North - South

[Ernst]

My goodness, what are you talking about Ernst? Aren't you aware how small value of 20 arcs of a second really is?

Guilty as charged! I have no idea. I do know "arcseconds" and "seconds of an arc", but I have no idea what "arcs of a second" are.
If you can manage, read this.

I am also quite surprised to see that even this is beyond you.
Let me show you.
The distance to Polaris is estimated at at least 325 light-years. (A)
The distance Earth-Sun is about 8 light-minutes. So the distance Earth-in-July - Earth-in-January is about 16 light-minutes (B).
There are 365.242 days in a year, so 325 light-years are 118703.65 light-days.
There are 1440 minutes in a day, so 118703.65 light-days are 1.70933 . 10⁸ light-minutes.
Calculate B/A, will give you 9.36037 .10⁻⁸, which is the tangent of an angle of 0.02 seconds of an arc. So if you meant arcseconds by "arcs of a seconds" then your value of 20 is still 1000x too large. You should have said "milli-arcseconds" or "mas".
Until you use a tube that disallows the yearly parallax, your argument is void.
The fact that you can not even figure this out, nor come up with correct numbers proves again that a discussion on facts is utterly useless, because you don't understand even the simplest math.

And of course, had you been able to offer plausible and reasonable answer to my very first challenge to you (in our untried serious discussion) you would have become more famous than Einstein, and you know it.

Proving that the sky is blue will not bring me fame, I am sure!

Goodby Ernst, and repent!

This is really odd in an scientific discussion based on scientific facts. But This explains it:

However, if FET ever turned up to be false then the Bible should be discarded as authentic Word of God.

I have enough courage to say that, and you won't find more than just a few Christians in the whole world who would have so much courage to assert what i just have asserted.

Am i fair enough, what do you think?

Yes, now you are fair enough. I thought this was a scientific discussion based on facts. But now I see it is a religious discussion based on faith (oops, perhaps I should not use that word).

Now, repent and redeem and revenge and deploy and rumble thee forth to the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side. 'Cause they don't go for what is in the Book and that makes them BAD. So verily we must choppeth them up and stompeth them down! Or rent a nice French bomb to poof them out of existence, while leaving their real estate just where we need it, to use again for temples in which to praise our God. 'Cause He can really take care of business!

(guess what the name of that song is)

One more thought to share: In your flat Earth model the Sun would never disappear below the horizon. (yeah, I know, 3rd rate evidence)

This terminates my confessions to you Father cikljamas!


Ernst.

[Hrothgar]

Ernst, I sooooo

envy you, you get to debate the "sanish" one.

[TheoriaApophasis]

yes, the earth is flat, Apollo proof

[Ernst]

envy you, you get to debate the "sanish" one.

Don't!
You got some quite phenomenal discussion techniques yourself!

Ernst.

[Web000x]

yes, the earth is flat, Apollo proof

I've got to say, you're seem rather intelligent. But your ego disturbs your presentation to the point where I disregard most of what you post. Can you not just leave this thread alone, as well as the others you troll? I'm not endorsing the thread, but your use of a BS meme while trolling this thread is useless.

What do you do for fun? Is it experiment? Is it troll this forum and respond to every 'dumb' statement with your ingenious rebuttal? What drives you in life? Are you here because you want to prove yourself to others? Or are you striving for acceptance? Are you here to convey your knowledge in a selfless exchange? (<-- RIGHT ANSWER ) It is okay to calm down and just breathe. The calling everybody dumb will destroy your rapport. Relax...

Dave

[TheoriaApophasis]

your ego disturbs your presentation
Dave

have a sense of humor a little bit.


If you cannot chuckle a bit at the notion of sailing over the EDGE of the earth,.....

.....then there is nothing to chuckle at.



It all reminds me of some preacher who said "Satan put dinosaur fossils in the earth to test the faith of men"

[Web000x]

have a sense of humor a little bit.


If you cannot chuckle a bit at the notion of sailing over the EDGE of the earth,.....

.....then there is nothing to chuckle at.



It all reminds me of some preacher who said "Satan put dinosaur fossils in the earth to test the faith of men"

I've bitten my tongue a couple of times on calling you out for being a jackass. Not this time..

How about you not have a sense of humor over somebody else's personal beliefs as if they were not human. cikljamas believes differently than you. Present your FACTS and leave this thread be. cikljamas is hurting nobody. Your EGO is BIG.

Breathe.

[TheoriaApophasis]

I've bitten my tongue a couple of times on calling you out for being a jackass. Not this time..

How about you not have a sense of humor over somebody else's personal beliefs as if they were not human. cikljamas believes differently than you. Present your FACTS and leave this thread be. cikljamas is hurting nobody. Your EGO is BIG.

Breathe.

I dont mind being called a jackarse.

If he says he has a pet Unicorn and his great uncle sailed off the edge of the Earth.....


....thats all fine and well too.

I love a good chuckle.

[cikljamas]

Ernst, thanks, of course it's not "arcs of a second", it's "seconds of an arc"!!! Same with "turns up" instead of "turns out"...You see what i mean?
My whole point was: Aren't you aware how small value of 20 seconds of an arc really is?

You didn't answer my question, you just divided B/A. Since for God in Croatian we say Bog let's say that B is for God and A is for a typical mind of an average ass-hole, now divide A/B and you will get the true answer (value) to the real question: How really smart is Ernst?

For those who don't know:

1 sec. of an arc = An angle subtended by a U.S. dime coin at a distance of 4 km!!!
1 mas = 1/1000000 sec. of an arc
Tycho Brahe was able to measure angles about 0,3 minutes of an arc.
Casini was able to measure angles about 3,6 seconds of an arc.

The North Star, also known as Polaris, is known to stay fixed in our sky. It marks the location of the sky’s north pole, the point around which the whole sky turns. That’s why you can always use Polaris to find the direction north.

Just look at this insanity:

In a recent letter to the Astrophysical Journal, Turner et al.
(2013) (TKUG from here on) suggested that the parallax as
measured by Hipparcos (van Leeuwen 2007a,b) for Polaris
(HIP 11767, HD 8890) is significantly lower than it should be.
The distance of 99 ± 2 pc suggested by TKUG on the basis of
he assumed pulsation mode of Polaris is equivalent to a parallax
of 10, 1 ± 0 2 mas, very different from the parallax as measured
by Hipparcos, 7, 54 ± 0 11 mas. Consequently, I have recently
frequently been asked if it is at all possible for the Hipparcos
parallax measurement to be so far off. This letter shows the Hip-
parcos astrometric solution for Polaris in all detail as a means to
assess the robustness of that solution, to assess whether its mea-
surement of the parallax could be offset by 23 times its standard
error. It also briefly discusses other arguments that have been
used to suggest a significantly shorter distance for Polaris than
what has been measured by Hipparcos. Read more: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0890v1.pdf

All that this "stars parallax" nonsense has to do with is the one and only purpose: throwing sand in the eyes of sincere thinkers, nothing more than that!

Light years, ha? Light years are only in your deluded and totally washed out brains and nowhere else!!!

Ernst, there isn't scintilla of integrity in you, why don't you just answer directly to my very simple question posed (to you) in the post #337? Not maybe because you have no reasonable answer to that question???

We have been through all this, so we don't expect of you any direct answer to anything, all that you are capable of is to divide B/A, the only problem is that you always divide wrong values.

If you are not able to answer questions directly you don't have to discredit yourself as a person more than you have already done.

[cikljamas]

Even if you watch our Universe from the heliocentric point of view this is how it really looks like if you think reasonably:

SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIES—There are several other weaknesses in these theories of the origin of our solar system. Here are some of them:

(1) They do not explain where stars, planets and moons originated.

(2) They assume that the very precise and complicated orbits in our solar system came about by chance. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.

(3) To the extent to which we have studied them, each planet and moon in our solar system has unique structures and properties. How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?

(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories. Within the time span of mankind no such evolutionary changes as those taught by astronomical theorists has occurred. How can we assume they take place! This imaginative thinking is not science, but fiction writing.

(6) Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with a rational explanation of the intricate balancing s and orbital motions of moons and planets in our solar system! As mentioned earlier, Everything should crash together or fly apart.

Sir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world's leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence for each of the various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the situation in this way:

'To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.'— Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution (1970), p. 359.

'The idea that the sun could be formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas involves many theoretical difficulties. A gas cloud of the type presently observed out in space, unless it were a number of times greater in mass than the sun, would tend to expand rather than contract . . Furthermore, a cloud could not contract unless there were some way in which much of the resulting heat could be radiated out of the cloud. But it is not yet firmly established that a process exists that could get this heat out of the cloud.' — R.E. Kofahl and KL. Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), p. 142.


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

David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

There is no possible means by which the angular momentum from the sun could be transferred to the planets. Yet this is what would have to be done if any of the evolutionary theories of solar system origin are to be accepted.

Since our sun contains 99-6/7 percent of all the mass in the solar system, why was not one large mass of material formed, Instead of our giant sun and its small planets? Why did not the remaining 1/7 of one percent just fall into the sun?

Scientists cannot account for this puzzling situation: less than one percent of the mass of the solar system is in the planets, while a staggering 98 percent of its angular momentum is in the sun. It simply does not fit into any of the cosmologies. Speaking of the mass-angular momentum problem, Bergamini says:

'A theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact is ruled out before it starts.'—David Bergamini, The Universe, p. 93.


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

Who was it who actually invented the Moon eclipse as caused by the Earth hoax?

The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several texts written in ancient India. Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) thought that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was 'the centre of the spheres' as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10) he states: 'The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread.'

Yajnavalkya also offered the measurements still in use today, with respect to Sun/Moon dimensions (relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the 'modern' measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon.) His opinion that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, influenced this early heliocentric concept.


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


Here is how modern science describes the Moon eclipse:

One of the most remarkable coincidences found in nature is the fact that the Moon and Sun both appear the same size as seen from Earth. The Moon, a small, cold, dark body, is only 3500 km in diameter while the Sun, a self luminous, gaseous giant, is 1,400,000 km across. The coincidence arises from the fact that although the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, it is also 400 times farther from Earth.

Actually it would be more than a remarkable coincidence, IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE!!!

[aljhoa]

@ Al, few pages back, i have shown you (considering "Southern Cross case")

Disappearing Southern Cross is irrelevant because,
the Star Trails including Sigma Octantis,
which is closest star to the south Celestial pole,
show that something is rotating.

If these photographs turned out to be authentic then it would present serious problem for FET,
although even then it wouldn't cause automatic rejection of the whole FET, and it wouldn't cause any problem at all for geocentrism as such.

, what do you think?

Your conscious lets you "Put-in" your nose where it belongs.

“We will not forget the losses that the Jewish people suffered in fighting Nazism, nor will we ever forget the Holocaust,” Putin said.

“Any decent and honest person must be thankful to Russia and honor the Red Army,
which demonstrated unheard-of courage in what was an extremely hard period,” the Israeli President said.

Putin vows ‘Russia will never forget Holocaust’ — RT Russian politics







Fine Art Photography at Lorcan Gallery: Bora Bora - Southern Cross Star Trails

The above Star-Trails showing the South Pole are from Bora Bora ,
Master @cikljamas do you agree?


Al

[cikljamas]

Al, why did you put quotes about holocaust in this thread?
Maybe you had not followed this thread
You should also hear this

Al, if Southern Cross somehow manage to make half a circle in just 6 hours then it raises HUGE suspicions on the authenticity of all "Southern Pole" photographs, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???

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.

It is my contention that The Southern Cross (also known as the Southern Crux) is really just one of the constellations on the very outer edge of the Northern gear which rotates over South America, Africa and Australia. It can be seen by all three continents over a 24 hour period, but never at the exact same time.

Could we somehow check whether this is so or not?

Maybe the next excerpt from one FET discussion can give you a clue how we could do it:

As far as that article which says that the astronomers were observing the Southern Cross at the exact same time, the quote specifically says:

"The trick was to use two telescopes at essentially the same time."

What does "at essentially the same time" mean?

Earlier in the article it says "For over a week they observed..." Does 'at essentially the same time' mean that observations were taken within a couple days of each other, within the week of each other, or what?

So, somebody could organize verification of the validity of our hypothesis and engage few guys to observe the Southern Cross at the exact same time from the two different points somewhere in South America and/or Africa and/or Australia. Since there are moments in time when it's darkness in the same time over South America and Africa or over Africa and Australia or over Australia and South America we could (by using this method) establish which hypothesis is true and which is false.

[TheoriaApophasis]

It is my contention that The Southern Cross (also known as the Southern Crux) is really just one of the constellations on the very outer edge of the Northern gear which rotates over South America, Africa and Australia. It can be seen by all three continents over a 24 hour period, but never at the exact same time.

Ohhhh, its a "GEAR" is it?

So, somebody could organize verification of the validity of our hypothesis

Validity? Nobody here is deluded enough to think you want genuine validation.




When you post 5 posts in a row, TO YOURSELF, is that how you validate your premise?

Do you agree bob?

Yes, bob, I agree, and you bob?

Yes bob, I agree with you, signed, Bob.







This is all like baron von munchausen pulling himself up by his own hair

[Hrothgar]

your right

You, son, are NO PLATO

(Your 10 year old's avatar doesn't help your case any either).

The use of language is meant to facilitate understanding to bring people closer together. Yet you use it as a partisan to both prod & keep yourself at distance. When threatened you retreat in time to hide behind togas. Just to clarify, parroting the classics isn't thinking.

I agree whole heartedly about not being Plato, I don't need to pass notes to Socrates to speak for me. Your not either, Plato was noted to be modest.

I wonder about your avatar... is it to remind you of tracers you saw while you were on LSD back in the sixties "Dad"?

[TheoriaApophasis]

.. is it to remind you of tracers you saw while you were on LSD back in the sixties "Dad"?

Never took drugs ever.


Dont ever drink


WAS drunk twice in college as i recall. Awful vice I could never enjoy.


I see no enjoyment from it.