North - South

[Ernst]

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

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

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

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


Ernst.

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

[cikljamas]

In post #453 i wrote:

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

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

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

If 2 then the steady-even rate (velocity) of annual motion of all the stars above the Earth doesn't have to be variable, because in that case annual motion of the stars doesn't depend of any other motion, but presents and performs independent motion. In that case Sun's motion also presents independent motion and all that remains is to adjust (by some "Entity") these two motions in order to make them synchronous motions.

Then Snake aka Ernst in post #464 writes:

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

WRONG!!! QUITE CONTRARY!

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

WRONG!!! QUITE CONTRARY!


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

It has been known since ancient times that the motion of the Sun along the Ecliptic is not uniform. Although it moves about a degree to the East (relative to the stars) each day, its motion gradually changes during the year, being faster in December and January, and slower in June and July. The actual change from day to day is very small, and not easily noticeable with the timekeeping methods available in ancient times, but during that part of the year when the Sun moves faster than normal on one day, it moves faster than normal every day, and over a month or so, the difference adds up in a very noticeable way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ernst]

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

Just checking: Are you talking about a human child?

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

I see a tinge of hope there...

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

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


Ernst.

[Hrothgar]

A fanatic

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?

[aljhoa]

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

[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.

[Ernst]

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!

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

[Hrothgar]

About that video

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?

[cikljamas]

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."

[Ernst]

...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....

[cikljamas]

[Ernst]

" 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]

FRAME IT AND WATCH IT AT LEAST ONCE EVERY DAY!

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

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."

[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.

[cikljamas]

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?