North - South

[TheoriaApophasis]

Al

Hey, ask him about TOILETS FLUSHING counter clockwise in the land of OZZ (australia)

[aljhoa]

https://twitter.com/laurenfosternyc/status/477514069906583552/photo/1

The above Star-Trails showing the South Pole are from Cape Town,
Master @cikljamas do you agree?


Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

I merely posted a pic from your Flat Earth Society




explain this from your "certificate"

"those who strive to be man and woman"



what the heck does this nonsense statement mean in the Flat earth society "certificate" ??????






And what does the nonsense mean "Australians hang head down" ? ROFL

[Hrothgar]

?

Hrothgar, illustration that you talk about should have helped you to easier understand the main (Voliva's) argument which is: If the Sun were that big at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the Sun's rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south. The angles under which Sun's rays hit the Earth would be absolutely irrelevant and ineffective in that case!!! Now pay attention to North Pole; when the Northern Hemisphere is allegedly tilted toward the Sun, can you imagine what would happened with North Pole ice if the Sun were that big at that distance? No "angle-alibi" under which Sun's rays hit the Earth could prevent instant melting of the North Pole ice or/and South Pole ice. What your logic tells you on this? Share with us your opinion!
:

In the round earth model the surface of the planet is an estimated 510,072,000 km2 say you can see half of that at one. Not only that you have one eye closed so that it is really taken from the point of 2 dimensions. This is how (i assume) you perceive light is hitting the planetary model I am describing. You assume that sunlight is hitting half of the planet at full strength. The fly in the ointment is that the 2 dimensional cross section has only one quarter of the surface area of the sphere yet you are looking at halve the area of the sphere. This singular point is that the earth is 1/4 heat vs. 3/4 heat sink. a cloudy earth can halve the visible energy by refracting it into space and the earth magnetic field bats away harmful spikes.

[aljhoa]

No "angle-alibi" under which Sun's rays hit the Earth could prevent instant melting of the North Pole ice or/and South Pole ice. What your logic tells you on this? Share with us your opinion!

Well, to be honest, i don't really care about this phenomena (whatever it is) because there is more than enough evidence (scientific first class proofs) that there is no Earth's motion (of any kind: rotation/revolution) whatsoever.

Fun with Nikon Images - Page 199 - The GetDPI Photography Forums








The above Star-Trails showing the South Pole are from Sydney and Adelaide,
Master @cikljamas do you agree?


Al

[cikljamas]

In order to cover up the truth that the moon (and the sun and stars) daily orbits above the Earth clockwise, liars invented daily counter-clockwise rotation of the Earth, monthly counter-clockwise orbit (and rotation on it's axis) of the Moon around the Earth, as well as annually counter-clockwise revolution of the Earth around the Sun...


Do you know what is the main heliocentric argument in favor of Earth's rotundity? Alleged rotundity of the Moon and of the Sun! Believe it or not!



1. There is no rotation of the Earth!

2. There is no orbital motion of the Earth around anything!

We feel no motion of the World on which we all live. Furthermore, no experiment in all physics has ever demonstrated that the World moves around the Sun, or that it rotates on an axis. From the standpoint of our senses, therefore, it seems simply common sense to attribute the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars to those objects themselves, rather than to some multi-component, contorted movement of the World. Certainly, to a good approximation, the stars appear to go around us as if they are each attached to the inner surface of a huge celestial sphere, which is itself rotating above our heads from east to west on a celestial north-south polar axis.

3. Gravitation is a hoax!

The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of "action at a distance." Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it" (See Hoffman, 1983). But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagate at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it.

The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein's Special Relativity (SR), an experimentally well established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum. Indeed, as astronomers we were taught to calculate orbits using instantaneous forces; then extract the position of some body along its orbit at a time of interest, and calculate where that position would appear as seen from Earth by allowing for the finite propagation speed of light from there to here. It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth's gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously. Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers.

These objections were certainly not new when I raised them. They have been raised and answered thousands of times in dozens of different ways over the years since General Relativity (GR) was set forth in 1916. Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is "What is the speed of gravity?" It is only heard less often in the classroom because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question by hastily assuring students that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, leaving the firm impression, whether intended or not, that the question of gravity's propagation speed has already been answered.

Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: "If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S', and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J', when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light" Eddington, 1920, p.94). See Figure 1.

Indeed, it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton's Universal Law is unconditionally infinite (e.g., Misner et al., 1973, p.177). This is usually not mentioned in proximity to the statement that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low-velocity, weak-field limit because of the obvious question it begs about how that can be true if the propagation speed in one model is the speed of light, and in the other model it is infinite.

The same dilemma comes up in many guises: Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?

Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align? READ MORE:The Einstein Hoax

4. Gravitational lensing is a hoax!

5. Refraction is a hoax! must see

6. Aberation of starlight, Fresnel drag and heliocentric paralax are hoaxes!

7. Theory of relativity is a hoax!

And there is the "quasar distribution problem." In 1976 a heliocentrist of sorts, Y. P. Varshni, analyzed the spectra of three hundred eighty-five quasars (the farthest known stars from earth). One hundred fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings, all of which had the same red-shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among astronomers. To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:

". . .the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

Exit, Einstein.

In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said:

8. "Airy's failure" equals Heliocentric wet dreams failure!

9. MMX "null result" equals Heliocentric wet dreams null result!

[cikljamas]

@ Aaron would you be so kind and delete last few posts of this funny guy??? Thanks in advance!!!

Theoria, it's time for you to leave this thread, if you have to abuse somone or something why don't you just abuse your sick mind instead of readers of this thread, this thread is not responsible for lack of educational and bringing up skills of your parents. Stop to be pain in my ass, just leave this thread, and don't worry, nobody will notice that you were ever here

Well, at least we can agree on one thing!
Ernst.

Run, Ernst, run!!!

While you run, do whatever is necessary to forget these arguments, because it is so obvious that the truth is very painful to you too:

We debunked heliocentricity as brash fraud and we did it beyond any reasonable doubt, didn't we? Now, there could be still doubts and questions like this (post #181):

Once again you wrongly assume that if the Earth doesn't spin it must be flat.

There is no reason to believe any of this.

If it is not heliocentric then it is geocentric, but flat Earth is no where to be found in this.

Now I am not claiming the universe is geocentric, but if we assume the Earth doesn't spin, then it would be geocentric. Anyway, even if it is geocentric it doesn't mean it is flat. Do you understand that?

This proof is HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT in the next picture:



Would you be able to see that proof without my assistance?

So, let me help you:

In above heliocentric fraudulent figure there is also one big truth:

All you have to do is to understand that Sun is revolving around the Earth, not the other way around. edit...Better to say, the Sun is circling above the Earth...edit (Al, thanks for your continuous surveillance and detailed scrutiny of my english grammar!) (Nice animation also!)

After we made it clear you can see that in above figure heliocentrists admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun is hovering above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.

Can it be more obvious than that?

As it was with UN flag, now it is the same thing with above heliocentric fraudulent diagram:

HIDING FLAT EARTH TRUTH IN YOUR PLAIN SIGHT!!!

I can only repeat what has already been written in #146:

All i have to do is to challenge you on one single issue:

1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!

Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!

As simple as that!

I don't even have to do anything more than to prove to you that the Earth doesn't spin on it's "axis", and just for the record: i already have done that.

As soon as it becomes obvious that the Earth is immovable everything else immediately fall to pieces...

As soon as you get rid of the Earth's rotation you have to answer to the next question:

How in the world on the round UNTILTED globe you could have (anywhere-at any degree of latitude) for instance 15 hours of daylight???That is to say that the Earth is really the center of the Stellatum. All stars are centered to the Earth, there is no doubt about that.

What we have to determine is HOW and WHY all stars shifts 180 degree at January 3th with respect to their position above the Earth at July 3th.

Heliocentrists assert that the 180 degree shift of all the stars with respect to the Earth happens due to for 180 degree (also) changed position of the Earth with respect to the Sun.

Now, we just don't care about the position of the Sun, because when we look up to the sky at midnight January 3th we see 180 degrees shifted stars with respect to their position which had been at midnight July 3th.

How it happened?

The Earth still stays in exactly the same geometrical position with respect to the allegedly fixed stars, the only difference is that the Earth has been moved straight forward (from the geometrical point of view) for certain amount of miles (negligible regarding position of practically endlessly distant stars (according to heliocentrist's dreams)) after she had allegedly bypassed the Sun making half a circle around it.

So, the Earth is in exactly the same geometrical position at midnight January 3th as it was at the midnight July 3th. So, who is a sucker here and now?

In order to be shifted for any degree with respect to the Earth (which is still in exactly the same geometrical position after alleged 6 month revolution around the Sun), all the stars have to turn around the fixed Earth.

This is so simple and so obvious argument against heliocentrism that i can't put into the words my amazement and astonishment with the extent of heliocentristic audaciousness and arrogance.Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Crazy for sale, HALF OFF

[Ernst]

there is no basis for serious discussion here

Well, at least we can agree on one thing!




Ernst.

[cikljamas]

when you used the angle of light through clouds as proof of the suns distance. Clouds are natures disco balls...

Hrothgar, illustration that you talk about should have helped you to easier understand the main (Voliva's) argument which is: If the Sun were that big at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the Sun's rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south. The angles under which Sun's rays hit the Earth would be absolutely irrelevant and ineffective in that case!!! Now pay attention to North Pole; when the Northern Hemisphere is allegedly tilted toward the Sun, can you imagine what would happened with North Pole ice if the Sun were that big at that distance? No "angle-alibi" under which Sun's rays hit the Earth could prevent instant melting of the North Pole ice or/and South Pole ice. What your logic tells you on this? Share with us your opinion!

Good!, but now you have a problem explaining air movements around the Earth. Because here you can clearly see opposite rotation on the Northern and Southern hemisphere.

Well, to be honest, i don't really care about this phenomena (whatever it is) because there is more than enough evidence (scientific first class proofs) that there is no Earth's motion (of any kind: rotation/revolution) whatsoever. In this thread we have been through more than just a few of these scientific first class proofs.

This answer shows that you do not know what a Foucault pendulum does. You are mixing up a number of different things. In a Foucault pendulum, the swing-rate is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the direction of the swing changes and this can ONLY happen if the Earth is rotating underneath. There is no other option, so it is absolute proof that the Earth rotates.

Same goes here (as above) which means that if i hold in my hand first class proofs and you want to challenge me with your third class "proofs" then there is no basis for serious discussion here. That is why your simple derivation really is a mumbo jumbo even if this is over my head. It can easily stay forever over my head because i haven't even begun to think about it. I am not a scientist, and i don't have to be able to follow your mathematical derivations (over my head) because what suffice to me is to look up into the sky and see that the Sun is circling above me, not vice versa.

If you use your mathematical derivations to delude yourself to such extent that you become unable to believe your own senses then i suggest you to throw away your mathematical derivations and try to learn (from the beginning) how to use your own senses and how to believe them again (as it was the case when you were humble, innocent, curious kid). You have to return to the age of your innocence, you have to understand that almost everything that you know is completely wrong, and you have to be furious to proponents of this completely fraud paradigms which heliocentrism and RET really are.

If the Earth were flat as you say, and the Sun is moving in a circle rather close over it, then the Moon will do the same, true or not? To have a full Moon then, would require the Sun to be quite close to and straight ahead of the Moon. But we are below this and there are parts of the Earth on every side of the moon so people in different locations on Earth would see different phases of the Moon. And more than that, the Moon may rise as a full Moon but set as a new Moon. Because first we see the "front" of the Moon and later the back. I don't know about you, but this is not conform my experience.

When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

The time between two full moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average. This denotes the cycle of alternating altitudes.

Why does the moon look the same to everyone?

Q: Why does the moon and the phases look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?

A: It doesn't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

The lunar phase varies depending on where you stand on a Round Earth as well. Here is the RET explanation for why the moon turns upside down when you stand on either side of it: Astronomy : How the moon looks from different places on Earth

First: I do not know if this statement is true.
Second: 3% closer = about 6% more dense radiation
Third: there are many factors that influence the temperature on Earth. Winters in BeiJing are on the average much colder than those in Amsterdam, even though the latitude is not very different. There is much more land on the northern hemisphere than on the southern hemisphere,... etc.

Fourth: You just keep running away from the inevitable inference which is: Heliocentric theory is completely destroyed with this simple argument, if heliocentric assumptions were true on The Southern Hemisphere any form of life wouldn't survive more than a few days at best. Southerners wouldn't even get much help from the fact that you don't know (or just pretend that you don't know) if this statement is true or not.

I repeat my simple argument once again:

According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt, the Southern hemisphere is more exposed (than Northern hemisphere) to the Sun's sharp ("more vertical") rays, so we enjoy Summer in the South and Winter in the North and vice versa.

But, what scatters wet RET dreams is the fact that in January we have deadly synergy of the two important factors: the first factor: significant decrease of the distance between the Earth (which is closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July) and the Sun; and the second factor: Sun's ("more vertical") rays hit the Southern Hemisphere under sharper angles comparing it with Northern hemisphere. But these sharper angles are the very same angles under which Sun's rays hit the Northern Hemisphere in July. So, why then in January in Southern hemisphere isn't 3 % (150 000 000 / 5 000 000) hotter than it is in July in Northern hemisphere? .........Don't forget: The angles are the same!!!

If the Earth were round and so far away from the Sun we would have to deal with the same problem (significant temperature difference between North and South) in Winter time also, that is to say, in July when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, Southern hemisphere this time should be tilted away from the Sun which would again have deadly impact for Southerners who would instantly freeze to death if southern-winter temperatures were this time 3 % lower comparing them with the northern-winter temperatures. Don't forget: The angles are still the same!!!

Just in case that you are not aware of the significance of that percentage (3%):

"If the Sun were 5% closer, then the water would boil up from the oceans and if the Sun were just 1% farther away, then the oceans would freeze, and that gives you just some idea of the knife edge we are on."

[Ernst]

Fair enough, so i am going to be fair also and admit that i don't really stand for this particular statement, i recklessly quoted it without double thinking of the real meaning of that sentence, so in order to be fair and consistent i have to dissociate myself from that specific quote...

Good!, but now you have a problem explaining air movements around the Earth. Because here you can clearly see opposite rotation on the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
To this:

When a Foucault pendulum is suspended at the equator, the plane of oscillation remains fixed relative to Earth. At other latitudes, the plane of oscillation precesses relative to Earth, but slower than at the pole; the angular speed, ω (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day), is proportional to the sine of the latitude, φ:

ω=360 sin(φ) degrees per day

where latitudes north and south of the equator are defined as positive and negative, respectively.

you answer:

This not only proves nothing it proves nothing at all!

It is argued that as the length of a pendulum vibrating seconds at the equator is 39,027 inches, and at the north pole 39,197 inches, that the earth, like an orange, has a globular form, but somewhat flattened at the "poles." But this so-called argument proceeds and depends upon the assumption that the earth is a globe having a "centre of attraction of gravitation," towards which all bodies gravitate or fall, and as a pendulum is essentially a falling body under certain restraint, the fact that when of the same length it oscillates or falls more rapidly at the north than at the equator is a proof that the northern surface is nearer to the "centre of attraction," or centre of the earth, than the equatorial surface: and of course if nearer the radius must be shorter, and therefore the "earth is a spheroid flattened at the poles."

The above is very ingenious and very plausible, but unfortunately for its character as an argument, the evidence is wanting that the earth is a globe at all; and until proof of convexity is given, all questions as to its being oblate, oblong, or entirely spherical, are logically out of place.

It is the duty of those who, from the behaviour of a pendulum at different latitudes, contend that the earth is spherical, to first prove that no other cause could operate besides greater proximity to a centre of gravity in producing the known differences in its oscillations. This not being done, nor attempted, the whole matter must be condemned as logically insufficient, irregular, and worthless for its intended purpose.

This answer shows that you do not know what a Foucault pendulum does. You are mixing up a number of different things. In a Foucault pendulum, the swing-rate is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the direction of the swing changes and this can ONLY happen if the Earth is rotating underneath. There is no other option, so it is absolute proof that the Earth rotates. Next, the sine function in

ω=360 sin(φ) degrees per day

where φ is the latitude can ONLY be explained if the Earth is also spherical.
But you will probably not see that because when I show you a simple derivation of acceleration in a rotating system, you refer to it as mumbo jumbo, indicating that this is over your head. If such a simple derivation is above your head, then spherical projections, which are considerably more difficult, are things you will never grasp. No offence intended, we all have talents in different fields.
It is also this same issue (of spherical projections) that is at the base of your other "irrefutable" evidence. So even if I would take the trouble to show you your errors, you will not comprehend it and just call it "amusing mumbo jumbo". My effort would be wasted.
So let me try to use an example without spherical projections.
If the Earth were flat as you say, and the Sun is moving in a circle rather close over it, then the Moon will do the same, true or not?
To have a full Moon then, would require the Sun to be quite close to and straight ahead of the Moon. But we are below this and there are parts of the Earth on every side of the moon so people in different locations on Earth would see different phases of the Moon. And more than that, the Moon may rise as a full Moon but set as a new Moon. Because first we see the "front" of the Moon and later the back.
I don't know about you, but this is not conform my experience.

Then a small hint on your 1%, 3% and 5% issues: If the Earth were 5% closer, every season would be considerably hotter (10.25% to be precise, as we are talking about the energy spread over an area, the area becomes 5% bigger/smaller in 2 directions), that could (possibly) tip the balance between evaporation and condensation over so that the condensation rate can no longer keep up with the evaporation rate. The seas will certainly not boil, but they may become dry.

So, why then in January in Southern hemisphere isn't 3 % (150 000 000 / 5 000 000) hotter than it is in July in Northern hemisphere? .........Don't forget: The angles are the same!!!

First: I do not know if this statement is true.
Second: 3% closer = about 6% more dense radiation
Third: there are many factors that influence the temperature on Earth. Winters in BeiJing are on the average much colder than those in Amsterdam, eventhough the latitude is not very different. There is much more land on the northern hemisphere than on the southern hemisphere,... etc.

Well, got to stop now...


Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

yeah, youre right, its flat



wait..........i take that back







If magnetism didnt "prop up" EVERY ATOM IN THE UNIVERSE (which is does),


then your insane theory would be plausible.



but its utterly insane, and implausible.

[aljhoa]

Regarding the Stars:

The stars are set in a hemispherical dome so low and close to the Earth that not all stars can be visible from any one point.



Now, let me present you some counterintuitive RET objections to above clear and sane obviousness:

Sigma Octantis


The path of the south Celestial pole amongst
the stars due to the effect of precession.

Pole star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

"flat earth navigation chart" >



Sigma Octantis, how many are there on your "flat earth navigation chart"?



@cikljamas, answer all previous questions.



Al

[Hrothgar]

I find it disturbing...

when you used the angle of light through clouds as proof of the suns distance. Clouds are natures disco balls. EVERY microscopic droplet in a cloud is a PRISM changing the angle of light only to have the next hundred million do the same! Citing those light shafts as your PROOF of a flat earth is PROOF that your method of, and attention to oversight is terrible. I say that giving you the severe COURTESY of assuming you are in the truest sense trying to portray these things in GOOD FAITH as fact and not just acting in defense of BLIND FAITH! Please check personally the validity of your data when possible.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Funny guy,

No, the funny guy here is you.



flat earth.