North - South

[aljhoa]

The following image is an unprecedented star trail image taken from the Equator
(this imaginary line that splits the Earth into the two hemispheres) in Ecuador (the country).
If you stand on the Equator line you can see the Southern Pole at the horizon to the South (left of the image) and
the Northern pole at the horizon on the opposite direction.
The Earth rotation will make all the sky and stars look like they rotate around these two points,
making them appear as concentric circles (which look like ellipses on this distorsioning fish eye image).
Note that on this image, that cumulates 10 hours of exposure starting 1 hour after sunset and
finishing 1 hour before sunrise (nights and days always last 12 hours on the Equator, it is a permanent equinox),
more than 90% of the sky is 'visible', this is another particularity of being on the ecuator line : you can observe the largest part of the sky during any night.
An extremely bright meteor appeared during that night and seems to be pointing at the Southern Pole (extreme left of the image).
Image processing done with Prism software.
Los Cielos del Ecuador, From Southern Pole to Northern Pole






Where on your "flat earth navigation chart"
the counter rotating star trails can be taken?

"flat earth navigation chart" >


@cikljamas, answer all previous questions.


Al

[cikljamas]

Al,
1. Do you understand english?
2. How about logic?
3. Why don't you ever read any other (mine) posts except your own?
4. What is it exactly that you don't understand?

[aljhoa]

Al,
1. Do you understand english?
2. How about logic?
3. Why don't you ever read any other (mine) posts except your own?
4. What is it exactly that you don't understand?

1. no,
2. no,
3. 1 do,
4. On your "flat earth navigation chart" show:>

1. Magnetic field's inclination and intensity as a function of latitude.
2. Where,
   at the same time and location,
   a picture of the counter-rotating stars trails and
   their rotational axis close to a Horizon
   can be taken.
3. 30,000 kilometers three-leg-journey-path creating 270 degrees triangle.

Al

[cikljamas]

Al, all your contribution to this thread boils down to waving with some suspicious photographs and yelling funny questions.

After you show me in details HOW and WHY something works in reality (not in photoshop) and HOW and WHY that "something" works in RET and HOW and WHY that "something" doesn't work and can't work in FET, then (and only then) we can begin to consider your funny questions as serious one.

Look up to me. My question (unanswered by you) was very simple and plausible. I repeat: Why would airliners fly from New Zealand to Brasil in wrong direction which means doubling millage, throwing away enormous sums of money and wasting passengers precious time?

Would you like me to believe that they are all out of their mind?

I challenge you to take a long exposure photograph while moving 30 km per second and get a sharp image like this with which you are waving all along, and if you can't do it then you have to admit that your loving round-helioc.theory has been dead (flatten out) long time ago.

[aljhoa]

Al, all your contribution to this thread boils down to waving with some suspicious photographs and yelling funny questions.

After you show me in details HOW and WHY something works in reality (not in photoshop)...

Look up to me. My question (unanswered by you) was very simple and plausible. I repeat: Why would airliners fly from New Zealand to Brasil in wrong direction ...

My Master,
I asked you several questions first and got no answers.

The simple "Liquid Filled Ball Style Pin On Compass" and
previous request "Show magnetic field's inclination and intensity as a function of latitude" prove the "flat earth hoax".

Look up to me,
"magnetic field's inclination and intensity as a function of latitude"
is not Photoshop.

Al

[cikljamas]

How ironic, you have already gotten your answer in post (guess the number) #1. I bet you didn't figure out the true meaning of the figure 87 which illustrates (represents) a dipping needle on the "equator". Maybe you could deign at least now (after full 9 pages) to pause and think it over before you yell your next (long time ago already answered) question, what do you say? See post #20 also (page 1), and cut it out (being so desperate and yelling funny-old (already resolved) questions), O.K.? Yelling your funny questions resemble very much to this:



edit: Oh, i forgot post #23, also page 1, which represents special explanation (about the true meaning of the figure 87) which was dedicated to no one else but you. And now, full 9 pages afterwards we should (according to you) deal with the same question(s)?

And, don't you dare to answer me to that question about alarming (to any reasonable man) duration (which speak more then 1000 words) of "the opposite-side (of the Earth) flights" (Australia- South America...New Zealand-South Africa...etc.) which last 40 - 56 hours instead of just 17 hours or so!

[aljhoa]

Australian Aboriginal mythology,
Dreamtime is a place beyond time and space in which the past, present, and future exist wholly as one.
Tribespeople could enter this alternate universe through dreams or various states of altered consciousness,
as well as death, Dreamtime being considered the final destination before reincarnation.

The Dreaming establishes the structures of society, rules for social behavior, and
the ceremonies performed to ensure continuity of life and land. The Dreaming governs the laws of community,
cultural lore and how people are required to behave in their communities.
The condition that is The Dreaming is met when people live according to law, and live the lore:
perpetuating initiations and Dreaming transmissions or lineages, singing the songs, dancing the dances,
telling the stories, painting the songlines and Dreamings.
Dreamtime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[cikljamas]

Al, exit heliocentrism NOW and FOREVER!
After reading this post you will stop dreaming about heliocentric fairytale once and for all, i promise you!

So, listen very carefully!
Not only that nobody is (and never will be) able to answer to this question: What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?...but "fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis" is also the ultimate flaw in heliocentric theory, and now i am going to show you HOW and WHY:

See this illustration:



Now, in which direction the Earth's axis is oriented at July 3th comparing it with January 3th? It's oriented in the same direction isn't it? You have to be aware that the so called celestial equator presents the same plane which cuts the Earth's "equator". That is to say that the Earth is really the center of the Stellatum. All stars are centered to the Earth, there is no doubt about that. Just a little help from your friend:



What we have to determine is HOW and WHY all stars shifts 180 degree at January 3th with respect to their position above the Earth at July 3th.

Heliocentrists assert that the 180 degree shift of all the stars with respect to the Earth happens due to for 180 degree (also) changed position of the Earth with respect to the Sun.

Now, we just don't care about the position of the Sun, because when we look up to the sky at midnight January 3th we see 180 degrees shifted stars with respect to their position which had been at midnight July 3th.

How it happened?

The Earth still stays in exactly the same geometrical position with respect to the allegedly fixed stars, the only difference is that the Earth has been moved straight forward (from the geometrical point of view) for certain amount of miles (negligible regarding position of practically endlessly distant stars (according to heliocentrist's dreams)) after she had allegedly bypassed the Sun making half a circle around it.

So, the Earth is in exactly the same geometrical position at midnight January 3th as it was at the midnight July 3th. So, who is a sucker here and now?

In order to be shifted for any degree with respect to the Earth (which is still in exactly the same geometrical position after alleged 6 month revolution around the Sun), all the stars have to turn around the fixed Earth.

This is so simple and so obvious argument against heliocentrism that i can't put into the words my amazement and astonishment with the extent of heliocentristic audaciousness and arrogance.

Aren't you also amazed with this proportion of heliocentristic arrogance?

Tom Jones-In Dreams

Tom Jones - I Have Dreamed - Live

[cikljamas]

But of a ll discoveries and convictions, nothing may have
produced a greater effect on the human spirit than the
doctrine of Copemicus. The world had scarcely been
acknowledged as round and complete in itself when it
was obliged to forgo the tremendous privilege of being
the centre of the universe. Never, perhaps, has a greater
demand been made on mankind: for through this
recognition so many things went up in smoke: a second
paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety, the
evidence of the senses, the conviction of a poetic-
religious faith; no wonder people did not want to let all
this go and mobilised all possible resistance to such a
doctrine, which authorised and demanded of those who
accepted it a hitherto unknown, indeed unimagined
freedom of thought and grandeur of attitude. '
Friedrich Nietzche

How terribly wrong!!!

The greatest truths often flatly contradict the senses, in
fact they almost always do. The movement of the Earth
around the Sun - to all appearances [dem Augenschein
nach] what could be more absurd? And yet it is the
greatest, noblest, most momentous discovery man has
ever made; to my mind more important than the whole
Bible. Friedrich Nietzche

How terribly wrong, sad and pathetic!!!

Has the self-belittlement of man [die Selbst-Verkleinerung
des Menschen], his will to self-belittlement, not
progressed irresistibly since Copernicus? [...] Since
Copemicus, man seems to have got himself on an inclined
plane - now he is slipping faster and faster away from the
centre into - what? into nothingness? into a 'penetrating
sense of his nothingness'? ... Very well! hasn't this been
the straightest route to - theoW ideal? (CM, III, 25)
Friedrich Nietzche

How deadly right, and totally insane in the same time!!!

As for materialistic atomism, it is one of the best-refuted
things there are; and perhaps no scholar in Europe is still
so unscholarly today as to accord it serious significance
except for handy everyday use (as an abbreviated means
of expression) - thanks above all to the Pole Boscovich
who, together with the Pole Copernicus, has been the
greatest and most triumphant opponent of appearance
[Gegner des Augenscheins] hitherto. For while
Copemicus persuaded us to believe, contrary to all the
senses, that the earth does not stand firm, Boscovich
taught us to abjure belief in the last thing of earth that
'stood firm', b e l i e f in 'substance', in 'matter', in the earth-
residuum and particle atom: it was the greatest triumph
over the senses hitherto achieved on earth. (BGE 12)
Friedrich Nietzche

How awfully inappropriate to put in the same sentence one of the greatest physicist of all time (Josip Ruđer Bošković) and one of the most miserable astronomers of all times (Kopernik)!

Who were the greatest admirers of that lunatic Nietzche? Two other great lunatics: Adolf Hitler and Josif Visarionovič Staljin!

However, his (Thomas Kuhn's) first book concerned the Copernican revolution in planetary astronomy (1957). This book grew out of the teaching he had done on James Conant's General Education in Science curriculum at Harvard but also presaged some of the ideas of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In detailing the problems with the Ptolemaic system and Copernicus’ solution to them, Kuhn showed two things. First, he demonstrated that Aristotelian science was genuine science and that those working within that tradition, in particular those working on Ptolemaic astronomy, were engaged in an entirely reasonable and recognizably scientific project. Secondly, Kuhn showed that Copernicus was himself far more indebted to that tradition than had typically been recognized. Thus the popular view that Copernicus was a modern scientist who overthrew an unscientific and long-outmoded viewpoint is mistaken both by exaggerating the difference between Copernicus and the Ptolemaic astronomers and in underestimating the scientific credentials of work carried out before Copernicus. This mistaken view—a product of the distortion caused by our current state of knowledge—can be rectified only by seeing the activities of Copernicus and his predecessors in the light of the puzzles presented to them by tradition that they inevitably had to work with.

Copernicus' theory was slow to catch on: sixty years after the publication of De revolutionibus there were only some 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe, among them Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei in Italy, Diego de Zúńiga in Spain and Johannes Kepler. The intellectual climate of the time remained dominated by Aristotelian philosophy and the corresponding Ptolemaic astronomy and there was no reason to accept the Copernican theory, except for its mathematical simplicity. Tycho Brahe's system ("that the earth is stationary, the sun revolves about the earth, and the other planets revolve about the sun") also competed with Copernicus'.

At the instance of Ruđer Bošković, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[95] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.

Well, here we must quote Walter Van Der Kamp once more:

In short, the convinced Copernican Bošković proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked stick, Airy made a straight hit.”

[aljhoa]

Copernicus' theory was slow to catch on: sixty years after the publication of De revolutionibus there were only some 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe, among them Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei in Italy, Diego de Zúńiga in Spain and Johannes Kepler. The intellectual climate of the time remained dominated by Aristotelian philosophy and the corresponding Ptolemaic astronomy and there was no reason to accept the Copernican theory, except for its mathematical simplicity. Tycho Brahe's system ("that the earth is stationary, the sun revolves about the earth, and the other planets revolve about the sun") also competed with Copernicus'.

100,000 Years W/O Dogma

The structure of the Aborigine universe was about the same throughout Australia. It consisted of three planes: the earth, the sky, and the underworld. The earth was circular and flat covered by the dome of the sky which stretched out to the horizon. The sky was the plane upon which super-natural beings or the ancestral-heroes lived. The Aborigines believed that the sky "was a rich country with a plentiful water supply." (Mudrooroo, 31) The stars represented the campfires of the beings that lived in the sky plane. Some myths include that the sky was held up by giant props at the corners of the earth. The Aborigines also believed that certain shaman, or medicine men, had the ability to travel between the earth plane and the sky plane. They did this by means of trees between heaven and the earth. One such tree was seen in the night sky in the Milky Way. Under the plane of the earth was the underworld plane. The underworld plane was much like the earth plane and inhabited by people like those from the earth plane. Certain celestial objects were also explained in Aboriginal mythology.
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/arch...ustralia4.html

Al

[cikljamas]

Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I Know ... Tom Jones

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, is ignorant ... teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, is asleep ... wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, is a wise man ... follow him.

[aljhoa]

Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I Know ... Tom Jones

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, is ignorant ... teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, is asleep ... wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, is a wise man ... follow him.

6 Millennia

vs

100 Millennia Dreamtime
Dreamtime beliefs and social customs

• •Multiple totems.
• •No concept of a biological father but the conception totem was honoured.
• •Aborigines were at war with neighbouring tribes. War served an important role to maintain group identity, to control population and to spread genetic material.
• •Aboriginal societies operated around a tribal family rather than a nuclear family. Women were communally shared and women from other tribes were raped in war. These sexual practices were essential to gain fresh genetics into the tribe at risk of inbreeding.
• •Ritual was based more on environmental signs than on a calendar.
• •There was no concept of individual possession in a nomadic society. What is owned by one was owned by all. Within the tribe, theft couldn't exist because nothing was owned.
• •Aborigines didn't live in houses so there was not really any concept of a neighbour. In the tribe they were like one big family. There were neighbouring tribes. These were often treated with hostility, but there were also corroborees where different tribes got together to form some kind of relationships.

Al

[cikljamas]

@ Al, don't be a troll, this is not a thread about the origin of a man.

We could discuss that too, but not here. All i can say for now is that you are again victim of "scientific" lies. Read this:

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and many similar results will undoubtedly soon be reported. We hope that these results will cause biologists to give more serious consideration to the possibility that the Biblical record of a recent creation is historically accurate.

Watch this: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? - YouTube

Not so long ago I already told you (in another thread) a story about a nazzi-comunist forum in Croatia ("forum.hr"). Today i have registered there under the brand new nick and i posted just one single post in the thread that deals with the similar issue ("Sun revolves about the Earth or vice versa?"). Guess how those nazzi-comunist bastards reacted? They banned me right away, and you know why? Because i have presented them a few so strong arguments against heliocentrism with which they are aware they just can't compete under no circumstances, and they know they can't compete with them because these arguments are 100 % irrefutable proofs against their heliocentric-nazzi-comunist-pedophile-liberal-atheistic lies.

Here is the copy of my original post:

Sunce se vrti oko Zemlje.

Dokaz?

Čitav svemir je centriran u odnosu na Zemlju, pa tako i Sunce.
Dokaz?

Zemaljski ekvator je istovjetan tzv. Nebeskom ekvatoru.

Što to znači?

To znači da nakon 6 mjeseci čitav Stellatum zarotira 180 stupnjeva oko
Zemlje i to svatko može vidjeti usporedbom nebeske konstelacije recimo u
ponoć 4. 8., u odnosu na nebesku konstelaciju koja je bila u ponoć 4. 2 iste
godine.

Ekliptika iliti linija koja prati godišnju putanju Sunca kroz različita zviježđa
je nagnuta 23,3 stupnja u odnosu na Zemaljski odnosno Nebeski ekvator i
to je ono što je kod Kopernika izraženo artificjelnim (dakle, ne stvarnim)
nagnućem Zemljine osi.

Ako netko sumnja da je Kopernikov sistem čista mentalna vježba odnosno
matematičko pojednostavljenje stvarnosti neka pokuša pronaći odgovor na
slijedeće pitanje: U odnosu na što je fixiran smjer nagnuća zemaljske osi ili
još bolje ovako: Što je to (koja sila) što drži Zemljinu os tako prostorno
fixiranu.

Točan odgovor je slijedeći: U stvarnosti ne postoji sila niti bilo koji drugi
determinator koji bi zadržavao Zemljinu os da bude tako fixirano nagnuta u
jednom smjeru. Pa zašto je onda ta fixiranost potrebna? Potrebna je u
teoriji da bi se mogla unutar Kopernikanske mentalne vježbe odnosno
matematičkog pojednostavljenja stvarnosti tumačiti izmjena godišnjih doba.
Dakle, umjesto da se ekliptika tumači geocentrički (u skladu sa stvarnim
stanjem stvari), a što znači da Sunce putuje u širim i užim krugovima ili
elipsama i pod različitim kutevima u odnosu na Zemlju (između Sj. i Juž.
obratnice) što u konačnici rezultira ekscentričnom putanjom eklipse kroz
zviježđa, Kopernik je stvar pojednostavio tako da je fixno usmjerenu i
umjetno tiltanu Zemlju zaputio na umjetni put oko Sunca i tako dobio isti,
ali naravno artificjelni rezultat.

To da se ne može utvrditi što kruži oko čega je posljednji očajnički pokušaj
heliocentrista da zataškaju činjenicu da je heliocentrizam samo mentalna
vježba, a ne opis stvarnog stanja stvari.

U uvodu u Kopernikovo kapitalno djelo stoji upozorenje da se ne radi o
doslovnom opisu stvarnosti nego prije o mentalnom modelu iliti
matematičkom pojednostavljenju u svrhu lakšeg razumijevanja
komplicirane geometrije putanja nebeskih tijela.

NOD14 je u pravu da nešto smrdi nadaleko u cijeloj ovoj heliocentričkoj
interpretaciji odnosno relativizacijskom pristupu prema kojem kad već ne
može biti po našem, onda ćemo stvar prikazati tako da bar ne bude niti po njihovom.

Međutim, ako bismo ovaj pristup (koji nije ništa drugo nego jalov pokušaj
spašavanja vlastitog obraza) htjeli primjeniti doslijedno (do kraja tj. i u
svemu ostalome u fizici) gdje bismo stigli?

Žele li možda suvremeni znanstvenici uvjeriti ljude da je fizika potpuno
nemoćna? Ako ne žele onda moraju smoći hrabrosti da priznaju da Sunce
kruži oko Zemlje i da u pristupu nečemu tako elementarnome nema mjesta
nikakvom Galilejevsko-Einsteinovskom relativizmu.

Ako je svemir heliocentričan zašto onda Nebeski ekvator nije poravnat sa Sunčevim ekvatorom, a ne Zemaljskim?

Vrlo jednostavno pitanje, ali odgovor za heliocentriste ni pod koju cijenu ne
smije biti jednostavan jer znači priznanje da je heliocentrizam upravo ono
što i jest: mentalna vježba i matematičko pojednostavljenje i ništa više od
toga.

Skeptik reče: "Nego što nego stoji na mjestu?" Pa jel to skeptik rekao
retorički ili nije? Što god da Skeptik mislio ili ne mislio jedno je apsolutno
sigurno: Sunce se okreće oko Zemlje, a ne obrnuto.

NOD14 isto tako dobro postavlja pitanje "kako objekt koji je 330 000 puta
masivniji od nekog drugog objekta može kružiti oko tog sićušnog objekta
umjesto da bude suprotno od toga?"

Ha, navodne dimenzije Sunca nemaju nikakve, ali baš nikakve veze sa
stvarnim stanjem stvari.

O tome ima zanimljiva izjava jednog američkog znanstvenika:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWcT4YppncI

Al, i know that you like to use from time to time google translate, so if you are in the mood you can try to translate these words of mine also.

When you (nazzi-comunist bastards) are so desperate all that you can do is to show me your nazzi-comunist-pedophile-liberal-atheistic filthy tongue.

[aljhoa]

We could discuss that too, but not here. All i can say for now is that you are again victim of "scientific" lies. Read this:

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and many similar results will undoubtedly soon be reported. We hope that these results will cause biologists to give more serious consideration to the possibility that the Biblical record of a recent creation is historically accurate.The most reasonable interpretation of the data, then, is that the human race is in fact about 6000 years old.

This is Photoshopped Picture

Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[cikljamas]

Look at this: Is the southern cross ( crux) visible from Australia all year round?

Have you noticed something interesting in above link?

Completely wrong answers!

No, the Southern Cross is not visible from Australia all year round!!!

I advice anyone who now read these words and live in Australia to watch the sky next two months very carefully and i promise you, you will not be able to see Southern Cross at any time of any southern spring nights. Only next few nights from now on is the last chance for you to see Southern Cross briefly (right after sunset), and that's it. After early September (which is right now) through late November no Southern Cross above Australia. On top of that, first next chance for Australians to see Southern Cross clearly in the Sky is 1st January next year around midnight!!!

The Southern Cross is the southern antipode (direct opposite) to the northern circumpolar constellation Casiopeia. Casiopeia is visible on any clear night of the year from most locations in the Northern "hemisphere", why isn't the very same case with Southern Cross???

Guess why!