North - South

[aljhoa]

Είναι το σημάδι ενός εκπαιδευμένου μυαλού για να
είναι σε θέση να διασκεδάσει μια σκέψη χωρίς αποδοχή του. - Ἀριστοτέλης

Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

First. The disappearance of a ship as it sails over the horizon, the hull vanishing first, and the masts and rigging last, and the reappearance of an approaching ship in reverse order.

Second.Third. The changing aspect of the heavens in different latitudes, some stars disappearing and others appearing, as the polar star in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross south of the equator.
.

See,.....uhmmm, this is where you REALLY SCREWED UP.


Quoting Aristotle to someone that translates ancient Greek and eats sleeps and poos Greek Platonic metaphysics and philosophy


Aristotle actually said the earth was A SPHERE
Aristotle: De Caelo 294b13-21



Aristotle:
"there are stars seen in Egypt and... Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions."

"this could only happen on a curved surface"........."of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent."






Dont stick your head in the lions mouth,......youll pull back a STUMP

[cikljamas]

Neil Armstrong talks about edge of the Flat Earth

[aljhoa]

Hmmmm yes.

the earth IS flat as a piece of paper........

...that has been wrapped around a sphere.

Fault geology proves it.

First. The disappearance of a ship as it sails over the horizon, the hull vanishing first, and the masts and rigging last, and the reappearance of an approaching ship in reverse order.

Second.Third.VolivaA parrot is a man who never thinks for himself, but repeats what he hears without any questions as to why or wherefore

Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Eratosthenes' method for determining the size of the Earth

History of geodesy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carl Sagan - Cosmos - Eratosthenes - YouTube


Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hmmmm yes.



the earth IS flat as a piece of paper........



...that has been wrapped around a sphere.

[cikljamas]

First. The disappearance of a ship as it sails over the horizon, the hull vanishing first, and the masts and rigging last, and the reappearance of an approaching ship in reverse order.

Second.Third.VolivaA parrot is a man who never thinks for himself, but repeats what he hears without any questions as to why or whereforeFlat Earth and the Sun's raysSir James Ross's voyages, p. 483, will corroborate the above statement: "Our barometrical experiment appear to prove that a gradual diminution of atmospheric pressure occurs as we proceed southwards from the tropic of Capricorn. It has hitherto been considered that the mean pressure of the atmosphere at the level of the sea was nearly the same in all parts of the world, as no material difference occurs between the equator and the highest northern latitudes. The causes of the atmospheric pressure being so very much less in the southern than in the northern hemispheres remains to be determined" Physical Geography of the Sea, by Lieut. Maury, p. 176.

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

Here, then, is an error between the theory of rotundity and practical sailing of 7,718 miles. But there are several statements made by Sir James Clarke Ross which tend to make the disparity even greater : at page 236, vol 2, of "South Sea Voyages," it is said " From near Cape Horn to Port Philip (in Melbourne, Australia) the distance is 9,000 miles."

[TheoriaApophasis]

flat earth is as potential as the end result of this:






Dont go too far over the "edge"

[cikljamas]

Al, it seems that you still don't understand the argument from the FIRST post of this thread.
Maybe next illustration can help you (although i should have rested my case long time ago... ):



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.



One correction regarding my assertion about the speed difference (traversing the sky) between the Southern Cross and Cassiopeia: it should be more than just two magnitude difference...

Now, let see one argument which totally destroys Round Earth Theory:



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



Now, allow me to serve for the mach:



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."

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!!

If you feel the headache after reading above irrefutable argument just take an aspirin...

[TheoriaApophasis]

if you can grasp this, then there is hope








speaking of THREAD.


take a "2D" thread, weave ball out of it , or blanket, crumple it up. = 3D


All volume in the universe is magnetism PERIOD. This is irrefutable.


The universe as a "balloon" has no "air" in it without magnetism.



Nobody gets such simplex things.

[aljhoa]

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.

Yes, i know you were not supporting this/that position.

Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"
ala the "Ether particle"

If they wanted to say the "universe is ultimately 'FLAT', and all volume is a discharge/ radiation projection of magnetism"

then id be on board.

(get it, board, flat).....

Does "3D" reply suffice in a "2D" thread?

3. If the Earth revolved the paths of stars would be horizontal not circular.

4. On time-delayed pictures of stars, the Polaris star almost doesn't move. The only way it can work is if both the Earth and Polaris don't move. The Earth is therefore the centre of the universe and Polaris is its end. The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!

Sigma Octantis, where is it located above your "flat earth navigation chart" >?


Al

[cikljamas]

Just a few important facts to stress here:

1. The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

2. The position of the constellations above the Earth doesn't change year after year.

3. The circular movement of stars on time-delayed pictures cannot be created by Earth's rotation. If the Earth revolved the paths of stars would be horizontal not circular.

4. On time-delayed pictures of stars, the Polaris star almost doesn't move. The only way it can work is if both the Earth and Polaris don't move. The Earth is therefore the centre of the universe and Polaris is its end. The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!


5. In fact, the stars are moving in a circle, around the star Polaris. Hence, "Polaris Effect". The stars on the outside of Polaris move faster. It is because the distance they travelled is bigger.

Can we provide some evidence of that kind (for different speeds of the different constellations)?

Wouldn't you consider such evidence as staggering one?

So, let's take the Southern Cross vs Cassiopeia as an example. How fast should we expect The Southern Cross to cross the sky nightly in comparison to it's northern counterpart constellation Cassiopeia?

We shall use for this purpose several different quotes:

Quote 1 (Southern Cross):

Because the Southern Cross is so low in the sky and close to the South Celestial Pole, its path in the sky is short. From the time it rises to the time it begins to set, it is only in the sky for around six hours, whereas objects that rise closer to due east and set due west take approximately 12 hours to traverse the sky. In other words, don't expect to see the Southern Cross in the sky all evening.

Quote 2 (Southern Cross):

The Southern Cross is a constellation of five stars. They are arranged just like the stars on the Australian and New Zealand flags. Tonight (14/5/04), the Southern Cross will be tilted to the left in the early evening, straight up and down at around 9:45 pm and tilted over to the right by midnight.

So, in above words we have another corroboration that the Southern Cross makes half of a alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so!!!!!!

Quote 3 (Southern Cross):

If you draw a line downwards, an imaginary line downwards from Alpha Centauri through Beta Centauri, and extend that line down towards the horizon, it should point you straight towards the Southern Cross.

Quote 4 (Cassiopeia):

From January to March the constellation will first appear almost overhead around 6 pm, as the evening progresses it will head down towards the horizon in a north-westerly direction, by early morning Cassiopeia will be low on the horizon in a more northerly or north-easterly direction.

So, we have to conclude that Cassiopeia (the real one circumpolar constellation) crosses the sky about twice slower than the Southern Cross.

Draw conclusions for yourself!

A) Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is seen to be what it really is!!!

B) In order for the Earth to be stationary the stars have to be able to go above the Earth nightly, so that eliminates Mainstream Science's 78 billion light-year radius of the Universe!

C) It (78 billion light-year radius) is just wise guy scientists extrapolating all over the place using pure assumptions to make a name for themselves.

[TheoriaApophasis]

[SIZE="6"]/aetheranimation.html]Aether Unit Animation[/url]

Al

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.



Yes, i know you were not supporting this/that position.




Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"

ala the "Ether particle"




If they wanted to say the "universe is ultimately 'FLAT', and all volume is a discharge/ radiation projection of magnetism"

then id be on board.



(get it, board, flat).....

[aljhoa]

since all space is a posterior attribute constructed from magnetic radiation which 'props up' every atom and the universe, we ARE living in a "flat universe" ultimately



however the earth "aint flat" . Magnetism DEMANDS VOLUME, POLARIZATION.


you cannot have polarization without a SPHERE in creation.


SO, no , hell no, and absolutely hell no, the earth "aint flat"

TA, Kudos for Explaning this W/O AU.



Aether Unit Animation








Butterfly Nebula

"Big Bang"

Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

since all space is a posterior attribute constructed from magnetic radiation which 'props up' every atom and the universe, we ARE living in a "flat universe" ultimately



however the earth "aint flat" . Magnetism DEMANDS VOLUME, POLARIZATION.


you cannot have polarization without a SPHERE in creation.


SO, no , hell no, and absolutely hell no, the earth "aint flat"

[aljhoa]

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