North - South

[cikljamas]

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?

IT is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it. What is plain and consistent with every known fact, and with the direct evidence of our senses, must be interpreted or translated into theoretical language--must be called "an illusion of our senses," and affirmed to be an apparent result only; the real cause being the earth's progressive motion round the sun in what is called the ecliptic, the plane of which is assumed to be inclined to the equator 23° 28´.

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."

[Ernst]

cikljamas, Now you are telling obvious lies to support your theory.
Make a drawing of how anyone can see an airplane half above and half below the horizon while the actual plane is above a flat earth.
Also your Sun-speed arguments are obvious lies, a sundial would never have equal distances for hours in the morning and hours around noon.
Have you ever seen shadows of clouds or airplanes moving over land? Then just imagine how shadows would move around noon in your flat Earth.
You should also do the experiment that I told you to do to see the retrograde movement of shadows. Something you will not see with shadows caused by the Sun.

I really should stop posting here. It is exactly as I said before, you are insensitive to valid arguments that ruin your theory and you will hold on to any illusion that seems to support it.
You even say that things do not exist while proof has been posted in this thread.
You simply ignore it.
You WANT to believe your theory, so just go ahead and believe!


Ernst.

[cikljamas]

A dead heliocentrist walking

Ernst, you simply dismiss everything...so why don't you just tell me some more stories about how to ignore all and everything ( remaining stubborn ignorant)...nice to listen your fairytales...

Try to ignore this also:

Extrapolation of epochality of meaning of the words ("hidden" in plain sight) written in above post #456:

Heliocentrists admit that a velocity of Sun's ("apparent") motion across the sky is variable, and they attribute it to the different velocities of Earth's orbital motion. Only if we were to attribute it to the different velocities of Earth's orbital motion then the result should be opposite to what we observe. But that is just the beginning of a dead heliocentrist walking path.

1. Heliocentrists claim that the stars and the sun are at rest, and that the Earth is in motion.
2. The fact is that the Earth is at rest, and the stars and the sun are in motion. Now we are going to prove this assertion.

If 1 then the rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth has to be variable too, not just a velocity of Sun's ("apparent") motion across the sky, but the fact is that the rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth is a constant.

We can not assign different velocities of Sun's ("apparent") motion across the sky to the different (variable) velocities of Earth's orbital motion and in the same time evade to apply different (variable) velocities of Earth's orbital motion to the steady (which then shouldn't be steady but variable) rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth.

If 2 then the steady-even rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth doesn't have to be variable, because in that case annual motion of the stars doesn't depend of any other motion, but presents and performes independant motion. In that case Sun's motion also presents independant motion and all that remains is to adjust (by some "Entity") these two motions in order to make them synchronous motions.

I shall just add the vigorous testimony of Gothe: "It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."

Is that it that Goethe had dreamed of?

[Ernst]

Try to ignore this also: ...

Ignored as requested.


Ernst.

[aljhoa]

cikljamas, Now you are telling obvious lies to support your theory.
Make a drawing of how anyone can see an airplane half above and half below the horizon while the actual plane is above a flat earth.
Also your Sun-speed arguments are obvious lies, a sundial would never have equal distances for hours in the morning and hours around noon.
Have you ever seen shadows of clouds or airplanes moving over land? Then just imagine how shadows would move around noon in your flat Earth.
You should also do the experiment that I told you to do to see the retrograde movement of shadows. Something you will not see with shadows caused by the Sun.

I really should stop posting here. It is exactly as I said before, you are insensitive to valid arguments that ruin your theory and you will hold on to any illusion that seems to support it.
You even say that things do not exist while proof has been posted in this thread.
You simply ignore it.
You WANT to believe your theory, so just go ahead and believe!


Ernst.

@cikljamas, 2D thinking in the 3D world is very interesting but is getting out of hand, what can you tell us about fanaticism?

If one would make a tentative and very limited attempt at defining psychosis, one would have to say it refers to a major psychiatric disorder, one aspect of which is usually some obvious conflict with reality, or a difference from the way a majority of the population perceives reality, or a difference from the expected cultural norms concerning behavior. In the first place, this definition alone makes quite clear that there are areas for disagreement. Not everyone showing such difference or conflict is psychotic. Furthermore, not all people considered psychotic by specialists are necessarily manifestly disturbed in the ways mentioned— either in those actions which are to their own detriment or in those detrimental to society. During most of their lives they may show no obvious sign of any major disorder at all. It may either erupt suddenly or make itself felt only latently and subtly, or be disguised in culturally acceptable forms, such as religious or political fanaticism.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/psychosis.aspx


Al

[cikljamas]

Excerpt from the page 1 - post #18:

Al-Al, you think you can race with me? Well, let me introduce myself to you: alal vera kako ga chera Did you notice that guy on a segway? Were that you?

Maybe it could have been even more appropriate had i then put this video

What is going on down there, segway guys? Isn't it boring to be loser from the beginning to the end??? Haaaaa???

[cikljamas]

who can they marry?!?!?!

Hrothgar, i am gonna answer your question after you admit that my "Earth-Stars-Sun" argument ( which i finally shaped into a final form in post #458) presents irrefutable evidence that the Earth is at rest...

I confess that it appears to me to be almost as unnecessary, as gilding gold or painting the lily, to give further evidence that the Earth is not a Planet, still, as some people are fond of having assurance made doubly sure, piling an Ossa upon a Pelion, I shall add another proof to the fact that there is no curvature in the sea, from the Light of Lighthouses seen at great distances. A glance at " The Lighthouses of the World,"* will show at what great distances some of their lights are visible, which would be utterly impossible were the sea convex, as our Modem Astronomers pretend it to be.

I shall name a few instances

"Pearson's Weekly of the agith December, 1894, says 'Evidently we have not got to the bottom of the matter yet. In August, 1890, the C Manoeuvre Fleet signalled with Search Light to colliers 70 miles away. . . . The information comes from Mr. F. T. Jane the Artist, who was on board at the time. According to the Astronomers these vessels should have been 3,200 feet below the horizon, allowing for a height of 40 feet on the signalling vessel, and 26 feet on the colliers ! ! !

Few pages back (page 13 - post #384) i wrote:

Yesterday i recalled one of my trips along the beautiful croatian coast. At that (which suddenly came across my mind) occasion i visited one of the most southern croatian island (Lastovo). In western part of Lastovo there is one important lighthouse which has been built on a beautiful, wild (90 m high) cliff. There i met one old navigator who told me that from the top of that cliff when the weather conditions are very favorable you can see car headlights at Italian coast. The distance to the nearest point at Italian coast is 70 miles, which (according to RET) means that we should be able to see car headlights at Italian coast (from Lastovo) through 980 meters high hill of water.

How about that?

So, cikljamas didn't lie...Haaaaaaa? No, no, no, how could i lie? I am a christian, not a heliocentrist!!!

I may add that the Daily Mail of loth November, 1899, gives the representation of a Search-light at Kimberley which is stated to have been visible at a distance of 115 miles! This, of course, would be impossible if the Earth were a Globular Planet. I could very easily add many more proofs to similar effect, but I forbear; the fact is I am embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet, and my difficulty in writing this book has not arisen from any lack of matter, but as to how I may best select and condense it, so that it may be of most use to my Readers, without omitting anything of real importance.

HOW MANY MORE EVIDENCES DO YOU (JUDAS) NEED TO BEGIN TO BELIEVE TO YOUR OWN SENSES AND TO YOUR OWN REASON? THEY DON'T LIE TO YOU, THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE WHO LIES TO YOU ALL ALONG???

[Hrothgar]

?

Why would I agree what a psycho bible-babble zealot lug nut who can't even Google his own answers say? You are desperate, conniving, insecure and frantic resorting not on logic but carrot and stick tactics! Just like the Templars your word is worthless as you refused to honor yours. Thou hast lied in that as you have in every thing else.

[cikljamas]

Hrothgar

I don't blame you for being you but it's true, i would never be like you (walk in your shoes)...I pity you very much...Flat Fish needs psychological help, but you Chicken, you need comprehensive help, you need assistence of a whole team of various experts...

This thread is a monument of truth, and also a monument of sorrow for those who can't stand the truth no matter what, no matter how plausible this truth is presented, no matter how obvious this truth is, no matter how inescapable insight into this monumental truth for every reader of this thread might (must) be.

So, in the name of all chickens whos eyes has been opened by reading this thread, but who have never found enough courage at least to say thanks i thank to myself:

Cikljamas, thank you very much for opening our imprisoned minds, your arguments render impressive monument of truth against fraudulent heliocentric theory and false RET, which are nothing more than ultimate rubbish and insult to sanity, an assault on dignity of man, and utter offense to God.

So chickens, if that's all you have to say, so long and thanks for all the fish...

[Hrothgar]

Who

Who can hermaphrodites marry according to the bible? It should cover everything related to such thing. After all if they choose wrong that makes them gay. Who do they choose to be on the righteous path? It is a simple straight forward upright question.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Cikljamas, thank you very much for opening our imprisoned minds, your arguments render impressive monument of truth against fraudulent heliocentric theory and false RET, which are nothing more than ultimate rubbish and insult to sanity, an assault on dignity of man, and utter offense to God.

when you talk to yourself like that , it doesnt help your case


not that it had any chance to begin with.

[aljhoa]

Well, let me introduce myself to you: alal vera kako ga chera Did you notice that guy on a segway?

@cikljamas, your self-assessment of running in circles is truthful and segway can handle the 3D world.

@cikljamas, what can you tell us about fanaticism?

Al

[Hrothgar]

Come on!

Tell me already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ernst]

According to Keppler, the orbital velocity of the Earth varies over the year.
The Earth's daily rotational speed, however, is constant.

The Sun's ("apparent") daily motion across the sky is constant, not varying!
The velocity with which the path of the Sun across the sky changes over the year varies.

But this is the continuing story of a flat-liner's dead end.

The rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth is to be varying too, however, as the yearly parallax for every star is too small to see, the difference in the rate of change is obviously impossible to observe.

Again, the velocity of Sun's ("apparent") daily motion across the sky is constant, and the fact is that the rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth is impossible to observe.

We can and we do assign different velocities to the Sun's ("apparent") daily motion across the sky and to the varying velocities of Earth's orbital yearly motion and at the same time we fail to observe a varying rate of change in the yearly parallax of all the stars above the Earth.

I know I am talking to a wall
I know.
But at least now I also know that you know you are lying, you are not as ignorant as you pretend to be. You are playing a game, you want to see how many souls you can win with some ludicrous idea. What does your Bible say about such behaviour?
If someone has to repent here, it is going to be you,... big time!

Is your chicken talk an attempt to chicken out of this by pretending to be a deranged moron?

You have failed.

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

@ Ernst, you are just so desperate guy and i am not sure any more if you are aware of your desperation or not.

If you stood in the centre of the north pole let's say at July 1th and if you tried to observe motion of the Sun, what would you see ? You couldn't see (according HC theory) any circular motion of the Sun, the Sun would stand still regarding Earth's supposed rotation, but what would happen with the apparent motion of the Sun regarding Earth's orbital motion (108 000 km/h)??? Nothing? 108 000 km per hour certainly is not nothing! Even Ernst can't overlook that fact, can you?

Hrothgar provided us with this nice quote (that you should have read by now at least once) in the post #451 (first post on this page - first passage):

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.

I have commented it with these words:

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?

Since either you didn't understand the meaning of above words or you just pretend that you don't get it we shall now quote something more suitable to you:

Quote 1:

It has been known since ancient times that the motion of the Sun along the Ecliptic is not uniform. Although it moves about a degree to the East (relative to the stars) each day, its motion gradually changes during the year, being faster in December and January, and slower in June and July. The actual change from day to day is very small, and not easily noticeable with the timekeeping methods available in ancient times, but during that part of the year when the Sun moves faster than normal on one day, it moves faster than normal every day, and over a month or so, the difference adds up in a very noticeable way.

Quote 2:

What are we, or more to the point, what were the ancients to make of the non-uniformity of the Sun's motion? They could have supposed that it didn't move uniformly along its path around the Earth. But since the stars have uniform circular motions, it was presumed that all celestial bodies should move in some combination of such motions; so how could the Sun appear to move non-uniformly, if it was supposed to move uniformly?
Ptolemy suggested that although the Sun's orbit was a uniform circular motion around the Earth, the Earth was not at the center of the orbit, but at a point slightly off-center, called the equant, which made it look like the Sun was moving non-uniformly, because when it was on the near side of its orbit, its motion looked larger and faster than it really was, and when it was on the far side of its orbit, its motion looked smaller and slower than it really was.

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

Secondly - about the annual motion of the stars:

IT is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard.


Cikljamas doesn't lie, Cikljamas arguments are valid and irrefutable!

Conclusion:

The Sun's ("apparent") daily motion across the sky IS NOT a constant!!! Ernst, don't lie, shame on you!!!

Annual motion of all the stars above the Earth IS a constant!!! So, annual motion of all the stars above the Earth IS possible to observe. (in one way or another, doesn't really matter) Ernst, don't lie, shame on you!!!