North - South

[cikljamas]

You would wage war on all us unbelievers.

No, i would not, but “If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.”

Ernst, had you really thought that i could ever be that kind of person you wouldn't even have addressed to me in the first place, let alone multiple posting your interesting anti religious posts in this thread, am i right?

Ernst, i am human being also

You say that if the Earth would be spherical we should ask ourselves if the Bible really is the Word of God. The Bible can still be right, but your interpretation could be wrong.

No, the Bible can't be right in that case, and that is why this inquiry is so important!

Hrothgar, thanks for your link, let's quote last passage from there:

The most important thing about all of this to remember is that the difference accumulates each day. It continues to accumulate until around April 2nd when at that time the speed of Earth "A" and Earth "B" are the same. At that time the position of the sun in the sky will have its maximum "offset" to the east. The time difference between the sun and your watch will be almost 8 minutes. From April 2nd until around July 3rd the sun will drift back toward the west. Then from July 3rd to October 2nd the sun continues to drift to the west until it reaches its maximum "offset" in the west. Then from October 2nd until January 2nd, the sun drifts back toward the east until it reaches its starting position on January 2nd.

Beautiful, you have just provided for us fantastically good description of heliocentric insanity. Now that we know that sometimes you can think logically, why don't you be sincere and admit that above quote from your link undoubtedly proves that it's utterly impossible to derive perfectly steady-even-precise-constant annual shift of all the stars on daily-hourly basis from such unsteady-uneven erratic orbital motion of the Earth?

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 Moon crosses the sky very slightly faster than the Sun, because it orbits the Earth in prograde, that is, it's orbit is in the same direction as the Earth's rotation.

Does this make any sense?

Of course it doesn't, the argument is completely wrong. If the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction as the Earth rotates on it's axis then the 'apparent' velocity of Moon's motion should be slower across the sky than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun.

The problem is that the 'apparent' motion of the Moon is much faster than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun across the sky!

4. Same goes for the Sun. If the Earth moves faster in winter than the apparent velocity of Sun's motion in winter should be slower across the sky than the apparent velocity of Sun's motion in summer, and all that of course should be (reality) as i just described if we assumed that the apparent velocity of the Sun is primarily a consequence of Earth's (non-existent) rotation on it's non-existent axis which is allegedly tilted 23,5 degree and spatially Fixed with respect to Nothing at all!!!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

Saros, this one is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMcjv55VcJc

[cikljamas]

1. Should we consider "pendulum argument" a strongest heliocentric argument even today (45 years after supposed Moon landing)?

2. Should we consider UN a joke or a circus like organization (regarding their logo)?

3. Should we take as a fact that not even one heliocentrist is able to offer to us plausible answer to this question:

page 10 - post #272 :

Question no 1:

My question (unanswered by you) was very simple and clear. 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?

Flight Time Christchurch to Rio - Flat Earth proof (Deutsch)

[Ernst]

1. Should we consider "pendulum argument" a strongest heliocentric argument even today (45 years after supposed Moon landing)?

a - it does not proof anything about what would be the centre of the universe. As I told you before you can take any random chosen point in the entire universe and call it the centre and all laws of physics will still apply.
b - it does proof that the Earth rotates and that it is spherical. There are several museums/institutes all over the world where you can verify this experiment.
c - what Moon landing? Who landed on the Moon 45 years ago?

2. Should we consider UN a joke or a circus like organization (regarding their logo)?

a joke. And a rather BIG one!

3. Should we take as a fact that not even one heliocentrist is able to offer to us plausible answer to this question:

page 10 - post #272 :

Question no 1:

My question (unanswered by you) was very simple and clear. 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?

Flight Time Christchurch to Rio - Flat Earth proof (Deutsch)

a - what makes you think that no one CAN?
b - does it make any sense that Emirates (airlines) flights either start or end in Dubai?
c - they are not throwing away enormous sums of money, they are cashing in big time.
d - Do you really believe that Emirates cares about those few people that want to fly from NZ to B?
e - they are not out of their mind, what they do is perfectly logical, but if I were planning that trip I would look if there are other companies that offer a shorter flight (time).

There you go; 5 answers to your question!

Beer time! Oops, I mean time for some serious religious activities!



Ernst.

[Hrothgar]

Google, try it!

No, i would not, but “If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.”

Ernst, had you really thought that i could ever be that kind of person you wouldn't even have addressed to me in the first place, let alone multiple posting your interesting anti religious posts in this thread, am i right?

Ernst, i am human being also



No, the Bible can't be right in that case, and that is why this inquiry is so important!

Hrothgar, thanks for your link, let's quote last passage from there:



Beautiful, you have just provided for us fantastically good description of heliocentric insanity. Now that we know that sometimes you can think logically, why don't you be sincere and admit that above quote from your link undoubtedly proves that it's utterly impossible to derive perfectly steady-even-precise-constant annual shift of all the stars on daily-hourly basis from such unsteady-uneven erratic orbital motion of the Earth?

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.
Does this make any sense?

Of course it doesn't, the argument is completely wrong. If the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction as the Earth rotates on it's axis then the 'apparent' velocity of Moon's motion should be slower across the sky than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun.

The problem is that the 'apparent' motion of the Moon is much faster than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun across the sky!

4. Same goes for the Sun. If the Earth moves faster in winter than the apparent velocity of Sun's motion in winter should be slower across the sky than the apparent velocity of Sun's motion in summer, and all that of course should be (reality) as i just described if we assumed that the apparent velocity of the Sun is primarily a consequence of Earth's (non-existent) rotation on it's non-existent axis which is allegedly tilted 23,5 degree and spatially Fixed with respect to Nothing at all!!!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

Saros, this one is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMcjv55VcJc

The Motion of the Moon

So you explain WHY flat earth works. Other than the fact that the book put together for Christians by the same people that fed Christians to the LIONS and drank water from lead pipes tells you so!!! You who doesn't need that book because you are your own God, Troll God that is.

You could Google Duckduckgo dogpile or yahoo any of this instead of turning your stinkiest cheeks in our faces. By the way if King Solomon could have concubines and practice witchcraft by summoning demons to serve his wishes, Then why is witchcraft and sleeping around so horribly looked down on?

Happy trolling beeeeeach!

[Hrothgar]

This just in, Even Hittler loves Jesus!!!!

http://ww2days.com/nazi-to-lead-german-lutherans-2.html

Just goes to show you that no-one would ever stoop to using religion as mind control! oh wait!

[cikljamas]

c - what Moon landing? Who landed on the Moon 45 years ago?

What hump?

There you go; 5 answers to your question!

Nil Dicit, your explanation is simply—nothing.

In consequence of the difference between fact and theory, as exemplified by the actual extent of longitudes in Southern seas greatly exceeding the calculations made by Official Authorities, which are based on the supposition that the world is globular, instead of horizontal, many valuable lives and vessels have been sacrificed. Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West. Even such an astute navigator as Sir James Clarke Ross, R.N., remarks in his " South Sea Voyages "

" We found ourselves every day from twelve to sixteen miles by observation in advance of our reckoning."—Vol. I., p. 96. " By our observations at noon we found ourselves fifty-eight miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two days." p. 27.

The Government could then give instructions to the Nautical Authorities at the Board of Trade, to amend their Laws of Navigation accordingly, just as in 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.

Ernst, maybe you have something (instead of nothing) to say about an Order that the Houses of Lords and Commons issued in 1862.

The Motion of the Moon

Nil Dicit, your explanation is simply—nothing.

Mr. Laing, on page 122 of " Modern Science and Modem Thought," tells us that "The distance of the Earth from the Sun being 93 million miles, and its orbit an ellipse nearly circular, it follows that in, Mid-Winter, in round numbers, it is 186 million miles distant from the spot where it was in Mid-Summer."

Such revolution of the Earth is altogether fabulous. If it were true there would, by observation, be discovered a difference in the relative position of the stars, but there is not. This fact was one of Tycho Brahe's chief objections against the theory of a revolving Earth. Experiments were tried in his day at intervals of six months to test if there was any difference, but, after the keenest scrutiny, none was found, thus proving the Earth to be stationary. Tycho Brahe was not only a great Astronomer, but an honest man, and dared, in spite of all opposition, to speak what he believed to be true.

Would that we had a few more like him now; in such case there would soon be a change in Astronomic and Geographic text-books, as far as regards the figure of the world. Mr. Laing attempts an explanation, as follows "Their (the stars) distance is so vastly greater than 186 million miles, that a change of basis to this extent makes no change perceptible to the most refined instruments in their bearing as seen from the Earth."

Nil Dicit, his explanation is simply—nothing. The presumed measurements of a few, apparently the nearest, stars, have been made on an entirely erroneous basis, and are, therefore, not of the slightest value. Tycho's objection against the revolution of the Earth is known to be as valid now, as when he proved its truth more than 300 years (that is to say 410 years) ago, and the subterfuge used to evade it is utterly futile. Our Modem Astronomers were at first of opinion that the Sun was the Centre of the Universe, but in later years, as has been already observed, most, if not all of those whose ideas respecting the infinite have become very considerably enlarged, now think the Sun to be a subsidiary itself, although still the Baal or Lord of the Solar system.

They still consider the Earth to be a mere satellite of the Sun, and to revolve around it at the rate of eighteen miles per second! Dear Reader, do you feel the motion? I trow not, for if you did, you would not so quietly be reading my book. I doubt not you have been, like myself, on a railway platform when an express train rushed wildly past at the rate of sixty five miles per hour, when the concussion of the air almost knocked you down. But how much more terrible would be the shock of the Earth's calculated motion of sixty five thousand miles per hour, one thousand times faster than the speed of the railway express.

Astronomers try to evade the argument that persons would be killed thereby, by saying that, as the air goes around with the Sun, the shock would not be felt, but this will not meet the facts of the case, for thousands of people travel from East to West, which is directly contrary to the course which Astronomers say the Earth takes—from West to East—so that such travellers would have to bear the whole force of the concussion.

Happily, however, no deaths, resulting from such a catastrophe, have as yet been recorded in the columns of The Times or Telegraph, so that it would decidedly seem that the tremendous revolution of the Earth, whirling round the Sun, were a mere phantom of the Astronomic brain.

[Hrothgar]

Really tho,

can I go biblical and get a couple o hundred concubines and wives and get really biblical? The bible is impossible as the existence of any non descendant of the house of Noah completely discredits the bible so kill all other ethnicity's then comeback after validating the bible!

[TheoriaApophasis]

can I go biblical and get a couple o hundred concubines and wives and get really biblical? The bible is impossible as the existence of any non descendant of the house of Noah completely discredits the bible so kill all other ethnicity's then comeback after validating the bible!

religious faith is a self-reinforcing mental delusion.

You're trying to teach algebra to a poo flinging chimp.



While the CHIMP is a known entity.


The more you attempt to teach it algebra, the more you look like a CHIMP YOURSELF

[Hrothgar]

I answered the questions

you just hate the answers but I did answer yours so you answer mine, What is the official biblical position on who hermaphrodites can marry? by the by Ernst was inferring to the fact that the moon landing was faked to beat the Russians.

[cikljamas]

by the by Ernst was inferring to the fact that the moon landing was faked to beat the Russians.

You don't say...Who do you have to beat now? ISIL's space program? By the by, there are almost 7 billion people on the Earth and almost 4 times that many chickens. We seem to attempt to reduce that chicken population by eating more of them every year but they just keep multiplying. This years chicken slogan is "EAT MORE BEEF"... Don't be a chicken, be bold and strong and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about...or be a chicken and eaten...By the by, can chicken and fish be eaten together? Oh, it seems it can, i just have eaten both of you funny guys...I feel like throwing up...

[Ernst]

You don't say...Who do you have to beat now? ISIL's space program? By the by, there are almost 7 billion people on the Earth and almost 4 times that many chickens. We seem to attempt to reduce that chicken population by eating more of them every year but they just keep multiplying. This years chicken slogan is "EAT MORE BEEF"... Don't be a chicken, be bold and strong and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about...or be a chicken and eaten...By the by, can chicken and fish be eaten together? Oh, it seems it can, i just have eaten both of you funny guys...I feel like throwing up...

Nil Dicit, your response is simply—nothing.

Let us for a moment consider your Sun circling over a flat Earth lunacy.
1 - that Sun would NEVER go below the horizon. This contradicts my personal experience in many countries over the world.
2 - that Sun would look like a train coming towards you on a long track. Can you imagine how that looks? First you see a small dot at the horizon, moving very very slowly. Then it (very slowly) picks up speed and get bigger. At noon it would be at its biggest and ZOOM by to loose speed again and very very slowly disappear as a small dot.
The Sun I see (almost) every day does something very different: it appears biggest when it rises or sets and it moves fastest near the horizon and slowest at noon.
3 - do you know what a sundial looks like? A sun that moves around the Earth (or the other way around) would cast a shadow that moves with an almost constant angular velocity all through the day. I say 'almost' because you would have to be in the centre of the Earth to see a perfectly constant angular velocity, but since the Earth's radius is very small compared to the distance to the Sun, it would be an almost perfect constant angular velocity. This of course, you will only see if the shadow is cast in the plane of the Sun's (virtual) orbit as in a sundial. Try to make one yourself, it is easy and you will learn a lot.
If the Sun would move in a circle over a flat Earth, a shadow would show retrograde movement in the morning and in the evening. Try it with a pen, flashlight and a piece of paper! Try it before you answer as your spacial insight is not overwhelming.

Can you explain this in flat Earth terms?


Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

.

Youre, flat out , a fool.


Explain HF EM Ionosphere bounce YOU CANNOT



Shoot a signal round the earth, return signal is delayed by the distance of the circumference of the earth.



The only thing FLAT is your head.

[Ernst]

dont bring pornographic filth into here, mmkay?

nobody wants that filth

Funny... this overly hysterical reaction to a normal question, especially knowing it comes from someone who virtually ruins every serious discussion here.
Bet you don't want to see a public psychological analysis...

You're trying to teach algebra to a poo flinging chimp.

nobody wants that filth

ABSOLUTE TOTAL 100% STINKING COW PLOP

nobody wants that filth

There is not one FU*****G SINGLE GRAM of matter in the cosmos that has volume save for magnetism

nobody wants that filth

dont bring pornographic filth into here, mmkay?

nobody wants that filth

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

1. We have seen that "sunrise" and "sunset" are phenomena dependent entirely upon the fact that horizontal lines, parallel to each other, appear to approach or converge in the distance. The surface of the earth being horizontal, and the line of sight of the observer and the sun's path being over and parallel with it, the rising and setting of the moving sun over the immovable earth are simply phenomena arising necessarily from the laws of perspective.

2. 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.

3.



You will immediately notice upon looking at the image above that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the lights in the background are about as big as the lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size in foreground and background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again. The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun. The natural shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effect of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere between you and the light source. This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.

4.

Headlight Example

The light from these incoming headlights are a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see.



Notice how it is only the intense headlights of the cars on the incoming lane which are magnified. The headlights on the lane coming towards us are all the same size. The intense light from the headlights have caught onto the atmosphere between the source and camera to create a magnification of the light. This magnification increases with distance, allowing the headlights to appear the same size down the entirety of the lane.

In contradiction, the red tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere and are appropriately shrinking into the distance.

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

5. Distinctness of the Sun


Q. Shouldn't the sun get blurrier if it is being magnified?

A. The sun actually does get a bit fuzzier when it is at the horizon compared to overhead at noonday.

Q. But shouldn't the sun get 4x blurrier if it is increasing its diameter by 4x, for example?

A. No. You are assuming that the sun is being magnified in a similar method as a magnifying glass, where blurriness occurs as a ratio with distance. This is incorrect. The magnification of the sun occurs through a projection. A projection of light is occurring upon the atmosphere between the sun and observer.

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

6. Constant Speed of the Sun

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. 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 near 45 degree angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are.

For example, a flock of birds receding from the observer will reach the horizon line sooner than a jet airplane flying at 40,000 feet. Due to its height the jet airplane moves through the sky slower than the flock of birds close to the ground and will touch the horizon line later.

Or, to make a slightly better comparison, a flock of birds at 300 feet will appear to reach the horizon line sooner than a flock of birds at 10,000 feet, despite the two moving at the same speed.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon.

The sun and stars are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines, moving into the earth at a 45 degree angle in relation to the observer, at a constant or near constant pace.

[cikljamas]

1. Imagine that we live in the house placed in the North Pole region, or that we fix the web cam on the roof of our northern house and direct it (web ca,) to the sun.

What would happen?

For several summer months the sun would change it's position in the sky very slowly (due to Earth's orbital motion), but in this period of time sun wouldn't change noticeably it's position in the sky due to Earth's daily-rotational motion, in other words we wouldn't be able to notice sun's daily circular path across the sky because we would stand directly in the line with Earth's axis, which means: our northern house wouldn't make any circle at all or in the worst case it would make such a small circle (if we were somewhat out of straight Earth's axis line) that it couldn't have any such effect which could yield any noticeable sun's parallax in the sky.

Sun would be practically immovable spot in the sky (just like stars are).

Why don't we have until this day any such video which could easily prove Earth's daily rotation?

Because the Earth is not revolving at all, and because the Earth's surface is flatly flat!

2. If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?

Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.

If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.

How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???

3. If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating-static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?

If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist.

If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth (i.e., from west to east in direction), an airplane would have to travel much faster to fly from Los Angeles to Miami than from Miami to Los Angeles. And the required speed to fly west-to-east at cities close to the equator would be much greater than speed needed to go from, say, Toronto to Moscow (since the Earth’s speed of rotation closer to the North Pole would be less than farther to the south).

If the atmosphere were static then we would have opposite situation, it would be almost impossible to fly west to east, and it would be too easy (and twice faster then it is on the immovable Earth) to fly east to west.

4. If the Earth were suffering a daily rotation it would generate an incredible deflection on all flying matters in air atmosphere. 5) The inertial motion is terminated in air atmosphere, and thus all dropped objects should land behind their starting positions on a rotating Earth.

5. THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

6. To be pression or to be gravity? The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness.

7. True vs False Path of the Sun (thanks to Wild Heretic)

8. NO CAUSE OF EARTH'S ROTATION WHATSOEVER: retains the state of illusion. The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis. What is the cause of Earth’s rotation? No one has attributed the cause of Earth’s rotation to any type of action or force even though they have attributed the cause of orbital motion (revolution) to Newton’s law of gravity.

9. NO CAUSE OF THE ROTATION OF THE AIR-LAYER: 2) The rotation of the air-layer next to the rigid Earth is without cause, and lacks a technique and tool. Perhaps, one may envision the whole rigid sphere undergoes a rotation about its polar axis. But, how one can envision the air atmosphere (the surface layer) rotates with the rigid sphere without an engineering method (e.g.air foil). In addition, what maintains the air’s rotation for tens of thousands of years (we are practical people) without stop. The rotation of the background air is the greatest hoax ever invented by mankind.

If there is no Earth axial or orbital motion, we have to accept flat earth model because all geocentric as well as concave-earth models () are stupid and impossible (in reality) models!

In addition i would remind us to this marvellous excerpt from mr. Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe":

It will be seen also by reference to the diagram that when the sun is on the outer path, A, the portion of the disc of light which passes over England is much smaller than when it is on the inner path, B. Hence, the short days and winter season from the first position, and the longer days and summer season from the second. Thus day and night, long and short days and nights, morning and evening twilight, winter and summer, the long periods of alternate light and darkness at the northern or polar centre of the earth, arise from the expansion and contraction of the sun's path, and are all a part of one and the same general phenomenon.

The whole of these explanations have reference only to the region between the sun and the northern centre. It is evident that in the great encircling oceans of the south, and the numerous islands and parts of continents, which exist beyond that part of the earth where the sun is vertical, cannot have their days and nights, seasons, &c., precisely like those in the northern region. The north is a centre, and the south is that centre radiated or thrown out to a vast oceanic circumference, terminating in circular walls of ice, which form an impenetrable frozen barrier. Hence the phenomena referred to as existing in the north must be considerably modified in the south, For instance, the north being central, the light of the sun advancing and receding, gives long periods of alternate light and darkness at the actual centre; but in the far south, the sun, even when moving in his outer path, can only throw its light to a certain distance, beyond which there must be perpetual darkness. No evidence exists of there being long periods of light and darkness regularly alternating, as in the north. In the north, in summer-time, when the sun is moving in its inner path, the light shines continually for months together over the central region, and rapidly develops numerous forms of animal and vegetable life.

Thus it is a well ascertained fact that the constant sunlight of the north develops, with the utmost rapidity, numerous forms of vegetable life, and furnishes subsistence for millions of living creatures. But in the south, where the sunlight never dwells, or lingers about a central region, but rapidly sweeps over sea and land, to complete in twenty-four hours the great circle of the southern circumference, it has not time to excite and stimulate the surface; and, therefore, even in comparatively low southern latitudes, everything wears an aspect of desolation.

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. 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.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.