North - South

[Ernst]

I think we may have to keep things to the level of how you would teach a small child to get through to this guy. It may take a long time, even years.

Just checking: Are you talking about a human child?

But we may luck out and he could discover girls or guys or farm animals or whatever they do in Croatia, thus loosing interest in cults of flat earth.

I see a tinge of hope there...

I sort of mentioned the 'peculiar deformation' of the rising and setting Sun a few posts ago. I think he is still chewing on that one. Can't wait to see his no doubt hilarious explanation.

BTW "irrefutable" in Croatian seems to mean "so easily refuted that it becomes irresistible to do so".


Ernst.

[cikljamas]

In post #453 i wrote:

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 performs independent motion. In that case Sun's motion also presents independent motion and all that remains is to adjust (by some "Entity") these two motions in order to make them synchronous motions.

Then Snake aka Ernst in post #464 writes:

The Sun's ("apparent") daily motion across the sky is constant, not varying!

WRONG!!! QUITE CONTRARY!

The rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth is to be varying too

WRONG!!! QUITE CONTRARY!


In the next post #465 i provided Snake with this quote:

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.

Then Snake's mumbo-jumbo post #475 occurred, and in my reply to Snake's gibber i write these words in post #478:

Due to alleged faster orbital motion of the Earth in winter (north "hemisphere") we would observe slower apparent motion of the Sun and vice versa, in summer (north "hemisphere) we would observe faster apparent motion of the Sun which would be contrary to what we can constantly observe in the sky.

So, since what we observe is contrary to what we should observe if the very noticeable difference of the apparent motion of the Sun across the Sky were the consequence of the changing orbital velocity of the Earth, we can assert with greatest certainty that a very noticeable seasonal differences in the apparent motion of the Sun across the Sky happens due to independent motion of the Sun, and not due to changing orbital velocity of the Earth.

If the motion of the Sun is independent then the motion of the Stars has to be independent too, if the motion of the Stars is independent then the Star's annual shift (0,986 degree per day) has to be (and it is indeed) a constant!!!

No Snake in the world can refute this argument!!!

If HC theory were true then at the North Pole we would observe SLOWER apparent motion (IN STRAIGHT LINE (from right to left) EXCLUSIVELY) of the Sun (in July), and at the South Pole we would observe FASTER apparent motion (IN STRAIGHT LINE (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) EXCLUSIVELY) of the Sun in January!!!

Why NASA doesn't land some "Curiosity" to North or/and South pole and show us this unique spectacle??? I am very curious about that, are you not?

So Snake why don't you start to eat your tail?

[Ernst]

You're a funny guy, indeed!
You've lost this case:

"If the navigator neglects to apply the Sun's semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and, if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is, of course, 32 miles. And, as measured by the sextant, the Sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing."

You can not reply to the one of the setting/rising Sun...
And you try to cover up by repeating what has already been said in another lost case....
Sorry, but now I really need to

Do you, by any chance have your face painted white with a big (spherical ) red nose?
You always make my day end on a happy note!


Ernst.

PS: do you know why we always see the same side of the Moon? Because the other side does not exist! This is actually a big NASA secret, so don't tell your flatliner club.
Before they sent men to the Moon, they first sent a chimp. And when the chimp came back he told the NASA that the Moon was actually a hollow half spherical shell. And then the big purple alien came, kidnapped the chimp and took it to Mars. Then, on their way there, they were caught in a counterspace time warp and landed in China 2700 years ago. There the chimp learned Kung-Fu, and started the legend of the Monkey King.
Well, the rest is know history, isn't it?

[aljhoa]

In round numbers, then, 3,000 miles proximately is the distance of the Sun from the Equator, shown according to the terms of the Astronomers themselves.

Now I see, a sun travels around a pole with an attitude at 100-3000 miles on 6000 miles radius.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pathbigvs6.jpg

https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-fun-zo...ars-space.html

A fanatic will redouble his efforts while loosing sight of his goals! Then maybe he will get so worked up and frothing at the mouth some one in Croatia will have him committed to an asylum?

Hrothgar, You Are Psychic!


Al

[Ernst]

Now I see, a sun travels around a pole with an attitude at 100-3000 miles on 6000 miles radius.

And... in that picture you can clearly see the STRAIGHT LINE that the Sun is moving in.



From left to right... or... from right to left... I forgot


Ernst.

[cikljamas]

@ Snake, you are a moral scarecrow and ridiculous jester, didn't you know?

So, you moral scarecrow, why don't you answer directly to my question? Maybe because there is nothing you can do against irrefutable facts? Shame on you, you moral scarecrow!!!

All you can do is to keep crawling in your moral dirt and intellectual emptiness. You don't even have a good sense for humor, because you are simple moral zero, so there is no sincerity in you even when you try to be funny. When you are trying to be funny you only manage to be a ridiculous jester, and that's all...

Answer to my argument if you can, you ridiculous jester!

[cikljamas]

@ Snake, Cikljamas is so honest and opened person (because he knows that he is right 100 %) that he is going to further clarify his argument for you and for all readers of this thread:

Because the Earth allegedly rotates in the same direction in which she revolves around the Sun HC liars have to face with the next inevitable consequence-inference:

When Earth's orbital motion is slowest any particular meridian will "revolve" sooner to the Sun than when Earth's orbital motion is quickest, for it will overtake the Sun in less time when Earth advances a less space than when she moves through a larger.

Above description (an inherent consequence of HC's wrong assumptions) would be quite opposite if we assumed that the Earth rotates in opposite direction, but it is how it is, when you are a dirty liar, you and your dirty lies sooner or later will be unmasked.

Haven't i been clear enough?

Crawl out from your snake hole and answer to this. Last time you tried to answer to my argument i caught you in two major lies. So, be carefull this time, crawling scarecrow!

[Hrothgar]

Back field in motion

In post #453 i wrote:

1. Heliocentrists claim that the stars and the sun are at rest, and that the Earth is in motion.

As a scum dog heliocentric snake partaking of my morning coffee I can inform you of one thing that may surprise you. Nothing I repeat nothing is at rest, all things in the universe move. When most of us say everything we even mean "space" (I put the quotes there for you not to get riled up TA) Maybe you think stars are probably made from radioactive angel poop and hang just high enough on strings to keep from stinking up the place. But we measure the distance to reach other stars by how many YEARS it takes a beam of LIGHT to reach them. At that distance it could be hard to see a change even over tens of thousands of years without instrumentation. Since ALL thing move if we say something is fixed have us clarify what it is "fixed" in relation to as that can change as the subject evolves.

If HC theory were true then at the North Pole we would observe SLOWER apparent motion (IN STRAIGHT LINE (from right to left) EXCLUSIVELY) of the Sun (in July), and at the South Pole we would observe FASTER apparent motion (IN STRAIGHT LINE (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) EXCLUSIVELY) of the Sun in January!!!

No because the earth takes the same amount of time to rotate 360 degrees, be it on the equator or standing on the axis(poles).

Did you ever get that sunset thing figured out or are you trying to dodge that too?

Oh, after the great flood how did the Dodo(the now extinct) flightless bird get back to Australia?

[TheoriaApophasis]

..........

Hrothgar

Youve been deceived by Satan, the Prince of darkness has washed your brain to believe the earth is a SPHERE



Repeat this and all will be solved........Get behind me Satan!!

[Ernst]

You're a funny guy, indeed!
You've lost this case:

"If the navigator neglects to apply the Sun's semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and, if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is, of course, 32 miles. And, as measured by the sextant, the Sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing."

You can not reply to the one of the setting/rising Sun...
And you try to cover up by repeating what has already been said in another lost case....

It may have escaped your attention but there still are a few questions that you have not yet (fully) answered:

1: Why can't you see towers 500 meters high from 500 km away with a powerful telescope?

2: Why is twilight much shorter at the equator than at higher latitudes?

3: Why do we have a polar day and a polar night at the poles if the Sun is travelling over a flat surface and the North Pole is in the middle of a round disc?

4: Why is the Moon seen upside down below the equator if the Earth is not a sphere?

5: Why hasn't anyone been at the ice rim and we don't have any photos of it if the Earth is flat?

6: Why does the Foucault pendulum demonstrate the Earth's rotation if the Earth is flat and doesn't spin?

7: Why does the Foucault pendulum demonstrate that the Earth is spherical?

8: How is it possible that all people involved in space research are lying?
(You do realize NASA isn't the only one that has been to space... right?)

9: How come the horizon calculator matches what we observe in real life?

10: Can you create a calculator which uses flat Earth data and produces correct results?

11: Can you predict solar eclipses, lunar eclipses etc, using only the Flat Earth model?

12: How about the Coriolis effect?

13: Why don't you invite some scientists to a public debate concerning the issue?

14: Why are you anonymous if this is indeed your real belief?

15: What is the mass of the Earth?

16: How big are the Sun and the Moon? (partially answered)

17: Where do the comets and asteroids come from?

18: What is beyond the so-called ice rim?

19: Why are the other celestial bodies spheres if the Earth is flat?

20: Why does no serious scientists nowadays ever consider the possibility that the Earth is flat?

21: ...In the flat model, the sun would have to spiral out from the north, increasing in speed each day as it's path gets longer until it gets to the outer edge of the earth. But when it gets there, how does it light the entire rim (what sane people call the south pole) all at the same time, and leave the centre in darkness? Does it slow down and split into four suns, each 90 degrees apart on this great circle?

22: how can you travel on the surface of the Earth in a triangle with 3 angles of 90 deg.

23: what is magnetic field's inclination and intensity as a function of latitude?

24: If you stand on the Equator line you can see the Southern Pole (star trails) at the horizon to the South and the Northern pole (star trails) at the horizon on the opposite direction.

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

26: What about Eratosthenes' method for determining the size of the Earth?

27: In your flat Earth model the Sun would never disappear below the horizon.

28: How do satellites stay in the sky

29: Your flat Earth 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.

30: How do you explain equal partitions on a sundial?

31: 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.

32: Since you are so good with timetables from airliners, check this:
1 - flight time/distance Darwin-Melbourne (4:15)
2 - flight time/distance Brisbane-Perth (5:55)
Try to match that data with your flat Earth map.

32 Questions to choose from, and you keep coming back to a lost case? Most of your irrefutable evidence has been trashed, you just pick it up again and again and again....
There is some tragedy here, in this "monument of truth".

Well, here goes:

Ernst.

[Ernst]

Well, anyway, if you insist on loosing face again (and again, and again)....

In post #453 i wrote:

1. Heliocentrists claim that the stars and the sun are at rest, and that the Earth is in motion.

Not true, as Hrothgar has already pointed out.

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.

You talk about annual motion (yearly parallax) but you mean daily motion, as caused by the rotation of the Earth. The rotation of the Earth is constant, though some scientists believe it is getting slower over millions of years. As the observed virtual daily motion is caused by a constant rotation of the Earth, then also this observed virtual daily motion has to be constant.
If you really mean yearly motion, as caused by the Earth's orbit around the Sun, then that motion is not perfectly constant because the Earth's orbital velocity is not. However, this yearly motion is so small, and the measure of irregularity even smaller, that we have no means to observe it.
Finally: the Suns daily motion is not constant over the year, because the Earth is orbiting it with a slightly varying speed. The virtual motion of the Sun is the result of 2 movements: the Earth's rotation and the Earth's orbit. The first being constant over a year, the latter not.
After the Earth has rotated 360 degrees around its axis, the Sun has moved on a bit. There for the Earth has to rotate a little further to get the Sun in the same position. As I have shown you earlier, this is 3.942586 minutes on average per day.
Because of the Earth's orbits eccentricity there is a 8.0406 seconds variation in this value over a year.
All this of course does not apply to the stars, because the Earth is not orbiting these stars.

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.

Yes we can, as I have just shown you. There is indeed some variation in the movements of the stars but, as I said before, this is way too small to observe.

If 2 then ...

bla-dee-bla-dee-bla.... flat-earth-nonsense, attempts to insult me and proof that you do not understand much.

So, since what we observe is contrary to what we should observe ...

No, it is not. It is a perfect match.

... if the very noticeable difference of the apparent motion of the Sun across the Sky were the consequence of the changing orbital velocity of the Earth, we can assert with greatest certainty that a very noticeable seasonal differences in the apparent motion of the Sun across the Sky...

We are talking about 8 seconds per day, that everyone has undoubtedly noticed.

... happens due to independent motion of the Sun, and not due to changing orbital velocity of the Earth.

And there our flatliner sails off again into his fairytales/dreamworld.

If the motion of the Sun is independent then the motion of the Stars has to be independent too, if the motion of the Stars is independent then the Star's annual shift (0,986 degree per day) has to be (and it is indeed) a constant!!!

No Snake in the world can refute this argument!!!

Needless, because it is not true.

If HC theory were true then at the North Pole we would observe SLOWER apparent motion (IN STRAIGHT LINE (from right to left) EXCLUSIVELY) of the Sun (in July), and at the South Pole we would observe FASTER apparent motion (IN STRAIGHT LINE (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) EXCLUSIVELY) of the Sun in January!!!

As I said 8 seconds in a day! Make two videos (of 24 hours) and put it on youtube. Bet you'll get millions of hits.

Why NASA doesn't land some "Curiosity" to North or/and South pole and show us this unique spectacle??? I am very curious about that, are you not?

Erhm, not really no.

So Snake why don't you start to eat your tail?

Do what? Is that some Christian way of saying goodbye?

As I already said, you did already loose this argument. Why go back and loose it again?
Perhaps, if you have any room left on your walls, you should print this, frame it and...
you guessed right, watch it at least once a day.

bye-bye!
Ernst

[Saros]

1: Why can't you see towers 500 meters high from 500 km away with a powerful telescope?

This one is easy.

- Air prevents you from seeing infinitely ( see atmospheric refraction Atmospheric refraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- perspective (As objects become more distant they appear smaller because their visual angle decreases)
- mountains/hills etc

[Ernst]

Saros,

- Air prevents you from seeing infinitely ( see atmospheric refraction Atmospheric refraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you follow the link you provided?
- atmospheric refraction would increase the distance that you can see on a spherical Earth.
- atmospheric refraction works best if you pass through atmospheric layers of great height. 500 m is not really that heigh in this case.
Actually you don't even have to go as far as 500 Km.

- perspective (As objects become more distant they appear smaller because their visual angle decreases)

Hence the telescope...

- mountains/hills etc

choose a place where you have a clear view.



Are you trying to get one of those nice certificates that TA posted here earlier?

Ernst.

[Saros]

Saros,


Did you follow the link you provided?
- atmospheric refraction would increase the distance that you can see on a spherical Earth.
- atmospheric refraction works best if you pass through atmospheric layers of great height. 500 m is not really that heigh in this case.
Actually you don't even have to go as far as 500 Km.

Seriously? How about air density? After all you're trying to see something in a straight line through hundreds of kilometers of air. It is never clear enough to overcome this obvious obstacle. That is why we can see the Moon clearly, even though it is much farther away, there is only 40-60 km of air through which you have to see, also the Moon is huge as opposed to your hypothetical towers. Refraction doesn't let you see the source of light(your towers) their light is dispersed and reflected in all directions before reaching your pupil. If they were brighter and bigger you might be able to see them though.

[Saros]

It is funny how you're trying to prove the Earth is round by assuming what you see in the skies is what you want it to be. Neither the Sun, the Moon nor the stars are actually 100% proven to be what is currently widely accepted in science. There are just theories about them, assumptions, lots of fake space photos and fairy tales. You cannot observe their motion and draw conclusions about the Earth. Actually, you can, but it would be too arrogant to assume you're absolutely and always correct. After all, these are just OBSERVATIONS of lights in the sky from your own perspective.

There is no way for anyone to prove the Earth is round without a shadow of a doubt without actually checking that from space. Since you cannot do that, please don't be arrogant and stop pretending you know it all. Since space travel can be faked, I don't see what strong evidence you have in support of your idea.