Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #481  
Old 09-27-2014, 05:53 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
" The nearer the Sun gets to the Pole star, the earlier it rises, the higher it reaches at noon, and the later it sets. This apparenl independent motion of the Sun, therefore, seems to account for longer and shorter days, and the whole phenomena of the seasons, but why the Sun lags as described, or why it moves northerly and southerly at alternate periods, there ii no apparent evidence. On the supposition that the world is a globe rotating against the Sun, and revolving round that luminary, it is impossible to account for what Mr. Russell calls the lagging movement of the Sun. But, on a flat surface, like the world is known to be, there is no assumption needed to account for it. As I have shown the Earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the Central north in all directions toward the south. The Equator, being mid-way between the north centre and the southern circumference, divides the course of the Sun into north and south declinations. The longest circle round the world which the Sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northward the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the Sun makes a circle round the Equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the Sun again begins to go towards the south. In northern latitudes when the Sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon, and sets later; while in southern latitudes, at the same time, the Sun, as a matter of course, rises later; reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the Sun rises later each day, is lower at noon, and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the Earth daily is the cause of the alternation of day and night; while his northern and southern courses produce the Seasons. When the Sun is south of the Equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north, and vice-versa. The fact of the alternation of the Seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the Earth revolves in an orbit round the Sun. It 'is said that summer is caused by the Earth being nearer the Sun, and winter by its being farthest from the Sun. But, if the reader will follow the argument in any text-book, he will see that according to the theory, when the Earth is nearest the Sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the Sun it must be winter all over the Earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would be farthest from the Sun ! ! ! In short it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the Seasons on the assumption that the Earth is globular, and that it revolves in an orbit round the Sun."

In Winter the Northern Centre is darkened, and continues so for some months till the Sun returns again in Summer, and illumines it with its brightness. We have then the phenomenon of " The Midnight Sun," the following vivid account of which appeared in " The Brighton Examiner" of July, 1870. The party referred to consisted of Mr. Campbell, the United States' Minister for Norway, and some other gentlemen who ascended a cliff 1,000 feet high, overlooking the Arctic Ocean -

" It was late but still sunlight. The Arctic Ocean stretched away in silent vastness at our feet, the sound of the waves scarcely reached our airy look-out. Away in the north the huge old Sun swung low along the horizon, like the slow beat of the tall clock in our grandfather's parlour corner. We all stood silently looking at our watches. When both hands stood together at twelve midnight, the full round orb hung trium-phantly above the waves—a bridge of gold running due north spangled the water between us and him. There he shone in silent majesty which knew no setting. We involuntarily took off our hats—no word was said. Combine the most brilliant sunrise you ever saw, and its beauties will pall before the gorgeous colouring which lit up the ocean, heaven, and mountains. In half an hour the Sun had swung up perceptibly on its beat, the colours had changed to those of morning. A fresh breeze had rippled over the florid sea; one songster after another piped out of the grove behind us—we had slid into another day."

What a splendid visible proof is the above description of the Sun revolving round a stationary Earth! There, in that high Norwegian latitude, these travellers saw from a lofty cliff, the Sun at Midnight passing in his journey, without having set at all, from one day into another, and proclaiming with effulgent brightness the grand beneficence of God. Thus, as the Poet sings

" Th' unwearied Sun from day to day,
Doth its Creator's power display.
And publishes in every land
The work of His Almighty hand."

Had poor Proctor been there I think he would never have written his " Pretty proof of the Earth's rotundity." Facts, such as those above narrated, are too strong to be resisted even by scientific prejudice. It would doubtless teach a useful lesson, as also afford a pleasant holiday, to some of our Astronomic friends, were they to take a trip to " The Land of the Midnight Sun " in one of the steamers advertized for that voyage in the newspapers. I think that they would return wiser than before they went, with less admiration for the hypothesis of Copernicus, with more reverence for the Word of God, and with more respect for common sense.
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #482  
Old 09-27-2014, 06:06 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
your endless posts are a desperate attempt to CONVINCE YOURSELF



NOBODY is buying the flat earth stuff.



Most would sooner believe that a blue skinned alien was living in their backyards than this flat earth nonsense.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:53 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,188
διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
NOBODY is buying the flat earth stuff.
Then, what is the following "flat earth" doing?







Conclusion[edit]

Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the former supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, believed the earth is flat,[10][11] and
so does Muslim Researcher on Astronomy Fadhel Al-Sa'd, who declared in a televised debate aired on Iraqi Al-Fayhaa TV (October 31, 2007)
that the Earth is flat as evidenced by Qur'anic verses and that the sun is much smaller than the Earth and revolves around it.[12]

As devout Muslims, they have good reason to conclude the Earth is flat; the Qur'anic verses 15:19, 20:53, 43:10, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 78:6,
79:30, 88:20 and 91:6 all clearly state this and not a single verse in the Qur'an hint to a spherical earth.

Flat Earth and the Qur'an - WikiIslam

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:45 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Al, what kind of animal is this?

"Astronomers, and scientific men generally, strenuously oppose any comparison between their theories and the Bible, knowing that they cannot be reconciled. Of what use is it for them to say that their magnificent ideas of innumerable suns and worlds show forth the glory of God, if they cause men to have less respect for the Bible? Revelation and nature cannot disagree : if they seem to do so, man is to blame for it. Sir Horace Walpole became an infidel, because he could not reconcile Christianity with the plurality of worlds, and Modern discoveries in Astronomy and Geology with a divine revelation and the infidel Thomas Paine, and a host of other persons have based their strongest arguments upon the assumption that the Copernicau theory is true, which system has been a strong fort with the infidels for many generations. Do the heavens set forth the glory of Newton, or do they declare the glory of God? In the Bible we are led to believe that the sun, moon, and stars are subservient to the earth ; that in consequence of events having taken place on the earth, these heavenly bodies were darkened; that God took five times as long to make the earth as He did the heavenly bodies. Who has a right to say that God, in giving to man an account of His creation, as contained in the First Chapter of Genesis, misrepresented the order and nature of the facts to suit man's capacity? As if man could not have understood them as easily from the Word of God as he does from the mouths of the Astronomers ?"

Who ever heard of a person, after constructing some intricate piece of workmanship, explaining the order and nature of its mechanism entirely difierent from the truth to suit the capacity of his hearers? "What had the earth to revolve round before the sun was made, if we are to believe the Newtonian theory? The Bishop of Peterborough says

"I have no fear whatever that the Bible will be found in the long run to contain more science than all the theories of philosophers put together and there is no doubt that when the earth is generally believed to be a plane, the Bible will be respected more than ever, since it will be found to be literally true when speaking of the Creation, and infidelity will lose its strongest hold against Christianity."

Al, let me tell you one joke

Al, this is gay parade in Belgrade, filmed today afternoon, strange gay's uniforms, don't you think so?
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 09-28-2014, 10:47 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 265
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
Maybe just maybe

I don't believe an old book, written for sheep herders I can't cross examine the authors. It's written to "enlighten" illiterate tribes men. If there was anything to find based on math or repeatable experimental data and not on just "god says so" Then you would have something to talk about.
__________________
 

Last edited by Hrothgar; 09-28-2014 at 10:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:32 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Hrothgar, are all your brain cells in your stomach? You should watch this video every day at least once, but even after first watching of this video if you don't get the point then i wouldn't bet you have one brain cell, not even in your stomach...(just try to imagine Earth's triple motion (and just at what speeds, may oh may..) while you watch it)...

This monumental thread is full of evidences, this thread is not just monument of truth, this thread is monument of (lack) of human dignity, if you don't have scintilla of human dignity and honesty, then you don't have to kill yourself at all, you are already a dead man.

There are some more proofs for both: for honest men and for liars ("caricatures of a man" - that's croatian phrase for naming people without a bit of honesty):

" 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."
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:22 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
" 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."[/I]

Quote:
32 minutes of an arc = 32/60 degrees
tan(32/60) = 0.00930869
distance of the Sun: 1.496×10⁸ Km
Diameter of the Sun: tan(32 minutes of an arc) × distance of the Sun = 0.00930869 × 1.496×10⁸ km = 1392580 Km
FRAME IT AND WATCH IT AT LEAST ONCE EVERY DAY!

Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:53 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
...bla, bla, bla...
distance of the Sun: 1.496×10⁸ Km

Ernst - liar
"When the Sun is on the Equator, and thus has no declination, the angle it makes with the Earth and the sea on all distances on that circle is a right angle. At an angular distance of 45 degrees from the Equator, north or south, the distance of the base line from the observer to the Equator is of necessity the same as the Sun's vertical distance from the Earth's Equator. That is to say, in any right-angled triangle, where the angle at the apex of the triangle is 45 degrees, the other angle must of necessity be the same, as these two angles in any such triangle are equal to the right angle, viz., 90 degrees. The angles being equal the sides, are of necessity equal; therefore the base line is equal to the vertical. . . . " Let S E O be a right-angled triangle, right-angled at E ; S the Sun, E the Equator, and O an observer at 45 degrees north latitude. " From the figure it is evident that 45 degrees is the angular distance of the Sun at 45 degrees north, and no other angle can be got in actual practice (allowing, of course, for such corrections as height of eye, semi-diameter, &c.) ; so that the distance on the surface of the Earth to the Equator—^from O to E, is the same as from the Equator to the Sun in the heavens —E to S. Multiplying 45 by 60 (60 Geographical miles equal I degree), we get 2,700 Geographical miles as the distance from O to E, and thus from E to S. The Sun is, therefore, 2,700 MILES DISTANT FROM THE Earth. If the Sun Were 96,000,000 miles distant from the Earth, our observer at 45 degrees N. or S. latitude would be that distance from the Equator ! !"



FRAME IT AND WATCH IT AT LEAST ONCE EVERY DAY!

Cikljamas - truth lover
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 09-29-2014, 11:23 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas
...bla, bla, bla...
Let S E O be a right-angled triangle

cikljamas - deranged moron chicken whisperer
E - O is curved.
You want to try non-Euclidian math?
Try some simple goniometry first.
You need to be able to walk before you can run, you haven't even discovered your legs yet.

Ernst - tired....
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 09-29-2014, 12:17 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
E - O is curved.
Who told you that? Mom or dad?

You don't even know what legs are since you are a lying-crawling-envious serpent...

"But take the time of the vernal and autumnal equinox, when the Sun is directly over the Equator. We will also take the Astronomer's assumption that the light of the Sun travels in straight lines, except just near the surface of the Earth, when they sometimes allow for what is termed refraction. But as they have no agreed and definite standard of refraction, and what they do sometimes allow is only a small figure, we may at present ignore this for the purpose of simplifying the problem before us. They cannot reasonably object to our following their lead here. "Now it is a well-known property that all the angles of any triangle are together equal to two right angles, or 180 degrees. If, then, we take any right-angled triangle as A, B, C having one angle at the base B a right angle, and the other angle at the base C 45 degrees we know that the angle at the apex A must also be 45 degrees, and the perpendicular B, A, equal to the base line, B, C. " Now let A represent the Sun's position over the Equator on the 21st of March, and B the place of some spectator on the Equator directly beneath the Sun when on the meridian say of Bordeaux, which is almost that of Greenwich, and lef C represent the town of Bordeaux in France at about 45 degrees N. Lat. Here, then, we have some general data for determining the Sun's distance from the Earth that is, the line A, B, or the perpendicular height of the Sun above the Equator at B, is equal to the line C, B, or the base line, or distance between Bordeaux and the point B on the Equator. " Now the Geographers affirm that 1 degree equals 60 geographical or 69 and a half statute miles. Then- multiply 45 degrees by these figures, and we get the distance, according to the Astronomers, that Bordeaux is from the nearest point of the Equator on the same meridian, namely 2,700 geographical miles, or about 3,107 English or statute miles. 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."


Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 09-29-2014, 01:18 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 265
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
About that video

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Hrothgar, are all your brain cells in your stomach? You should watch this video every day at least once, but even after first watching of this video if you don't get the point then i wouldn't bet you have one brain cell, not even in your stomach...(just try to imagine Earth's triple motion (and just at what speeds, may oh may..) while you watch it)...

This monumental thread is full of evidences, this thread is not just monument of truth, this thread is monument of (lack) of human dignity, if you don't have scintilla of human dignity and honesty, then you don't have to kill yourself at all, you are already a dead man.

There are some more proofs for both: for honest men and for liars ("caricatures of a man" - that's croatian phrase for naming people without a bit of honesty):

" 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."
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?
__________________
 

Last edited by Hrothgar; 09-29-2014 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 09-29-2014, 01:24 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas
Who told you that? Mom or dad?
You don't even know what legs are since you are a lying-crawling-envious serpent...
I know, you are blindly parroting what others have told you. Don't worry about it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas
Now it is a well-known property that all the angles of any triangle are together equal to two right angles, or 180 degrees.
I also know that this is way beyond you and your chickens, but on a spherical surface you can draw a triangle with 3 angles of 90 degrees, making the total 270 degrees.

Don't worry; blesseth are those with no cerebral activity.

FRAME AND WATCH ATTACHMENT AT LEAST ONCE A DAY!


Ernst
Attached Images
File Type: png Flatliner.png (3.5 KB, 1 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 09-29-2014, 01:39 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 265
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
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. 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.
__________________
 

Last edited by Hrothgar; 09-29-2014 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 09-29-2014, 02:23 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
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. 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.


2. Fanatics and Cannot Change Their Minds. Line up all of your arguments. Carefully put together your presentation. Make sure your logic is flawless. No matter! If you are dealing with a fanatic, he still will not change his mind. Remember, a fanatic can never be critical of the object of his devotion.
Fanatics


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 09-29-2014, 04:51 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 265
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
A fanatic

Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
2. Fanatics and Cannot Change Their Minds. Line up all of your arguments. Carefully put together your presentation. Make sure your logic is flawless. No matter! If you are dealing with a fanatic, he still will not change his mind. Remember, a fanatic can never be critical of the object of his devotion.
Fanatics


Al
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?
__________________
 

Last edited by Hrothgar; 09-29-2014 at 06:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 09-30-2014, 02:23 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 09-30-2014, 09:55 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
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:

Quote:
The Sun's ("apparent") daily motion across the sky is constant, not varying!
WRONG!!! QUITE CONTRARY!

Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 09-30-2014, 01:06 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
You're a funny guy, indeed!
You've lost this case:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas
"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?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 09-30-2014, 01:41 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 09-30-2014, 02:03 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa
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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 09-30-2014, 02:44 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
@ 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!
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 09-30-2014, 05:23 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
@ 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!
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 09-30-2014, 05:49 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 265
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
Back field in motion

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 09-30-2014, 07:39 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
..........
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!!

__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 10-01-2014, 04:43 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
You're a funny guy, indeed!
You've lost this case:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas
"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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 10-01-2014, 05:49 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Well, anyway, if you insist on loosing face again (and again, and again)....

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
If 2 then ...
bla-dee-bla-dee-bla.... flat-earth-nonsense, attempts to insult me and proof that you do not understand much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
So, since what we observe is contrary to what we should observe ...
No, it is not. It is a perfect match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
... 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
... happens due to independent motion of the Sun, and not due to changing orbital velocity of the Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
And there our flatliner sails off again into his fairytales/dreamworld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 10-01-2014, 08:40 AM
Saros Saros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post

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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 10-01-2014, 09:24 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 890
Saros,

Quote:
- 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.

Quote:
- perspective (As objects become more distant they appear smaller because their visual angle decreases)
Hence the telescope...

Quote:
- 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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 10-01-2014, 09:56 AM
Saros Saros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 10-01-2014, 10:58 AM
Saros Saros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 64

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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers