17:07 9h 32m 42s − 02s 12:21 28.8° 152.018
Hamilton - 21 Dec 2014 05:53 20:40 14h 47m 07s + 05s 13:17 75.7° 147.173

Cordoba - 21 Dec 2014 08:31 18:03 9h 32m 15s − 03s 13:17 28.7° 147.171
Cordoba - 21 Jun 2014 06:57 21:45 14h 47m 35s + 01s 14:21 75.6° 152.021

Interesting!

[Saros]

Triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about triangulation. However, if the Moon is not solid or if it is some sort of reflection, this method is totally useless. It would be similar to measuring the real distance and the absolute size of a rainbow. You could measure the apparent size and distance based on your location, but that is not really useful information. The only way to know for sure if it is there is to actually fly up and check.

[cikljamas]

I see what you mean. The Moon does appear transparent at times, which is indeed quite mystifying. What is the Moon? The Moon, the Earth and the rest of the planets have to be spheres for the heliocentric theory to work. So, they would perhaps simply adjust the data to match their theory or vice versa, instead of actually trying to figure out the real state of things. It is easy to assume everything is spheres for the model to work, so let it be. But is it really so? For example, if we see only one side of the Moon, perhaps the Moon is not a sphere at all. How about the Sun? The same thing, we cannot see the other side of the Sun as well. Of course, they have photographed it, so we now know for sure the Sun is a sphere, not that they doubted that even for a second. But if it is only a disc? That is not even considered, as it will be a huge slap in the face of heliocentrism. I don't buy the so-called tidal locking, especially given what we're told that the Moon moves away from the Earth, how can it be locked and move away at the same time? This is totally unrealistic.The only proof that the Moon is a sphere comes from the photos they have showed us. Great proof And how exactly can an average person verify that? Also, huge coincidence indeed for the Moon to appear about the same size as the Sun if the Sun is ~150 million km away and the Moon only 384000 km? Too many coincidences which make the whole thing very suspicious. I am just wondering how to prove that the Moon is not where they say it is, and perhaps not what they say it is? What experiment has to be done?

@ Saros, you read my mind

Let's enumerate some crucial facts which make tidal locking completely ridiculous:

[B]1. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the plane of the ecliptic, and not to the Earth's equatorial plane. The lunar orbit plane is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5.1°, whereas the Moon's spin axis is inclined by only 1.5°.



2. Synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon's orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it moves around the Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon's rotational velocity:

When the Moon is at it's perigee, it's rotation is slower than it's orbital motion.

Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion. How does the Moon knows when she has to slow down or to speed up rotation on its axis It must be due to some very smart software?

3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon! So, how come the moon is locked by the Earth's gravitational force, instead to be locked upon the influence of the Sun's gravitational force?

How do you call that?

I would call that "hammer throw accident"

Also, something else that might be of interest to you. Have you checked this article on Wikipedia: Antipodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding flight times and the YT aviation videos, which I noticed have received lots of comments:

Air travel between antipodes

There is no no-stop scheduled flight between any two antipodal locations by commercial flight—or anything even close. The longest non-stop scheduled flight was the discontinued (as of November 2013) Singapore Airlines Flight 21 between Newark, New Jersey and Singapore, covering 15,343 km (9,534 miles) in about 18.5 hours flight time, and this was far from a journey between nearly-antipodal locations (Madrid and Auckland are 19,590 km apart; Buenos Aires and Beijing are 19,260 km apart; Johannesburg and Honolulu are 19,188 km apart; New York City and Perth are 18,700 km apart).[12] A flight between antipodal locations by non-supersonic travel would be exceedingly difficult for passengers, let alone sleep-deprived crew.

Check out the sunrise and sunset times for two antipodal cities: Cordoba, Spain and Hamilton, New Zealand for 21 June 21 December.

Hamilton - 21 Jun 2014 07:34 17:07 9h 32m 42s − 02s 12:21 28.8° 152.018
Hamilton - 21 Dec 2014 05:53 20:40 14h 47m 07s + 05s 13:17 75.7° 147.173

Cordoba - 21 Dec 2014 08:31 18:03 9h 32m 15s − 03s 13:17 28.7° 147.171
Cordoba - 21 Jun 2014 06:57 21:45 14h 47m 35s + 01s 14:21 75.6° 152.021

Interesting!

Thanks Saros for above post, these informations are really valuable, we could use them especially in educational purposes. Al, watch and learn. Last time i posed the question to you on this very issue, but you didn't answer to me. Since you obviously couldn't figure out (by yourself) the right answer to my question now i am going to help you:

When the sun travels in inner circuit (tropic of cancer) then the sun travels at lower speed, and vice versa, when the sun travels in outer circuit (tropic of capricorn) then the sun travels at higher speed.

The consequence of these different speeds is this:

Cordoba - 21 Dec 2014 Sun rises at 08:31 LATER
Hamilton - 21 Jun 2014 Sun rises at 07:34 EARLIER

@ Saros, one thing more about triangulation:

One can reconstruct the origin of these numbers by doing a little geometry, starting from a flat earth hypothesis. Remember the experiment of Eratosthenes, who measured the angular elevation of the sun at two latitudes in Egypt? He assumed that the sun was effectively infinitely far away (or at least so far compared to the earth's size that the actual distance didn't matter). Then he calculated the diameter of the earth using a second assumption: that the earth was spherical.

But suppose you abandon Eratosthenes' two assumptions, and adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat. Then, triangulation from the same data gives the distance to the sun: 3000 miles! See how a simple change of assumptions can drastically alter the entire cosmos? However, the round earth was more than an arbitary assumption for Eratosthenes, for he and his contemporaries, had other very good reasons for knowing the earth was round. [Textbooks sometimes mislead by suggesting that his experiment was designed to prove the earth was a sphere. It was not, it was only intended to measure the size of the sphere.]

P.S. This view explains what gravity is...

[ethan]

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.

Why shouldn't it be curved? Its laying flat along the surface of the round earth.
The gravitational pull comes from the center of earth. The water cant drain, left or right because earths gravity doesn't require it to.
The force of gravity is distributed equally.

If water "should" be flat (like a cup of water) instead of curved...Where should the peak of the water go? Left or right?

Gravity only pulls it down, not left or right. Water has no where to go (or drain). So it lays flat on the surface (which is round)

#cikljamas his own link shows the curvature of the ocean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unILqRkZGKQ

I know about triangulation. However, if the Moon is not solid or if it is some sort of reflection, this method is totally useless....The only way to know for sure if it is there is to actually fly up and check.

That has been done. Apollo 11
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

This isn't rocket science. Nature takes the most efficient form. Interaction happens spherically.

Magnets have spherical fields.
When you light a candle, the light isn't emitted...in the form of a flat plate.
Light is emitted spherically.

Throw water into the air! It turns into SPHERES.

The sun isn't a Hologram, you CAN see it from space! You can also see the Spherical earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APg1ELLZK-Q

[Saros]

Thanks Saros for above post, these informations are really valuable, we could use them especially in educational purposes. Al, watch and learn. Last time i posed the question to you on this very issue, but you didn't answer to me. Since you obviously couldn't figure out (by yourself) the right answer to my question now i am going to help you:

When the sun travels in inner circuit (tropic of cancer) then the sun travels at lower speed, and vice versa, when the sun travels in outer circuit (tropic of capricorn) then the sun travels at higher speed.

The consequence of these different speeds is this:

Cordoba - 21 Dec 2014 Sun rises at 08:31 LATER
Hamilton - 21 Jun 2014 Sun rises at 07:34 EARLIER

Actually, those are local times. Maybe the seeming difference is due to the time zones. We still have 3-4 minutes unaccounted for though.

[cikljamas]

@ Saros, you read my mind

Let's enumerate some crucial facts which make tidal locking completely ridiculous:

1. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the plane of the ecliptic, and not to the Earth's equatorial plane. The lunar orbit plane is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5.1°, whereas the Moon's spin axis is inclined by only 1.5°.



2. Synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon's orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it moves around the Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon's rotational velocity:

When the Moon is at it's perigee, it's rotation is slower than it's orbital motion.

Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion. How does the Moon know when she has to slow down or to speed up rotation on its axis It must be due to some very smart software?

3. The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth's on the Moon! So, how come the moon is locked by the Earth's gravitational force, instead to be locked upon the influence of the Sun's gravitational force?

Here is clarification on number two:

Suppose the moon moved with steady speed in a perfectly circular orbit around Earth, and also rotated at a steady rate around its axis. That ideal situation is shown below in a drawing, taken from section #4 ("The Moon--a distant view"). This is the view from north, so the Moon's orbital motion starts from the bottom and advances counter-clockwise, and the Moon itself also rotates counter-clockwise.

Then--neglecting the 6.5° tilt discussed in item #1 above--the axis of the Moon could always point straight at the Earth, always exposing the same range of longitudes on the Moon's surface. As the figure shows, during the time the Moon covers 60° in its orbit, its body has also rotated by 60°. In the time it covers 120°, it has also rotated by 120°, and so forth. The same axis of the Moon always points at Earth, and by the time the Moon-Earth line has rotated a full 360° in the plane of the drawing (the orbital plane of the Moon), the Moon itself has also rotated a full 360°. [IMAGE:

Now imagine that the Moon orbited at a steady speed, but the rotation of the Moon around its axis varied--sometimes it speeded up, sometimes it slowed down, though on the average it still matched the orbital period. Then when the rotation was a bit ahead of the Moon,Earth line, observers would see a little extra of the receding edge of the Moon. And when the rotation lagged a bit behind, astronomers could see a bit more of the advancing edge.

No, this does not happen. The rotation rate of the Moon is pretty steady. However, the orbiting motion of the Moon is not steady--at some times it advances faster than average, some times it is slower. The result is pretty similar to the above example of uneven rotation, and that is a second kind of libration.

Above clarification has given me even some more food for thought:

We could assume and examine next few options:

1. If the moon were linked with the Earth by string or rod we couldn't say that the moon is rotating on it's axis, could we?

2. Since the moon is not linked with the Earth by string or any other solid bond we have to suppose that the moon is rotating on it's axis (since we always see just one side of the moon).

3. If we now assumed that the moon is not a sphere (but rather disk like shaped object or kind of a half-sphere like shaped object) we could easily say that the moon does not rotate on it's "axis" if we only assume that the moon is circling above us instead of revolving around us. Under the same assumption we should instantly abandon heliocentricity as well as geocentricity because it would be just beyond imagination that the disc like shaped object could revolve around a round Earth. On top of that we know (and we proved it) that the Earth is not rotund body.

Now, what about Venus?

And the strange rotation of Venus, from east to west, unlike Earth--seems to be locked on Earth. The lock seems imperfect and may be accidental, but the fact is that every time Venus is closest to Earth, it presents us with almost exactly the same face. Venus is covered by dense clouds, and the radar-carrying Magellan mission has mapped almost all of its surface in great detail. Before that, though, the main tool for studying the surface were radio telescopes, doubling as radar dishes for bouncing signals off the planet. Only imperfect images could be obtained, but astronomers were frustrated to find that on every closest approach, the same face presented itself.

Actually, those are local times. Maybe the seeming difference is due to the time zones. We still have 3-4 minutes unaccounted for though.

51°30′N 0°08′W London England United Kingdom
51°42′S 57°52′W Stanley Falkland Islands United Kingdom

Stanley - 21 Dec 2014 Sun rises at 04:29 EARLIER
Hamilton - 21 Jun 2014 Sun rises at 04:43 LATER

Difference: 14 minutes

The point is that these time differences should begin to rise rapidly below 50 or 60 (SOUTH) degrees of latitude, but we just can't provide evidences of that sort because south of these latitudes there is no habitable zone as we have already seen...

And now something about philosophical and religious background of covering up the truth that the earth is flat:

"The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down," declares Johnson. "The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke."

"Wherever you find people with a great reservoir of common sense," he says, "they don't believe idiotic things such as the earth spinning around the sun. Reasonable, intelligent people have always recognized that the earth is flat."

Charles Johnson claims that most of the people who shaped our modern world were flat-earthers, and some of them didn't have it easy, either.

You weren't aware that flat-earthers have played an important part in history? Well, conventional histories don't make that clear. But inasmuch as revisionist history is in vogue, Charles Johnson should be recognized as one of the leading practitioners.

"Moses was a flat-earther," he reveals. "The Flat Earth Society was founded in 1492 B.C., when Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt and gave them the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai."

Conventional biblical chronology dates the Ten Commandments to 1491 B.C., but it may be imprecise. Perhaps Johnson prefers 1492 for the symmetry. It was, after all, in 1492 A.D. that another famous flat-earther made history.

Have you heard the story about Columbus's problems with his crew? As some tell it, the crew nearly mutinied because they regarded the earth as flat, and feared they might sail off its edge.

"It was exactly the reverse," explains Johnson. "There was a dispute out on the ship, but it was because Columbus was a flat-earther. The others believed the earth to be a ball, and they just knew that they were falling over the edge and couldn't get back. Columbus had to put them in irons and beat them until he convinced them they weren't going over any curve, and they could return. He finally calmed them down."

"It's the Church of England that's taught that the world is a ball," he argues. "George Washington, on the other hand, was a flat-earther. He broke with England to get away from those superstitions." If Johnson is right, the American Revolution failed. No prominent American politician is known to have publicly endorsed the flat-earth theory in the past two centuries. Nevertheless, Johnson contends that this nearly happened right after World War II, not for the U.S. alone, but for the entire world. Consider the United Nations:

"Uncle Joe (Stalin), Churchill, and Roosevelt laid the master plan to bring in the New Age under the United Nations," Johnson discloses with confidence. "The world ruling power was to be right here in this country. After the war, the world would be declared flat and Roosevelt would be elected first president of the world. When the UN Charter was drafted in San Francisco, they took the flat-earth map as their symbol."

Why declare the world flat? Johnson responds that a prophesied condition for world government (Isaiah 60:20) is that the "sun shall no more go down." This could be fulfilled by admitting that sunrise and sunset are optical illusions. The UN did adopt for its official seal a world map identical with the one on Johnson's office wall. But Franklin Roosevelt died coincident with the UN's birth, and the other imminent events described by Johnson never came about.

What did happen, according to conventional historians, was that Russia and the U.S. began space programs. After the Russians sent up Sputnik in 1957, the space race was on in earnest. The high point came in 1969, when the U.S. landed men on the moon.

That, according to Johnson, is nonsense, because the moon landings were faked by Hollywood studios. He even names the man who wrote the scripts: the science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. But he acknowledges that the moon landings were at least partly successful.

"Until then," he says, "almost no one seriously considered the world a ball. The landings converted a few of them, but many are coming back now and getting off of it."

Perhaps the Space Shuttle is intended to bolster the beliefs of these backsliders. Whatever its purpose, Johnson is convinced that it is not intended to actually fly. Because it was built and tested almost in his back yard, he knows many people who worked on it. What they've told him about some aspects of its construction only reinforces his convictions.

"They moved it across the field," he sneers, "and it almost fell apart. All those little side pieces are on with epoxy, and half fell off!"

The Shuttle had other problems besides heat resistant tiles that wouldn't stick. For instance, when the testers tried to mount it on a 747 for its first piggy-back test flight, it wouldn't fit.

"Can you imagine that?" chortles Johnson. "Millions of dollars they spent, and it wouldn't fit! They had to call in a handyman to drill some new holes to make the thing fit. Then they took it up in the air—and some more of it fell to pieces."

If the Shuttle ever does orbit on its own, it's supposed to return to Edwards Air Force Base. To Johnson, that's appropriate enough.

"Do you know what they're doing at Edwards right now?" he asks. "'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century' is made right where they claim they're going to land the Shuttle. Edwards is strictly a science-fiction base now.

"Buck is a much better science program, considerably more authentic. In fact, I recommend that the government get out of the space business and turn the whole thing over to ABC, CBS, and NBC. The tv networks do a far superior job. They could actually pay the government for rights, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny."

[aljhoa]

But suppose you abandon Eratosthenes' two assumptions, and adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat. Then, triangulation from the same data gives the distance to the sun: 3000 miles! See how a simple change of assumptions can drastically alter the entire cosmos?

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm

Master @ cikljamas the above rendering of a flat earth shows a sun running in circles around a pole, 3000 miles above an equator.
The youtube segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso that you posted
clearly shows a sun running in circles at 3000 miles altitude going down to 500 miles,
why is it so?

Also Master @cikljamas why a sun continuously shines above an equator?

Al

[Saros]

Check out the following video supposedly from the ISS https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/6ED...xG.RRMp80QH.ns

[Saros]

51°30′N 0°08′W London England United Kingdom
51°42′S 57°52′W Stanley Falkland Islands United Kingdom

Stanley - 21 Dec 2014 Sun rises at 04:29 EARLIER
Hamilton - 21 Jun 2014 Sun rises at 04:43 LATER

Difference: 14 minutes

I don't get what you're suggesting by this. Stanley is not in the same time zone as Hamilton or London, why are you looking at the local times and checking the time difference?
Current local time in Falkland Islands – Stanley
Current local time in New Zealand – Hamilton

Stanley is -3 hours GMT/UTC while Hamilton is +12 hours UTC/GMT, you need take this into consideration. 4 am in Stanley is 8 am in London and 7 pm in Hamilton.

[cikljamas]

@ Al, how about this:

It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun's path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth's surface, are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature.

In addition, i didn't notice any degree of enlargement of the sun in "Midnight Sun" video, maybe Saros "ISS" video have had to point out some similar suspicious (lack of) phenomena, what do you think?

@ Saros, shouldn't we be interested in local times only?

After all, 14 min. difference is totally realistic, contrary, few hours difference would be totally off (of everything)...

Now, some more food for thought, this is sun - moon size ratio:



What idiot would use such a ratio in order to produce eclipses?

Does this raise any alarm bell?

How about this Keith's note:

Keith's note: This is an odd thing to put in the title i.e. "dark side of the Moon" since this constantly changes - and yet this research focuses on a specific part of the Moon that does not change. So I sent a note to the author, A'ndrea Elyse Messer, Ph.D. Sr. Science & Research Information Officer at Penn State. She replied by email "As it says in the story, the "dark" side of the moon is the side that is always turned away from the Earth. It does not change."

Baffled by her response, I asked her (again) about this and she followed with really goofy stuff i.e. "yes, the "dark" side of the moon is called that because it is the far side of the moon and was completely unknown until the Russians sent a probe around the back to photograph it. It has absolutely nothing to do with sunlight -- as is explained in the story. Dark is used in the same way it used to be used in Darkest Africa. It wasn't dark in africa, it was unknown."

They know they lie, don't they?

Some references about what might be behind the vast 150 foot Ice Shelves along the Antarctic coast:

Quote from Rowbothams "Earth, not a globe":

All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.


Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis

The Flat Earth does not necessarily need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere. Just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists beyond the 150 foot wall of ice at the Antarctic coast; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards.

In order for barometric pressure to rise and fall, an element of heat must be present. Heat creates pressure. A lack of heat results in a drop in pressure. These two elements are tightly correlated in modern physics.

In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents from areas of low pressures to areas of high pressures with its heat. The coldness of the Antarctic tundra keeps the pressure low. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures would drop lower and lower until it nears absolute zero. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark. At this point, whether it be thousands or millions of miles beyond the Antarctic rim, the environment will gradually match that of background space, and the world can physically end without the atmosphere leaking out of it.

The atmosphere may very well exist as a lip upon the surface of the earth, held in by vast gradients of declining pressure.

Some comments of pissed off readers after reading one of not so recent articles written by NASA scientist:

[aljhoa]

@ Al, how about this:

It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun's path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth's surface, are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature.

Master @cikljamas what are you spreading?


Cosmology: Interpretations of Biblical Cosmology

You are on a flat earth and sun is not a ball it is light "And God made two great lights;
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
therefore:
1) Sun is running in circles around a pole
2) Sun is running in circles parallel to flat earth
3) Sun is placed at 3000 miles altitude above an equator
4) Sun never travels outside a dome see above rendering
5) Sun shines 24 hours at a pole


Master @ cikljamas the youtube segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso that you posted
clearly shows a sun running in circles at 3000 miles altitude going down to 500 miles, why is it so?



Master @cikljamas who controls a directional beam
of a sun that creates seasons and night-day cycle?


Al

[sturgeon]

moon hoax not - YouTube

Well worth a look.

[cikljamas]

@ Al, i repeat: i didn't notice any degree of enlargement of the sun in "Midnight Sun" video, so how would you comment that?

Second, it's true, i have used that video in certain purposes, but i didn't guarantee it was genuine record of the midnight sun. In order to consider it as genuine and valid record we should have to be able to see certain degree of enlargement of the sun in that video, don't you think so?

Third, neither i can guarantee that this video isn't genuine, although it's legitimacy is suspicious for above reason..

Forth, the sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

moon hoax not - YouTube
Well worth a look.

"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.

@ Al, why don't you examine next issue:

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.

@ Al, when are you going to refer to the undeniable results of the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten croatian genius Ruđer Josip Bošković (1711 -1787)?

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871)
'Airy's failure' (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's 'speed around the sun'. Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.
Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.