North - South

[Ernst]

Saros,

I think you are right and that you can not see through 500 Km of air. But that has nothing to do with atmospheric refraction. Check the link that you yourself provided.
Then, it was not my question, I just made a list of all questions that cikljamas left unanswered. Whose question was it anyway?
I added "Actually you don't even have to go as far as 500 Km.", because as I have also already mentioned, when you go windsurfing on a big lake (as I did on Lago di Garda) you can actually see beaches disappear below the water.

I think you will soon be receiving your flatliners certificate as
- you do not check the links that you provide
- you do not know the meaning of the words that you are using
- you ask questions where you know better

The last point is a good start towards making bold statements while knowing better. (a skill known as lying)
You also may have to improve your communication skills with chickens a bit in order to really fit in.

Good luck!

Ernst.

[Ernst]

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.

OMG, Saros again, I just finished writing and there you are again....

Actually Saros, there is, or to be more precise, there are.
- One of them is the Foucault Pendulum. It not only proves, without a shadow of doubt that the Earth is rotating, but also that it is spherical as I already demonstrated a few pages ago.
- Another one is this: start travelling in any direction you desire and continue in a straight line for 10,000 Km, make a 90 degrees turn and continue in a straight line for another 10,000 Km, make a 90 degrees turn again and continue in a straight line for another 10,000 Km. Now you are back where you started. Please explain in Flatliners arguments.
You may argue that no one ever did this, but really VOC sailors travelled much farther than that. Check their maps...
also connected in this explain the flight times across Australia as I also mentioned.
- Again one more: explain the Coriolis forces on Earth...

Got to go... Enjoy the fading of your cerebral activity, some people need to take a lot of drugs for that.

Ernst.

[Saros]

OMG, Saros again, I just finished writing and there you are again....

Actually Saros, there is, or to be more precise, there are.
- One of them is the Foucault Pendulum. It not only proves, without a shadow of doubt that the Earth is rotating, but also that it is spherical as I already demonstrated a few pages ago.
- Another one is this: start travelling in any direction you desire and continue in a straight line for 10,000 Km, make a 90 degrees turn and continue in a straight line for another 10,000 Km, make a 90 degrees turn again and continue in a straight line for another 10,000 Km. Now you are back where you started. Please explain in Flatliners arguments.
You may argue that no one ever did this, but really VOC sailors travelled much farther than that. Check their maps...
also connected in this explain the flight times across Australia as I also mentioned.
- Again one more: explain the Coriolis forces on Earth...

Got to go... Enjoy the fading of your cerebral activity, some people need to take a lot of drugs for that.

Ernst.

Sorry, but you obviously don't realize what the phrase 'without a shadow of a doubt' means. None of the above mentioned qualifies as concrete evidence.

All of them can be due to other reasons.

You need to admit that you simply prefer to believe in round Earth than flat Earth, not that the evidence is overwhelming. As I said, you haven't witnessed/checked any of it first-hand to be absolutely sure.

As for your 'arguments' how would you determine that the 10000 km line was straight? How would you know you are making a 90 degrees turn? What will be your reference point? If it is the stars or the compass, sorry but those might be misleading.

As for atmospheric refraction, YES, it is connected to what I said; refraction it is very tighly connected to air density. Please read the link I gave you more carefully. (This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the index of refraction increases) with increased density.

[cikljamas]

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.

Parallax believed that the proved levelness of water would ultimately lea'd to the death of Modern Astronomy. He remarks, as foUows, in his " Zetetic
Astronomy," p. 362

" The great and theory-destroying fact was quickly discovered that the surface of standing water was perfectly horizontal Here was another death-blow to the universal ideas and speculations of pseudo-philosophers. Just as the ' universal solvent could not be preserved or manufactured, and, therefore, the whole system of Alchemy died away, so the necessary proof of convexity on the waters of the Earth could not be proved, and, therefore, the doctrine of rotundity, and of the plurality of worlds, must also die. The death is now a mere question of time."

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 this time about an Order that the Houses of Lords and Commons issued in 1862.?

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.

Ernst, why don't you think before you write something? When HC liars claim that the rotation of the Earth is a constant they in fact admit that the daily motion of the stars is a constant, therefore annual rotation (0,986 degree per day) of the stars has to be a constant too.

Since the middle of the first millennium BC the diurnal rotation of the fixed stars has been used to determine mean solar time, against which clocks were compared to determine their error rate. Mechanical clocks did not achieve the accuracy of Earth's "star clock" until the beginning of the 20th century.

In the same passage you put forward these two (completely contradictory) assertions:

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.

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.

So, if the virtual motion of the Sun is the result of 2 movements and one of these movements is not a constant how can you claim (in your (first quote) assertion above) that the observed virtual daily motion of the Sun has to be constant?

I have warned you to be carefull this time, but it's obvious that my warnings to you are in vain...

Now let's see these two quotes:

Hence it is obvious that even on the supposition that the sun moved equably in his orbit, his angular motion as seen from the earth would still vary, that is, would be smallest at the apogee, and greatest at the perigee.

Next part of my argument doesn't apply to above case:

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 applies to the next quote:

The variation in the angular motion of the sun may be owing to this eccentricity. But if it were owing to this cause alone, it is easy to demonstrate that in that case the diminution of his angular velocity would follow the same ratio as the diminution of his diameter. The fact however is, that the angular velocity diminishes in a ratio twice as great as the diameter of the sun does.

So, since the angular velocity diminishes in a ratio twice as great as the diameter of the Sun does, a counter-impact (in relation to what we observe) is still greater than it would be in a hypothetical case in which orbital velocity of the Earth would be a constant.

However, this counter-impact would be partially diminished due to the varying distance between the Earth and the Sun. In addition, alleged variations of the orbital velocity of the Earth are also too small (just 3 %) for playing the main role in producing VERY NOTICEABLE seasonal differences in the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky, even if we supposed that the result of these differences would be (which can't be due to WRONG rotational direction of the Earth) in accordance with the HC wished outcome of their wet dreams.

Ernst, this is something that you have to learn (and remember) once and for all:

The duration of daylight varies during the year but the length of a mean solar day is nearly constant, unlike that of an apparent solar day.

An apparent solar day can be 20 seconds shorter or 30 seconds longer than a mean solar day.

Long or short days occur in succession, so the difference builds up until mean time (virtual time) is ahead of apparent time (real time) by about 14 minutes near February 6 and behind apparent time by about 16 minutes near November 3. The equation of time is this difference, which is cyclical and does not accumulate from year to year.

[Ernst]

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

I may have, after you have answered all the outstanding questions, 32 in total. Do you notice how often you change subjects and at what points?

Ernst, why don't you think before you write something? When HC liars claim that the rotation of the Earth is a constant they in fact admit that the daily motion of the stars is a constant,

Why don't you read before you write something? Because that is exactly what I said:

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.

There is a limit to this however. If you want to take it to the letter, both are not constant because there will always be minute influences disturbing it. Also, as I said, the Earth's orbital motion has such minute influence, but this is so small that it can not be observed.
So for all practical purposes both are constant.

therefore annual rotation (0,986 degree per day) of the stars has to be a constant too.

There is no annual rotation. Their yearly motion is called parallax, caused by the Earth's orbit, which is not constant.

In the same passage you put forward these two (completely contradictory) assertions:

They are not contradictory at all, you clown, learn to read. The first concerns the stars, the second concerns the Sun.

So, if the virtual motion of the Sun is the result of 2 movements and one of these movements is not a constant how can you claim (in your (first quote) assertion above) that the observed virtual daily motion of the Sun has to be constant?

Learn to read, you clown. The first concerns the stars, their observed virtual daily motion is constant.

I have warned you to be carefull this time, but it's obvious that my warnings to you are in vain...

Indeed, your warnings are wasted on me. But you really should be more careful when you try to forge a response.

Now let's see these two quotes:
<bla-dee-bla-dee-bla flatliners "talk">
So, since the angular velocity diminishes in a ratio twice as great as the diameter of the Sun does, a counter-impact (in relation to what we observe) is still greater than it would be in a hypothetical case in which orbital velocity of the Earth would be a constant.

I was unaware of the fact that the Sun is changing in size. Perhaps you should start a thread on that one too! The rest is mumbo jumbo to me. I can not make heads or tails of it.

However, this counter-impact would be partially diminished due to the varying distance between the Earth and the Sun. In addition, alleged variations of the orbital velocity of the Earth are also too small (just 3 %) for playing the main role in producing VERY NOTICEABLE seasonal differences in the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky, even if we supposed that the result of these differences would be (which can't be due to WRONG rotational direction of the Earth) in accordance with the HC wished outcome of their wet dreams.

Of this quote I understand only the last two words. But I do not see how that relates to the topic under discussion.

Ernst, this is something that you have to learn (and remember) once and for all:

Are you talking about wet dreams again?
Sorry, you lost me.
It doesn't matter though. We had a good laugh over here and I'm sure I'll have happy dreams (regardless of their moisture contents). Wishing you the same, my friend!


Ernst

[aljhoa]

Flat Earth Irrefutable Proof







Al

[cikljamas]

You are stupid as jokes!

There is no annual rotation.

Really? Hahahahah... What a moron...

Their yearly motion is called parallax

Wrong, you are dumber than i would have ever thought you are...

caused by the Earth's orbit, which is not constant.

Of course it's not a constant since it doesn't exist in the first place, jerk...

Also, as I said, the Earth's orbital motion has such minute influence, but this is so small that it can not be observed.

So, according to you, not only that the rate of annual motion of the stars which is exactly "0,986 degree per day" is unobservable, but the diferences in the velocity of the "apparent" motion of the Sun (16 minutes (+) (near November3.) and 14 minutes (-) (near February 6.)) are also unobservable...You sucker!

I can not make heads or tails of it

Because you are lazy ignorant and a jerk and you keep you head in your ass! Keep her tight, it is very valuable head!

Originally Posted by cikljamas
However, this counter-impact would be partially diminished due to the varying distance between the Earth and the Sun. In addition, alleged variations of the orbital velocity of the Earth are also too small (just 3 %) for playing the main role in producing VERY NOTICEABLE seasonal differences in the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky, even if we supposed that the result of these differences would be (which can't be due to WRONG rotational direction of the Earth) in accordance with the HC wished outcome of their wet dreams.

Of this quote I understand only the last two words. But I do not see how that relates to the topic under discussion.

You don't see a finger in you ass-hole neither, but it doesn't mean that you are still innocent...

Maybe above quote would be more acceptable to everyone if i reformulate it like this:

Even if we theoretically changed direction of the Earth's rotation (that is to say : HC wet dreams came true) the orbital velocity of the Earth would be still too low to be the key factor in producing VERY NOTICEABLE seasonal differences in the apparent motion of the Sun.

Now it's time to repeat my argument:

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.

[aljhoa]

The Jerk Irrefutable Proof

the first place, jerk...

"Nina, maybe this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Because you are lazy ignorant and a jerk and you keep you head in your ass! Keep her tight, it is very valuable head!

You don't see a finger in you ass-hole neither, but it doesn't mean that you are still innocent...

"as one guy once said to other guy"



Al

[Hrothgar]

Still here

I noticed by your poo flinging the you only have two cheeks left and your using them to dispense ammunition. I am still here waiting for your wisdom Lucifer oh greatest of the angels that god loved so much that he did give him his own tiny kingdom of of the miniscule snow globe like, Universe of Flat earth. So your known as cikljamas theses days so enlighten me with your wisdom as to why in the video that sun is pretty oddly shaped for according to you the farthest point of it would fade from view first yet the bottom as you would put it "faded" from view first the at the end the top finally faded away. Can you explain? Is the sun a disk as well and the side is tilted? and if so why don't we see the bottom appear first at sun rise? I really think you don't know what irrefutable is? I await your brilliant response.

ps Saro mabye you could try answering that one with the whole air density thing? I would enjoy Ernst response to what that comment would be.

[cikljamas]

@ Hrothgar, have you ever heard Eric Dollard saying: "No one knows how the Sun works"? So who am i to know something that no (other) human being knows? Watch: The Sun is not a Nuclear furnace raging at millions of degrees. It is Electric and Cold!

[Hrothgar]

But

But you do claim to know how and why we loose sight of things on the horizon. How the sun works as a dodge that's creative BUT! what does he have to say about the moon that sets in an IDENTICAL FASHION!!! So how can the moon set with the bottom disappearing first then the middle then the top if you claim the farthest parts fade into the horizon first?

[Ernst]

Sorry, but you obviously don't realize what the phrase 'without a shadow of a doubt' means. None of the above mentioned qualifies as concrete evidence.

One for Saros, to start my day with a
Yes, erhm, about "a shadow of doubt", when you do not understand experimental results because you do not posses the required background knowledge nor the intelligence, then you will always be in doubt. If someone would take you on a trip in a spaceshuttle and you would look out the window and see a round Earth, you would probably assume it is a deformation caused by the glass. Perhaps you would even open the window, get sucked into space and get a brilliant view on the spherical Earth. Even then you will probably assume that this is the result of lack of oxygen and you'll die ignorant and floating in space.
All of the points I mentioned are conclusive evidence.
In addition to the second point I should (maybe) add that you can take a large country in which all distances between all cities and villages are known and verified tons of times.
Now, construct a map in which all of these distances are exactly on scale.
You will end up - without a shadow of doubt - with a spherical map, because there is absolutely no other option. Hence the phrase "without a shadow of doubt".

All of them can be due to other reasons.

Really now? Name a few.

What other nonsense.... Oh, yes, right, you know everything I have done in my life, don't you? As you say:

You need to admit that you simply prefer to believe in round Earth than flat Earth, not that the evidence is overwhelming. As I said, you haven't witnessed/checked any of it first-hand to be absolutely sure.

In fact, I have. I have always been interested in science and I have travelled on both halfs of the Earth, I have seen a number of Foucault Pendula, well, just take some time to read my posts, I am not going to repeat it endlessly.

Next.... yes, this one is cool:

As for your 'arguments' how would you determine that the 10000 km line was straight? How would you know you are making a 90 degrees turn? What will be your reference point? If it is the stars or the compass, sorry but those might be misleading.

There are numerous ways. You mention two, but there are many, many more. Now what would the chance be that all of these mislead us in exactly the same way? Just think about it for a while (if you still can).

And your closing remark is really brilliant!

As for atmospheric refraction, YES, it is connected to what I said; refraction it is very tighly connected to air density. Please read the link I gave you more carefully. (This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the index of refraction increases) with increased density.

again: This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing with increased density.
So in order to have refraction we need to have layers or air with a different density. In the atmosphere we have such layers at different altitudes. These layers are curved as any sane person knows and even in flatliner cikljamas diagram, the atmosphere is spherical.
What do we then have? Curved layers of different density, just like you would have with a glass lens in air, or a cup with water... This causes bending of light rays and distorts the view. Read the article, they explain it pretty good.


If it were up to me you have passed your flatliners exam! Check with the master of the lunatics to get your certificate.

Talking about him....

... you keep you head in your ass! Keep her tight, it is very valuable head!
....
You don't see a finger in you ass-hole neither, but it doesn't mean that you are still innocent...

Hold on a moment, I'm going to get a flashlight. Still haven't found that finger.

Ernst.

[Saros]

Ernst, first go to space in a space shuttle and then we can continue the discussion till then keep your mind open. Of course there might be other reasons for all the evidence and facts supporting round Earth and not the ones presently accepted. If they spent even 1/4 of the time defending round Earth to look for other reasons, I am sure they would have found plenty, but it is not on their agenda. You might be very interested in science, but I guess mostly in science fiction

[TheoriaApophasis]

blah blah blah

you know what the term POLARIZED means?


ultimately it means "CREATES A SPHERE"


every atom


Pile those atoms up.....you DONT END UP with a FLAT EARTH




You're like a dope addict, except the needle is IGNORANCE

the drug is Creationism / God

and the HIGH is Religious stupidity.

[cikljamas]

Magic number 0.98630136986

Magic number 0.98630136986

Posted by Ernst
Also, as I said, the Earth's orbital motion has such minute influence, but this is so small that it can not be observed.

Posted by Cikljamas
So, according to you, not only that the rate of annual motion of the stars which is exactly "0,986 degree per day" is unobservable, but the differences in the velocity of the "apparent" motion of the Sun (16 minutes (+) (near November3.) and 14 minutes (-) (near February 6.)) are also unobservable...You sucker!

So, according to Ernst we can't observe annual constant shift of the Zodiac (0,986...per day) above the Earth, but it is going to be very interesting to hear from Ernst what he has got to say about the fact that even ancient astronomers were able to observe annual constant shift of the Sun (0,986...per 71 years) ???

" Besides these monthly differences (between the motion of the Sun and that of the Stars), there is also an annual difference for at the end of twelve months, the Sun does not come back to exactly the same point in the Sign which commenced the year, but is a little behind it. But this difference, though it occurs every year, is so small that it will take 25,579 years for the Sun to complete this vast cycle, which is called The Precession of the Equinoxes; i.e., about one degree in every seventy, one years. If the Sun came back to the precise point at which it began the year, each sign would correspond always and regularly, exactly with a particular month, but owing to the constant regression, the Sun (while it goes through the whole twelve signs every year) commences the year in one sign for only 2,131 years. In point of fact since the Creation the commencement of the year has changed to the extent of nearly three of the signs.

When Virgil sings

' The White Bull with golden horns opened the year,'

he does not record what took place in his own day. This is another proof of the antiquity of these signs.

Here is one interesting post from another forum, pay attention to bolded numbers:

With regard to your
: “…the Mayan made the correction between the Tun and Haab 72/73, this has always drawn no response from anyone over two years on the Forum, and even though for me it works simply…”


Seeing as the response to your question went virtually unobserved, therefore is the following of assist?
Undoubtedly the numbers emerging will be familiar to you; furthermore there are numerous cyclic patterns within the digits

{1} 72 ÷ 73 = 0.98630136
The GP Tan {480 ÷ 378} of 1.269841 x 0.98630136 = 1.2524461839 that multiplied by exactly 1.214136 = 1.52064, the Greek cubit

The 1.214136 being, for example, the longer value Greek foot of 1.01376 multiplied by exactly 1.19765625

The musical scale Pythagorean Limma {256:243} multiplied by the 1.19765625 x 46656 = 58867.2 exactly, which multiplied by the 0.98630136 = 58060.8, which is 72 x 806.4

{2} 2 x Pi x 1.269841 x 291.623068199 = 2326.7578125 exactly
The 2326.7578125 being 2190 x 1.0624464897260273 this is the 0.98630136 x 1.07720269097222
The 1.062446489726027 x 5256 = 5584.21875 exactly {Please see below}

Followed by 365 ÷ 1.07720269097222 = 338.840594308

{3} Subsequently 384 ÷ 338.840594308 = 1.133276255707 which is the 0.98630136 x 1.1490162037037

In that case exactly 71478 ÷ 1.1490162037037 = 62208

The 71478, for example, multiplied by 26 = 1858428 which is 584 x 0.98630136 x 3226.4375 that is the above 5584.21875 x 0.5777 one ninth of 5.2

Above we see: “{1} 72 ÷ 73 = 0.98630136
The GP Tan {480 ÷ 378} of 1.269841 x 0.98630136 = 1.2524461839 that multiplied by exactly 1.214136 = 1.52064, the Greek cubit”

In addition to: “{2} 2 x Pi x 1.269841 x 291.623068199 = 2326.7578125 exactly”

{4} The 291.6230681991 x 1.2524461839 = 365.2421989187 which is 343094400 ÷ 299008 ÷ Pi
Otherwise 0.98630136 ÷ 0.7875 = 1.2524461839
So obviously: 1 ÷ 0.7875 = 1.269841, the GP Tan

Peace
Derek

So, speak up Ernst and repent, i tell you seriously: you should repent!!!