Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


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


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.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 05-21-2014, 09:09 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837


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

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

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

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

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

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


Last edited by cikljamas; 05-21-2014 at 09:12 AM.
Reply With Quote

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

  #32  
Old 05-21-2014, 11:39 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837


Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

Horizon line and Eye level

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

The horizon does not drop as you ascend in height. The horizon line remains stationary with the eye as new and distant lands come into view.

(From Chapter 5 from the Perspective Drawing Handbook)

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

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:

AERONAUTICS.

If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-21-2014 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-21-2014, 02:02 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
All my posts and the above picture prove that the Earth is a "sphere"
So what is your point?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-21-2014, 03:21 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
My point is that you obviously do not read my posts or/and do not understand plain english or/and who knows what else...

Translation:

What to say...waste of time...what to say...


What to say...waste of time...what to say II

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-21-2014 at 05:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-21-2014, 11:15 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
My point is that you obviously do not read my posts or/and do not understand plain english or/and who knows what else...
@cikljamas using the above picture, your ingenuity and math prove that the body of water is not a "sphere". Also stop using vulgar words leading to nowhere.

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-22-2014, 09:24 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
@cikljamas using the above picture, your ingenuity and math prove that the body of water is not a "sphere". Also stop using vulgar words leading to nowhere.

Al
1. What vulgar words?

2. You should not have mentioned words "math" and "prove" because now you are gonna get some real math and proofs.

First of all you have to read this:



Now watch carefully (ALMOST IDENTICAL (regarding our problematic picture) SITUATION IS DESCRIBED HERE):



How mr Rowbotham had yielded these numbers (key number is 1472 ft)?

Well, my calculation gives a little bit different result (irrelevantly but anyway let see how it goes):

47 miles distance (in our picture we have 46 miles distance from those buildings to cameraman, it's almost the same distance, interesting isn't it?) raised to the second power gives 2209 * 8 = 17672 inches * 2,54 = 44,886 cm = 0,44 km = 1452 ft. (Mr Rowbotham says 1472 ft, irrelevantly as i said) edit: 886 cm makes the difference... - irrelevantly as i sad
Now let see again our picture:



Let's make the same calculation as above:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?

The tallest building (second from left) is Willis Tower 1451 ft (442 m) high, and the building number 10 from the left is John Hancock Center 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper.

Conclusion: We could barely see (if the earth were a globe) the top of the Willis Tower (former name Sears Tower) but we could not see the top of the John Hancock center which would be 86 meters below the horizon.

Not to mention those other buildings - lilliputian dwarfs comparing with these two giant buildings - that we can plainly see too...

If you would like to ask "why don't we see entire building figures" than you have to remember this : http://www.energeticforum.com/255927-post20.html ... and bare in mind this too:

If it is argued that "there are times when the surface of the sea is perfectly calm, and that at such times at least, if the earth is a plane, the telescope ought to restore the hull of a ship, irrespective of distance, providing its power is great enough to magnify it," the reply is that practical experiments have proved that during what is called a "dead calm," the undulations or waves in the water amount to more than 20 inches, as will be seen from the following extracts:--




Cheers!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-22-2014 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-22-2014, 03:11 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post



Let's make the same calculation as above:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?
So what is the column water height on the flat Earth?


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-22-2014, 05:27 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
So what is the column water height on the flat Earth?


Al
Just read my posts (and everything that i link too), all informations are already there, they are waiting for you...

Al, we have another lesson for you: USS New Jersey guns firing Many interesting things in this video:

1. How far these bullets flew?

2. How high were those water blows induced by bullet's explosion?

3. How flat (even concave) is horizon in this video?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-23-2014, 11:37 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Just read my posts (and everything that i link too), all informations are already there, they are waiting for you...

Al, we have another lesson for you: USS New Jersey guns firing Many interesting things in this video:

1. How far these bullets flew?

2. How high were those water blows induced by bullet's explosion?

3. How flat (even concave) is horizon in this video?
Answers:

1. New Jersey's main battery consisted of nine 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns in three triple turrets, which could fire 2,700-pound (1,225 kg) armor-piercing shells some 23 miles (37 km).

2. Let's compare it with this:


Now see this: kamikazee water splash ww2

So, the most generous proposition of the water splashes height caused by New Jersey's 2,700 pound armor piercing shells explosion would be the top of the highest Iowa's mast (50 m above water line), but we could be even much more generous than that according to next calculation:

23 miles raised to second power gives 529 * 8 = 4232 * 2,54 = 10749 cm = 107,49 m

Conclusion: Water splashes that we can distinctly see (their entire figure) could not be seen (on rotund Earth) because they would be more than 50 m (107,49 - 50 m) below the horizon!

Since we watch it from the New Jersey's deck which height is probably about 11 m above water line, our horizon line allow us to see further but not so much further to reduce enough negative perspective effect induced by the obstacle of 107 m high water hill...

3. Very flat!

Case closed!

Cheers!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-23-2014 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-23-2014, 01:30 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106


@cikljamas you keep ignoring my questions and there are no adverse consequences for answers,
the above table and equations in the below link my help providing them.
Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would you see if a rigid floating hoop is placed on a ball and ocean at the "horizon"?


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-23-2014, 02:26 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
What would you see if a rigid floating hoop is placed on a ball and ocean at the "horizon"?

Al[/SIZE]
Thanks Al for confirming my theory!

So, first quote provided by your link says:

Quote:
For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
It is in accordance with this:



Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 1

Second quote provided by your link states:

Quote:
For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).
Since we have in above quote (concerning milage (36 km)) almost exact concordance with our example described (and calculated (distances and perspective) using mr. Rowbotham's formula) in my last post ("New Jersey - Iowa" example (37 km - 23 miles)) we have to conclude that according above quote we could see 37 km - 23 miles remote water splashes only if we would stand on the hypothetic (not existing) New Jersey's deck which would have to be 100 meters high MINIMUM!!!

But in reality standing on the New Jersey's deck just 10-15 meters above water line we are able to see 37 km remote water splashes!!!

Now, you have to explain away how is this possible if we live on a Globe! And you have to explain away seeing Polaris from the tropic of capricorn and billion other similar examples which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the surface of the Earth is flat, not rotund!

Sorry for avoiding to answer your question again, but if you clarified it maybe i could answer it next time (after clarification)...

Cheers!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-23-2014 at 02:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-23-2014, 07:05 PM
Uncle Charlie Uncle Charlie is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mind boggling. Have you got any good links showing satellite theory as it pertains to a motionless earth? One can plainly see the arc of the orbiting television satellites by following it with a 2.5 meter C-Band dish antenna and going from one satellite to another. You can see the signal degrade as you move even a minute amount along the arc in any direction. Also, what keeps these satellites in orbit using this model? I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept but it is hard to break old concepts even for the sake of argument.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-23-2014, 11:00 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Thanks Al for confirming my theory!
I did not!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
And you have to explain away seeing Polaris from the tropic of capricorn
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
Polaris is not visible about 1+23.5degrees below the "edge" of the NH where the "son" points North (bin there done that).



fanaticism (fəˈnætɪˌsɪzəm)
1. wildly excessive or irrational devotion, dedication, or enthusiasm
fanaticism - definition of fanaticism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Hail Columbia! with Lyrics; First American National Anthem - United States of America - YouTube


Are the following photos taken from the one sided Earth?




Star trails create arches over the horizon in a long-exposure picture of the night sky taken from Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
Space Photos This Week: Gravity Waves, Chicken Nebula





These star trails are centered on the celestial north pole. They were recorded in a time-lapse photograph over the course of about eight hours.
Open Course : Astronomy : Introduction : Lecture 2 : North Pole Star Trails Photo



Milky Way Panorama Poster


Al
__________________
 

Last edited by aljhoa; 05-23-2014 at 11:08 PM. Reason: link fix
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-24-2014, 09:27 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Next argument shown in this photo kills both: the sanity of heliocentism and the sanity of geocentrism which does not include flat earth hypothesis:



Let's make it more plausible by making this simple calculation:

150 000 000 millions km : 3200 km (distance from equator to north pole) = 46875...

Now, all you have to do is to imagine that the source of the heat is 46. 875 km which is 29mi 223.12yd remote from you and you enjoy benefits of summer season, and guy who is placed just 1 m behind you is freezing?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Who is crazy here?

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-24-2014 at 04:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-24-2014, 02:01 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
I deleted by accident my previous post, but i have copies of all my posts, so we are going to resurrect my post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Charlie
Mind boggling. Have you got any good links showing satellite theory as it pertains to a motionless earth? One can plainly see the arc of the orbiting television satellites by following it with a 2.5 meter C-Band dish antenna and going from one satellite to another. You can see the signal degrade as you move even a minute amount along the arc in any direction. Also, what keeps these satellites in orbit using this model? I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept but it is hard to break old concepts even for the sake of argument.
Mind boggling indeed! But, who is responsible for that? That is the right question we have to answer! And my whole thread is the answer to that particular question! What keeps these satellites in orbit? Isn't that practically the same question as this one: "how the earth is circumnavigated" (on a flat surface of the Earth)?

This is how:

In the following diagram, fig. 86, let N, represent the. northern centre, near to which lies the "magnetic pole." Then



the several arrows marked A, S, are all pointing northwards; and those marked E, W, are all due east and west. It is evident from the diagram, that A, S, are absolute directions--north and south; but that E, W, east and west, are only relative, that is they are directions at right angles to north and south. If it were not so then, taking the line N, A, S, as representing the meridian of Greenwich, and W, E, on that meridian as due east and west, on moving due west to the meridian 3, 4, N, it is evident that a vessel represented by the arrow 1, 2, would be at angle with the meridian 3, 4, N, much greater than 90 degrees, and if it continued to sail in the same straight line 2, 1, 5, it would get farther and farther away from the centre N, and therefore could never complete a path concentric with N. East and west, however, are directions relative to north and south. Hence, on a mariner arriving at the meridian 3, 4, N, he must of necessity turn the head of his vessel in the direction indicated by the arrow 6, 7, and thus continuing to keep the vessel's head square to the compass, or at right angles to north and south, he will at length arrive at 90 degrees of meridian from N, A, S, when the head of the vessel will be in the direction of E, W, 8. Continuing his course for 90 degrees more his path will be E, W, 9. The same course continued will in the next 90 degrees become E, W, 10, and on passing over another 90 degrees the ship will have arrived again at the meridian of Greenwich N, A, S, having then completed a circle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa
I did not!
How come you still haven't seen this video of mine? The Earth is immobile 2 Didn't i tell you, you do not read what i write and quote, you do not watch valuable videos, and then you again and again pose same old (already answered 1000 times) questions?

Well, correct your misbehaviour and see above video of mine. In first half of this video i even read the text for you, for watching and reading text presented in the second half of my video turn on the full screen and enjoy the music!!!

Do not skip this time these two valuable posts (quotes) of mine (they perfectly suit to above video of mine and complement it too):

http://www.energeticforum.com/253284-post137.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253578-post196.html

I highly recommend these marvelleous videos of my friend Rory Cooper too:

The earth is flat Polaris says so

The earth is flat the 4 seasons say so.

The earth is flat the horizon says so.

Next argument shown in this photo kills both: the sanity of heliocentism and the sanity of geocentrism which does not include flat earth hypothesis:



So, we done it... you just have to read this post before previous one...
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-24-2014, 03:30 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
This is two-dimensional thinking in the Milky Way Galaxy traveling through the universe where the planets go around the stars and the solar systems move around the galaxy as a unit generally tipped by some angle. Because of this angle the planets at times are ahead of their star and sometimes behind as the solar systems move in the galactic orbit and travel in the universe.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
SparkNotes: 1984: Important Quotations Explained


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-24-2014, 04:38 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
This is two-dimensional thinking in the Milky Way Galaxy traveling through the universe where the planets go around the stars and the solar systems move around the galaxy as a unit generally tipped by some angle. Because of this angle the planets at times are ahead of their star and sometimes behind as the solar systems move in the galactic orbit and travel in the universe.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
SparkNotes: 1984: Important Quotations Explained


Al
Al, don't be silly, here is very simple calculation, you can't escape from the strength of this argument, there is no way to overpower it, NO WAY!!!

And remember, it is just one among many arguments of that kind!

If the Earth were a globe there wouldn't be SINGLE serious argument against "the fact" of Earth's rotundity, NOT SINGLE ONE!!!

Question: How many irrefutable arguments against the Earth's rotundity i have already presented to you in this thread?

You think you can escape from this argument by mumbling about "two-dimensional thinking", and the ultimate irony is that you say that to me, instead vice-versa...

I repeat:

Quote:
Let's make it more plausible by making this simple calculation:

150 000 000 millions km : 3200 km (distance from equator to north pole) = 46875...

Now, all you have to do is to imagine that the source of the heat is 46. 875 km which is 29mi 223.12yd remote from you and you enjoy benefits of summer season, and guy who is placed just 1 m behind you is freezing?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Who is crazy here?
Answer it, fight it directly, speak clearly - distinctly - understandably, do not use mumbling technic, it can't help you, believe me, you just bury yourself deeper and deeper...

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-24-2014 at 04:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-25-2014, 04:03 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
What keeps these satellites in orbit? Isn't that practically the same question as this one: "how the earth is circumnavigated" (on a flat surface of the Earth)?

This is how:

In the following diagram, fig. 86, let N, represent the. northern centre, near to which lies the "magnetic pole." Then



the several arrows marked A, S, are all pointing northwards; and those marked E, W, are all due east and west. It is evident from the diagram, that A, S, are absolute directions--north and south; but that E, W, east and west, are only relative, that is they are directions at right angles to north and south. If it were not so then, taking the line N, A, S, as representing the meridian of Greenwich, and W, E, on that meridian as due east and west, on moving due west to the meridian 3, 4, N, it is evident that a vessel represented by the arrow 1, 2, would be at angle with the meridian 3, 4, N, much greater than 90 degrees, and if it continued to sail in the same straight line 2, 1, 5, it would get farther and farther away from the centre N, and therefore could never complete a path concentric with N. East and west, however, are directions relative to north and south. Hence, on a mariner arriving at the meridian 3, 4, N, he must of necessity turn the head of his vessel in the direction indicated by the arrow 6, 7, and thus continuing to keep the vessel's head square to the compass, or at right angles to north and south, he will at length arrive at 90 degrees of meridian from N, A, S, when the head of the vessel will be in the direction of E, W, 8. Continuing his course for 90 degrees more his path will be E, W, 9. The same course continued will in the next 90 degrees become E, W, 10, and on passing over another 90 degrees the ship will have arrived again at the meridian of Greenwich N, A, S, having then completed a circle.



South Pole Star Trails

Explanation: No star dips below the horizon and the Sun never climbs above it in this remarkable image of 24 hour long star trails. Showing all the trails as complete circles, such an image could be achieved only from two places on planet Earth. This example was recorded during the course of May 1, 2012, the digital camera in a heated box on the roof of MAPO, the Martin A. Pomerantz Observatory at the South Pole. Directly overhead in the faint constellation Octans is the projection of Earth's rotational axis, the South Celestial Pole, at the center of all the star trail circles. Not so well placed as Polaris and the North Celestial Pole, the star leaving the small but still relatively bright circle around the South Celestial Pole is Beta Hydri. The inverted umbrella structure on the horizon at the right of the allsky field of view is the ground shield for the SPUD telescope. A shimmering apparition of the aurora australis also visited on this 24 hour night.
APOD: 2012 August 2 - South Pole Star Trails


Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post

Are the following photos taken from the one sided Earth?




Star trails create arches over the horizon in a long-exposure picture of the night sky taken from Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
Space Photos This Week: Gravity Waves, Chicken Nebula





These star trails are centered on the celestial north pole. They were recorded in a time-lapse photograph over the course of about eight hours.
Open Course : Astronomy : Introduction : Lecture 2 : North Pole Star Trails Photo

Where on your "flat earth navigation chart" the counter rotating South Pole and North Pole star trails can be taken ?


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-25-2014, 02:29 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Al, why don't you answer to my questions?
I have asked you first and you ignore my questions.
So what is the answer:



Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post

South Pole Star Trails

Explanation: No star dips below the horizon and the Sun never climbs above it in this remarkable image of 24 hour long star trails. Showing all the trails as complete circles, such an image could be achieved only from two places on planet Earth. This example was recorded during the course of May 1, 2012, the digital camera in a heated box on the roof of MAPO, the Martin A. Pomerantz Observatory at the South Pole. Directly overhead in the faint constellation Octans is the projection of Earth's rotational axis, the South Celestial Pole, at the center of all the star trail circles. Not so well placed as Polaris and the North Celestial Pole, the star leaving the small but still relatively bright circle around the South Celestial Pole is Beta Hydri. The inverted umbrella structure on the horizon at the right of the allsky field of view is the ground shield for the SPUD telescope. A shimmering apparition of the aurora australis also visited on this 24 hour night.
APOD: 2012 August 2 - South Pole Star Trails





Where on your "flat earth navigation chart" the counter rotating South Pole and North Pole star trails can be taken ?


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-25-2014, 04:07 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
You have got the answer in the first link in my previous post: here i adjusted the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV_MO8uTsHc#t=2m8s

There is no south pole:

You Have NEVER Seen the Sun Do This! Sun Antics from Neumayer Station,Antarctica

100% proof that something is wrong. ANTARCTIC John Gorman

Now you can try to amaze us with impossible (sane) answers concerning irrefutable arguments that i have presented to you in a few last posts...

You still refuse to watch videos that i link to you?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-25-2014, 07:50 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
You have got the answer in the first link in my previous post:

There is no south pole:
The following image is an unprecedented star trail image taken from the Equator (this imaginary line that splits the Earth into the two hemispheres) in Ecuador (the country).
If you stand on the Equator line you can see the Southern Pole at the horizon to the South (left of the image) and the Northern pole at the horizon on the opposite direction.
The Earth rotation will make all the sky and stars look like they rotate around these two points, making them appear as concentric circles (which look like ellipses on this distorsioning fish eye image). Note that on this image, that cumulates 10 hours of exposure starting 1 hour after sunset and finishing 1 hour before sunrise (nights and days always last 12 hours on the Equator, it is a permanent equinox), more than 90% of the sky is 'visible', this is another particularity of being on the ecuator line : you can observe the largest part of the sky during any night. An extremely bright meteor appeared during that night and seems to be pointing at the Southern Pole (extreme left of the image). Image processing done with Prism software.

Los Cielos del Ecuador, From Southern Pole to Northern Pole






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


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:10 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
They faked moon landing, why wouldn't they fake one stupid image which proves nothing?

Look at the series of images in my post above, it is good solid proof that they had faked moon landing!

I tell you, there is no south pole whatsoever.

Read this:

IF the earth is a revolving globe, moving rapidly in an orbit round the sun, with its axes of revolution inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, as the Newtonian hypothesis affirms, there may be six months' continued light alternating with six months' continued darkness, at both the northern and southern axial or central points. That such is the case in the northern centre is matter of certainty, but that it is so in the south there is no positive evidence. A few irregular statements have been found in the reports of mariners who have endeavoured to circumnavigate the "antarctic circle," which have been seized upon as proofs, but on careful examination they are found to be neither worthy as evidence nor pertinent to the subject in dispute.

Read more
: Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter XIV. Examination of the So-Called ''Proofs'' of the Earth's Rotundity: Continued Daylight in the Extreme South

Antarctica key to flat earth

Weird case: The Case of the Hacked South Pole

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-25-2014 at 11:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-26-2014, 02:54 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
why wouldn't they fake one stupid image which proves nothing?
@cikljamas,
hundreds of star trail pictures made by the amateur astronomers prove the spherical earth’s shape, plummeting your credibility and an audience.


Keep up "good work" and enjoy:

At first glance these spectacular swirls of colour may look like clever computer graphics or the result of faulty camera work.
They are, in fact, the product of hour after hour of painstaking night-time shooting by photographer Lincoln Harrison.
His stunning pictures of star trails across the Australian night sky were taken over periods of up to 15 hours.

Australian photographer Lincoln Harrison endures 15-hour photo shoots to capture stunning night images of star trails | Mail Online





Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
David K. Lynch

5. Summary and Conclusions
In view of the agreement between the visual observations,
measurements of the photographs, and the theoretical curvatures, it seems well established that the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well understood and can be measured from photographs. The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35; 000 ft but not as low as 14; 000 ft.
Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft.

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pd


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-26-2014, 11:29 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Is this the look of three men who had just returned from being the first men to walk on the Moon? The Apollo 11 crew have just returned to Earth and are talking to President Nixon from quarantine. This group is definitely
not a bunch of happy campers. Could they feel ashamed about something they didn't do?



Michael Collins was designated the navigator for Apollo 11. In his book he lists the 37 navigation stars they were to use, plus their corresponding octal numbers which identified them to the computers. Here's how Michael explains that navigation package:

"The astronaut, peering out through either his telescope or his sextant finds one of the chosen few, superimposes a + on it, and pushes a button at the instant of perfect alignment. He then tells the computer which star it was, by numbers. Repeating this process on a second star allows the computer and the platform to determine which way the spacecraft is pointing. So we now know which way is up? Well, not exactly, because "up" is a rather fragile concept meaning away from the center of the earth, a direction opposite the gravity vector used to clutch us tightly by. But suppose we cannot even see the earth in our window, suppose we are floating free of earth's gravity. What now, M.I.T.? Back to our friendly stars. We simply define a new up-down and left-right, using the stars in place of earth. All will be well as long as we all play the game by the same rules, as long as the ground controllers send us instructions using the same stellar frame of reference. Now we are free of all terrestrial conventions and can correct our course to and from the Moon by pointing in the proper direction relative to the stars."

Collins seems to be saying that the sextant had a cross hair in its optics. But sextants don't have cross-hairs. Curiously, I went sniffing through his book and found out that sure enough he was talking about a sextant. Almost 100 pages later he continues:

"Unlike Gemini, however, Apollo has a fancy computer tied to the optics, and now I call on it for help; it responds by swinging the sextant around until it points at where it thinks Menkent is. Aha! There it is, in plain view, and it's a simple task for me to align the cross-hairs precisely on it and push a button at the instant of alignment. Now I repeat the process using Nunki, and the computer pats me on the back by flashing the
information that my measurements differ from its stored star angle data by .01 degree. It displays this information as 00001. In M.I.T.-ese, a perfect reading of 00000 is called five balls."


Aha! There it is, in plain view: he does claim his sextant has a cross-hair, but this cannot be true! A sextant is an instrument that uses mirrors mounted on a calibrated movable leg. The essence of the instrument is to superimpose one object over the image of another thereby measuring the angle between them. On Earth, one of the objects is usually the horizon but here he is measuring the arc distance between two stars. As I said, there is no reason to have a cross-hair.

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

A clean glove often hides a dirty hand.
English Proverb

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one. A. Hitler

The trouble with lying is that your lie changes slightly with each telling.
Rene

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof
against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting
ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Herbert Spencer

While examining Newton's gravity I found that most rock strata underlying a 1,000 foot cliff should collapse. One cubic foot of rock weighs about 100 pounds therefore a square foot of the overlying rocks weigh about 100,000 pounds which exceeds the known bearing capacity of those rocks which is usually in the 20,000 pounds per square foot range.

From studies and simple experiments I concluded that Newton's Equatorial Bulge could not exist. A bulge would cause a shift in latitude from a perfect sphere and using a super accurate transit I shot the stars. I discovered that if there is a bulge it can be no larger than a few hundred yards high which destroys Newton's miles high bulge.

Our massive Equatorial bulge is a myth proclaimed by our geological gas bags because if true our equator should be constantly shifting due to the movement of huge masses on the surface which change latitude. Gigantic icebergs, dust storms, and the shipping of ores from one place to another changing the line of heaviest mass which should always form the equator. This is the same problem that Newton faced.
Rene
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-26-2014, 01:43 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Hit the nail on the head

Now, i am going to hit the last nail in the round earth coffin:

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

What would happen?

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

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

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

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

All you (round guys) have to do is to make live video like this:
Arctic Midnight Sun

Only this time you should film North Pole Midnight Sun from the roof of our hypothetical northern house...

...and voila...

But you can't do that, because if you could you would have already done it!!!

Am i right? Of course i am right!!!

What excuse are you going to put forward this time?

Too cold region for filming? Too cold for flying over not-existing South Pole? Too cold for reasoning?

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-26-2014 at 01:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-26-2014, 05:04 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Now, i am going to hit the last nail in the round earth coffin:

Too cold region for filming? Too cold for flying over not-existing South Pole? Too cold for reasoning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZICflK6K_3M

The sun Returns in Antarctica.
Some great time lapse footage of us getting our sun back and putting the flag up.
There is also an extract from my Documentary called 'Why Winter?' which played along side Werner Herzogs 'Encounters
at the end of the world' for a week at the Antarctic film festival in Tasmania.



Where on your "flat earth navigation chart" the Arctic Midnight Sun and the Antarctica’s Midday Night can be filmed at the same time?


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-27-2014, 02:17 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Now, i am going to hit the last nail in the round earth coffin:

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

What would happen?

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

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

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

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

All you (round guys) have to do is to make live video like this:
Arctic Midnight Sun

Only this time you should film North Pole Midnight Sun from the roof of our hypothetical northern house...

...and voila...

But you can't do that, because if you could you would have already done it!!!

Am i right? Of course i am right!!!

What excuse are you going to put forward this time?

Too cold region for filming? Too cold for flying over not-existing South Pole? Too cold for reasoning?
Now i am going to hit the final nail right in the heart of the rotund Earth hoax (the greatest hoax in the history of mankind):

Since it's obviously too cold to put web cam in the north pole region we can make even simpler test right away:

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

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

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

Am i right? Of course i am right, as always!

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

CASE CLOSED?

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-27-2014 at 02:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-27-2014, 03:41 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Now i am going to hit the final nail right in the heart of the rotund Earth hoax (the greatest hoax in the history of mankind):

If "N" points to Polaris Star on your "flat earth navigation chart" then the star named "sun" "runs in circles" and Arctic Midnight Sun is everywhere.

So where is the night-day cycle on your "flat earth navigation chart"?

run in circles
1. Lit. to run in a circular path.
2. and run around in circles Fig. to waste one's time in aimless activity. Stop running in circles and try to organize yourself so that you are more productive. I have been running around in circles over this matter for days.
run in circles - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Running in circles United Pursuit Band lyrics - YouTube

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-27-2014, 09:21 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Now, i am going to hit the last nail in the round earth coffin:

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

What would happen?

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

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

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

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

All you (round guys) have to do is to make live video like this:
Arctic Midnight Sun

Only this time you should film North Pole Midnight Sun from the roof of our hypothetical northern house...

...and voila...

But you can't do that, because if you could you would have already done it!!!

Am i right? Of course i am right!!!

What excuse are you going to put forward this time?

Too cold region for filming? Too cold for flying over not-existing South Pole? Too cold for reasoning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Now i am going to hit the final nail right in the heart of the rotund Earth hoax (the greatest hoax in the history of mankind):

Since it's obviously too cold to put web cam in the north pole region we can make even simpler test right away:

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

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

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

Am i right? Of course i am right, as always!

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

CASE CLOSED?
The prosperity of heliocentrism was ceased a by talented objection, that all dropped objects should land behind their starting positions because the turning Earth leaves them behind. Unfortunately, the objection of the talented people was refuted because of a dead law in air atmosphere – the law of inertia. It is the Galileo’s law and the first law of Newton. Their common reply is that: all dropped objects have inertia, and thus, the rotating Earth will not leave them behind. The law of inertia cannot be applied in air atmosphere under any conditions. Galileo demanded that, the law of inertial is valid only in the absence of air but the Helios fellows extended the inertial law in air atmosphere. We would gratefully appreciate Galileo if his law were situated in air, since it will save our Earth from the pollutions of the fossils. Consider one of their fellows in airplane and during its motion in air atmosphere he left the airplane with a parachute. According to the inertial law; the fellow and the airplane are supposed to move side-to-side with the same speed. He must feel proud to his superpower; the airplane is consuming propellers and he is not! In reality, and in the first moment, he will realize that the airplane is ahead of him and he is left behind in air because the inertial motion is terminated by the presence of air. Argue or not, it is well-known fact since the ancient civilizations. In the presence of air atmosphere, the law of inertia does not function. If you threw an object aloft several meters, it will come back to your hand; not because of the law of inertia but because the Earth is stationary. You cannot breathe oxygen from air atmosphere and speak about the law of inertia. Dump the law of inertia in space.

The modern folks are disturbed from the disbelief of some fellows to their theory. They are wondering why some fellows whom are belonging to the 21st century and can not realize the rotation of the Earth with a speed of 1669.8 km/hr at the equator. To even our trouble; the modern fellows insisted that the air atmosphere is also rotating with the rigid Earth. Perhaps, they do not know that, the Earth’s speed varies with Earth’s latitude. Since the rigid sphere has different speeds along its latitude; hence, the air molecules must have the local speed of the rigid Earth at any given latitude. What are the airspeed and pressure pattern that would be caused by the Earth’s rotation? The maximum airspeed and the maximum pressure (dynamic pressure) must be oriented at the Earth’s equator in which the Earth suffers its maximum rotational speed of 1669.8 km/hr. Conversely, the minimum air speed and the minimum pressure (dynamic pressure) must be oriented at the north and south poles since the rotational speed is zero. This pressure setup is the fittest route for Hurricanes; a pressure drop between two regions (from high pressure to low pressure). No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology. Scientists have measured the speed of microscopic constituents of the Earth, atoms and molecules, but they have failed to measure the speed of rotating Earth! The "Earth’s rotation" is a technical notation refers to a fake mechanism that only found in the fairytale of heliocentrism.

fixitan is stupid! you see?

Last edited by cikljamas; 03-31-2017 at 10:01 AM.
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.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers