North - South

[Saros]

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

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

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

Ernst.

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

All of them can be due to other reasons.

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

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

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

[Ernst]

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

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

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

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

Ernst.

[Ernst]

Saros,

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

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

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

Good luck!

Ernst.

[Saros]

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

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

[Saros]

Saros,


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

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

[Ernst]

Saros,

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

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

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

Hence the telescope...

- mountains/hills etc

choose a place where you have a clear view.



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

Ernst.

[Saros]

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

This one is easy.

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

[Ernst]

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

In post #453 i wrote:

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

Not true, as Hrothgar has already pointed out.

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

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

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

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

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

If 2 then ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needless, because it is not true.

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

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

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

Erhm, not really no.

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

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

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

bye-bye!
Ernst

[Ernst]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12: How about the Coriolis effect?

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

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

15: What is the mass of the Earth?

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

17: Where do the comets and asteroids come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28: How do satellites stay in the sky

29: Your flat Earth Sun would look like a train coming towards you on a long track. Can you imagine how that looks? First you see a small dot at the horizon, moving very very slowly. Then it (very slowly) picks up speed and get bigger. At noon it would be at its biggest and ZOOM by to loose speed again and very very slowly disappear as a small dot.
The Sun I see (almost) every day does something very different: it appears biggest when it rises or sets and it moves fastest near the horizon and slowest at noon.

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

31: If the Sun would move in a circle over a flat Earth, a shadow would show retrograde movement in the morning and in the evening. Try it with a pen, flashlight and a piece of paper! Try it before you answer as your spacial insight is not overwhelming.

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

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

Well, here goes:

Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

..........

Hrothgar

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



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

[Hrothgar]

Back field in motion

In post #453 i wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cikljamas]

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

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

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

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

Haven't i been clear enough?

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

[cikljamas]

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

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

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

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

[Ernst]

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

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



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


Ernst.

[aljhoa]

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

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

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g292/nickjt/Sky%20and%20Telescope/sunpathbigvs6.jpg

https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-fun-zone/166475-stars-space.html

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

Hrothgar, You Are Psychic!


Al