North - South

[aljhoa]

Guess why!

Our Solar System is a Vortex

Our Galaxy is a Vortex


Al

[cikljamas]

Al, i have to remind you to just three last questions to which you haven't even try to answer so far:

Question no 1:

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.

Question no 2:

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 heliocentric audaciousness and arrogance.

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

Question no 3:

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 the Southern Cross if the Earth is rotund???

[cikljamas]

More on Souther Cross

Do you remember post #2 and "Polaris" argument?

How about this:

Have you ever seen the Southern Cross (constellation Crux) from 28 degrees north? This is perhaps a northern most record to capture the complete view of this small but notable southern constellation. This time-lapse video shows stars moving over the southern horizon of Tenerife, Canary Islands. The video is made of a sequence of many short-exposure images. As added by the photographer "The video is the result of nearly two hours of continuous shots. To my knowledge this is the first ever imagery of full Southern Cross, including the lower star Acrux from this northern latitude. I was at Teide National Park at altitude of 2300 meters, probably the place with darkest and most transparent sky on the island. The atmospheric physics contained in this view is interesting too. Theoretically the star Acrux (alpha Crux at declination -63ş 10') never appears over the horizon of this place. However, due to atmospheric refraction and the high altitude, the star is visible only for a few minutes in mid-May in early evening.

No my dear, altitude of 2300 meters and refraction doesn't add up at all...

What we have to deal with here is a blatant evidence of the proven fact that it's possible indeed to see the Southern Cross constellation from the position more than 3ş North from the (officially recognized) last northern frontier (25ş N) for spotting the Crux even in the best moment of the year.

So, theoretically and practically the star Acrux is 63ş South and the guy who filmed the video was 28ş North, 63 + 28 = 91ş.

No "altitude" or/and "refraction" excuse will suffice to cover up the only possible solution that we can use to convincingly explain this phenomena, and that one and only convincing explanation is of course FLAT EARTH theory and nothing but the FLAT EARTH obvious fact!

[aljhoa]

Sigma Octantis is the naked-eye star closest to the south Celestial pole,
but at apparent magnitude 5.45 it is barely visible on a clear night, making it unusable for navigational purposes.[6]
It is a Yellow giant, 275 light years from Earth. Its angular separation from the pole is about 1° (as of 2000).
The Southern Cross constellation functions as an approximate southern pole constellation, by pointing to where a southern pole star would be.
At the equator it is possible to see both Polaris and the Southern Cross.


The path of the south Celestial pole amongst
the stars due to the effect of precession.

Pole star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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" >



Sigma Octantis, how many are there on your "flat earth navigation chart"?



@cikljamas, answer all previous questions.


Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

since all space is a posterior attribute constructed from magnetic radiation which 'props up' every atom and the universe, we ARE living in a "flat universe" ultimately



however the earth "aint flat" . Magnetism DEMANDS VOLUME, POLARIZATION.


you cannot have polarization without a SPHERE in creation.


SO, no , hell no, and absolutely hell no, the earth "aint flat"

[aljhoa]

since all space is a posterior attribute constructed from magnetic radiation which 'props up' every atom and the universe, we ARE living in a "flat universe" ultimately



however the earth "aint flat" . Magnetism DEMANDS VOLUME, POLARIZATION.


you cannot have polarization without a SPHERE in creation.


SO, no , hell no, and absolutely hell no, the earth "aint flat"

TA, Kudos for Explaning this W/O AU.



Aether Unit Animation








Butterfly Nebula

"Big Bang"

Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

[SIZE="6"]/aetheranimation.html]Aether Unit Animation[/url]

Al

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.



Yes, i know you were not supporting this/that position.




Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"

ala the "Ether particle"




If they wanted to say the "universe is ultimately 'FLAT', and all volume is a discharge/ radiation projection of magnetism"

then id be on board.



(get it, board, flat).....

[cikljamas]

Just a few important facts to stress here:

1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

3. The circular movement of stars on time-delayed pictures cannot be created by Earth's rotation. If the Earth revolved the paths of stars would be horizontal not circular.

4. On time-delayed pictures of stars, the Polaris star almost doesn't move. The only way it can work is if both the Earth and Polaris don't move. The Earth is therefore the centre of the universe and Polaris is its end. The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!


5. In fact, the stars are moving in a circle, around the star Polaris. Hence, "Polaris Effect". The stars on the outside of Polaris move faster. It is because the distance they travelled is bigger.

Can we provide some evidence of that kind (for different speeds of the different constellations)?

Wouldn't you consider such evidence as staggering one?

So, let's take the Southern Cross vs Cassiopeia as an example. How fast should we expect The Southern Cross to cross the sky nightly in comparison to it's northern counterpart constellation Cassiopeia?

We shall use for this purpose several different quotes:

Quote 1 (Southern Cross):

Because the Southern Cross is so low in the sky and close to the South Celestial Pole, its path in the sky is short. From the time it rises to the time it begins to set, it is only in the sky for around six hours, whereas objects that rise closer to due east and set due west take approximately 12 hours to traverse the sky. In other words, don't expect to see the Southern Cross in the sky all evening.

Quote 2 (Southern Cross):

The Southern Cross is a constellation of five stars. They are arranged just like the stars on the Australian and New Zealand flags. Tonight (14/5/04), the Southern Cross will be tilted to the left in the early evening, straight up and down at around 9:45 pm and tilted over to the right by midnight.

So, in above words we have another corroboration that the Southern Cross makes half of a alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so!!!!!!

Quote 3 (Southern Cross):

If you draw a line downwards, an imaginary line downwards from Alpha Centauri through Beta Centauri, and extend that line down towards the horizon, it should point you straight towards the Southern Cross. It’s tipped over on its right hand side, but otherwise, it looks just as it does on the Australian flag.

Quote 4 (Cassiopeia):

From January to March the constellation will first appear almost overhead around 6 pm, as the evening progresses it will head down towards the horizon in a north-westerly direction, by early morning Cassiopeia will be low on the horizon in a more northerly or north-easterly direction.

So, we have to conclude that Cassiopeia (the real one circumpolar constellation) crosses the sky about twice slower than the Southern Cross.

Draw conclusions for yourself!

A) Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is seen to be what it really is!!!

B) In order for the Earth to be stationary the stars have to be able to go above the Earth nightly, so that eliminates Mainstream Science's 78 billion light-year radius of the Universe!

C) It (78 billion light-year radius) is just wise guy scientists extrapolating all over the place using pure assumptions to make a name for themselves.

[aljhoa]

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.

Yes, i know you were not supporting this/that position.

Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"
ala the "Ether particle"

If they wanted to say the "universe is ultimately 'FLAT', and all volume is a discharge/ radiation projection of magnetism"

then id be on board.

(get it, board, flat).....

Does "3D" reply suffice in a "2D" thread?

3. If the Earth revolved the paths of stars would be horizontal not circular.

4. On time-delayed pictures of stars, the Polaris star almost doesn't move. The only way it can work is if both the Earth and Polaris don't move. The Earth is therefore the centre of the universe and Polaris is its end. The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!

Sigma Octantis, where is it located above your "flat earth navigation chart" >?


Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

if you can grasp this, then there is hope








speaking of THREAD.


take a "2D" thread, weave ball out of it , or blanket, crumple it up. = 3D


All volume in the universe is magnetism PERIOD. This is irrefutable.


The universe as a "balloon" has no "air" in it without magnetism.



Nobody gets such simplex things.

[cikljamas]

Al, it seems that you still don't understand the argument from the FIRST post of this thread.
Maybe next illustration can help you (although i should have rested my case long time ago... ):



Regarding the Stars:

The stars are set in a hemispherical dome so low and close to the Earth that not all stars can be visible from any one point.



One correction regarding my assertion about the speed difference (traversing the sky) between the Southern Cross and Cassiopeia: it should be more than just two magnitude difference...

Now, let see one argument which totally destroys Round Earth Theory:



Now, let me present you some counterintuitive RET objections to above clear and sane obviousness:



Now, allow me to serve for the mach:



According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt, the Southern hemisphere is more exposed (than Northern hemisphere) to the Sun's sharp ("more vertical") rays, so we enjoy Summer in the South and Winter in the North and vice versa.

But, what scatters wet RET dreams is the fact that in January we have deadly synergy of the two important factors: the first factor: significant decrease of the distance between the Earth (which is closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July) and the Sun; and the second factor: Sun's ("more vertical") rays hit the Southern Hemisphere under sharper angles comparing it with Northern hemisphere. But these sharper angles are the very same angles under which Sun's rays hit the Northern Hemisphere in July. So, why then in January in Southern hemisphere isn't 3 % (150 000 000 / 5 000 000) hotter than it is in July in Northern hemisphere? .........Don't forget: The angles are the same!!!

If the Earth were round and so far away from the Sun we would have to deal with the same problem (significant temperature difference between North and South) in Winter time also, that is to say, in July when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, Southern hemisphere this time should be tilted away from the Sun which would again have deadly impact for Southerners who would instantly freeze to death if southern-winter temperatures were this time 3 % lower comparing them with the northern-winter temperatures. Don't forget: The angles are still the same!!!

Just in case that you are not aware of the significance of that percentage (3%):

"If the Sun were 5% closer, then the water would boil up from the oceans and if the Sun were just 1% farther away, then the oceans would freeze, and that gives you just some idea of the knife edge we are on."

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!!

If you feel the headache after reading above irrefutable argument just take an aspirin...

[TheoriaApophasis]

flat earth is as potential as the end result of this:






Dont go too far over the "edge"

[cikljamas]

Aristotle’s three proofs were:

First. The disappearance of a ship as it sails over the horizon, the hull vanishing first, and the masts and rigging last, and the reappearance of an approaching ship in reverse order.

Second. The curving shape of the earth’s shadow on the moon during an eclipse.

Third. The changing aspect of the heavens in different latitudes, some stars disappearing and others appearing, as the polar star in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross south of the equator.

“There is not a scintilla of truth in any of them,” Voliva retorts, “and yet you will find them in every geography, and every primary teacher repeats them like a parrot. I decline to be a parrot. A parrot is a man who never thinks for himself, but repeats what he hears without any questions as to why or wherefore.”

Flat Earth and the Sun's rays

************************************


E E represents the Earth; WW the " great deep,'' or the waters which surround the land ; N the northern centre; and S S sections of the southern ice. As the present description is purely zetetic, and as every fact must therefore have its fullest value assigned to it, and its consequences represented, a peculiarity must be pointed out in the foregoing diagram.

It will be observed that from about the points E E the surface of the water rises towards the south S S. It is clearly ascertained that the altitµde of the water in various parts of the world is much influenced by the pressure of the atmosphere-however this pressure is caused-and it is well known that the atmospheric pressure in the south is constantly less than it is in the north, and therefore
the water in the southern region must always be considerably higher than it is in the northern.

Hence the peculiarity referred to in the diagram. The following quotation from Sir James Ross's voyages, p. 483, will corroborate the above statement: "Our barometrical experiment appear to prove that a gradual diminution of atmospheric pressure occurs as we proceed southwards from the tropic of Capricorn. It has hitherto been considered that the mean pressure of the atmosphere at the level of the sea was nearly the same in all parts of the world, as no material difference occurs between the equator and the highest northern latitudes. The causes of the atmospheric pressure being so very much less in the southern than in the northern hemispheres remains to be determined"

Thus, putting all theories aside, we have seen that direct experiment demonstrates the important truth, that the Earth is an extended Plane. Literally, " Stretched out upon the waters ;" " Founded on the seas and established on the floods ;" " Standing in the water and out of the water." How far the southern icy region extends horizontally, or how deep the waters upon and in which the earth stands or is supported are questions which cannot yet be answered. In Zetetic philosophy the foundation must be well secured, progress must be made step by step, making good the ground as we proceed ; and whenever a difficulty presents itself or evidence fails to carry us farther, we must promptly and candidly acknowledge it, and prepare for future investigation ; but never fill up the inquiry by theory and assumption.

**********************************

That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors. If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the most solid foundation which it ispossible toconstruct, the very curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position of the air-bubble. However carefully · the " level " may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the "bubble" will not maintain its position many seconds together. A somewhat similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional re-adjustment.
Physical Geography of the Sea, by Lieut. Maury, p. 176.

*************************************

Here, then, is an error between the theory of rotundity and practical sailing of 7,718 miles. But there are several statements made by Sir James Clarke Ross which tend to make the disparity even greater : at page 236, vol 2, of "South Sea Voyages," it is said " From near Cape Horn to Port Philip (in Melbourne, Australia) the distance is 9,000 miles." These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth's circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided ? The answer is, 22,657 miles ; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26, 433 statute miles ; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.

****************************************

That the south is an immense ring, or glacial boundary, is evident from the fact, that within the Antarctic circle the most experienced, scientific, and daring navigators have failed in their attempts to sail, in a direct manner, completely around it. … But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one centre, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hmmmm yes.



the earth IS flat as a piece of paper........



...that has been wrapped around a sphere.

[aljhoa]

Hmmmm yes.

the earth IS flat as a piece of paper........

...that has been wrapped around a sphere.

Fault geology proves it.

Aristotle’s three proofs were:

First. The disappearance of a ship as it sails over the horizon, the hull vanishing first, and the masts and rigging last, and the reappearance of an approaching ship in reverse order.

Second. The curving shape of the earth’s shadow on the moon during an eclipse.

Third. The changing aspect of the heavens in different latitudes, some stars disappearing and others appearing, as the polar star in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross south of the equator.

“There is not a scintilla of truth in any of them,” Voliva retorts, “and yet you will find them in every geography, and every primary teacher repeats them like a parrot. I decline to be a parrot. A parrot is a man who never thinks for himself, but repeats what he hears without any questions as to why or wherefore.”

Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Eratosthenes' method for determining the size of the Earth

History of geodesy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carl Sagan - Cosmos - Eratosthenes - YouTube


Al