North - South

[aljhoa]

Don't you see how he became desperate?

Nina, maybe this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.


Al

[cikljamas]

@ Saros, this is for you:

In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.3oo.ooo square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.


From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"


These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.



View from Everest

And now something (not quite) completely different: Teaching Satanism in schools sounds like the stuff of horror movies. But a US court ruling on religious freedoms, has enabled devil worshippers in Florida to hand out educational material about their beliefs - to kids at state schools. Marina Portnaya reports.

[cikljamas]

Please let me know, I can use some extra cash!


Ernst.

So you do it for free? You want me to believe that you are stupid after all? Well, since i can't exclude this possibility with absolute certainty, i will keep in mind that option also! But it would be much more constructive if you began to admit obviousness of self-evident facts, by doing this you would do a noble work, and you wouldn't have to sacrifice too much pride (i suppose), and guess who would benefit from your acknowledgement of obvious facts?

The answer is: Al

Don't you see how he became desperate?

If no action is taken he will completely freak out...

[aljhoa]

IS ALWAYS A HORIZONTAL LINE.

Horizontal line is a "hula-hoop" where its diameter is a function of eyes-location.




Al

[Ernst]

Ernst is obviously a guy with the mission, who pays him i don't know, but i could guess though...

Please let me know, I can use some extra cash!


Ernst.

[cikljamas]

Some of the evidences require of us to check/work them out more carefully, and correct them, but at the end of the day we always make one step further towards total debunking of HC fraud SF theory which is the greatest hoax of all time....

Only completely stupid people are unable to realize the falsity of copernicanism after careful insight into a huge amount of FET evidences provided in this thread by me.

Do i believe that Ernst is one of these hypothetical completely stupid people?

No, i don't! Ernst is obviously a guy with the mission, who pays him i don't know, but i could guess though...

We should remind our valued readers to the fact that Ernst persistently avoid to answer to one question, which i have several time brought up to him:

Parallax believed that the proved levelness of water would ultimately lea'd to the death of Modern Astronomy. He remarks, as foUows, in his " Zetetic
Astronomy," p. 362

" The great and theory-destroying fact was quickly discovered that the surface of standing water was perfectly horizontal Here was another death-blow to the universal ideas and speculations of pseudo-philosophers. Just as the ' universal solvent could not be preserved or manufactured, and, therefore, the whole system of Alchemy died away, so the necessary proof of convexity on the waters of the Earth could not be proved, and, therefore, the doctrine of rotundity, and of the plurality of worlds, must also die. The death is now a mere question of time."

The Government could then give instructions to the Nautical Authorities at the Board of Trade, to amend their Laws of Navigation accordingly, just as in 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.

Ernst, maybe you have something (instead of nothing) to say this time about an Order that the Houses of Lords and Commons issued in 1862.?

Here is some more evidences (old testimonies of honest people) which additionally reveals Ernst's shamelessness:

If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches, nearly. From the Age, of 5th August 1893, I extract the following:

" The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."" It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth."" In levelling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsall level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."

I think most will grant that a practical man is capable of forming a judgment, in all cases of more value than the merely theoretical calculator. Here, then, we have the evidence of practical men to the effect that no allowance for curvature is made in cutting canals, a clear proof that we are not living on a huge ball, but on a surface, the general contour of which is level, as the datum line from which surveys are made IS ALWAYS A HORIZONTAL LINE.

[Ernst]

Had you believed that i really belive in correctness of the representation-reproduction of the reality that has been shown in my yesterday's picture which supposed to mimic Earth's shadow on the Moon then you have drawn wrong conclusion:

You are posting irrefutable evidence that you don't even believe in yourself!
That figures.

So, you can throw in the garbage both: my seductive picture and erroneous wiki illustration from the post # 815...

Together with all your other irrefutable evidence.



Ernst.

[cikljamas]

Had you believed that i really belive in correctness of the representation-reproduction of the reality that has been shown in my yesterday's picture which supposed to mimic Earth's shadow on the Moon then you have drawn wrong conclusion:

This is why:

Mr. Gillespie talks from the OLD (Moon theory - MUCH SMALLER ALLEGED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND MOON) STANDPOINT:

Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' page 89, comes to the rescue and says

" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmosphere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the
moon's disc. Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot therefore be inhabited.''

So, if we take refraction into account, NEW Moon theory falls to pieces much faster and in much more compelling manner than we could ever accomplish by insisting on any particular alleged theoretical length of the Earth's shadow on the Moon!

So, you can throw in the garbage both: my seductive picture and erroneous wiki illustration from the post # 815...

Throwing them in the garbage you should bare in mind that in the same time you are throwing in the garbage your own HC illusions also!!!

[cikljamas]

It wasn't my statement, it's a quote that belongs to someone's wrong-superficial interpretation of certain wiki-illustration which i have just explained away, my explanation is above (you just have quoted it), but since you are too stupid to discern other's quotations from my own words there is nobody who can help you about that, or even about the proper time to inhale/exhale
...

It's true that i had put that wrong-superficial interpretation believing that it was valid interpretation, but after more careful examination of that argument i noticed the flaw in it, and i have corrected it, now if you have any further objections to my own statements, go ahead, just spell it out...

Maybe you can explain Ernst's new garbage "parallel rays" argument or you have even better argument than that?

[Hrothgar]

no I was referring to this..

What that has got to do with the eclipses of the Moon? Are you still drunk?

While i was examining this "Moon in the shadow problem" before i went to sleep last night i noticed the very same flaw that you have pointed to...(as if i had knew that someone was going to raise this question this morning)

Anyway, it doesn't change the HC dead end position generally regarding this "HC Moon-nightmare"

Within first (old) hypothesis the Moon revolves around the Earth daily with the speed of 17,280 km/hour, so it takes 24 hours for Moon to cross 414 720 km. It is obviously much less than 2 386 400 km which is allegedly lenght of the Moon's orbit within today's (new) HC hypothesis.

So, 414 720 / 2 / 3,14 = 60 988 = distance between the Earth and the Moon (old hypothesis)

60 988 / 12 800 = 4,7 = number of the diameters of the Earth (old hypothesis)

So, within this (old) hypothesis, shadow of the Earth (since the Moon is just 4,7 Earth's diameters away from the Earth) would be pretty much in accordance with the main point of old objections to that old HC Moon theory, regarding eclipses of the Moon!

Now, 414720 / 32 = 12960 / 288 km (180 mi) = 45 min. So, it was wrong to say that the Moon needs 4 minutes to pass through the shadow of the Earth, needed time is about 10 times more than that, but that amount of time still presents too fast motion for producing eclipses which has been known to have been extended up to 4 hours.

However, eclipses of the Moon maybe had not even been the first main reason for major changes of HC theory regarding "Moon nightmare problem".

Anyway, within a NEW theory we have got what we have:

12 800 (diameter of the Earth) / 3200 km/h (NEW speed of the Moon) = 4 hours (EXACTLY - anything suspicious???)

But, Huston, we got a problem:

From that distance (380 000 km) the shadow of the Earth would be almost 4 times LARGER than the diameter of the Earth!!! So, you losers lose again!!!



And as i explained before, the much bigger problem for this NEW theory is the "apparent" motion of the Moon which should be much slower than "apparent" motion of the Sun, but unfortunately for HC liars the "apparent" motion of the Moon is much faster than the "apparent" motion of the Sun!!!

And finally, this is just one additional (not crucial at all) among countless examples of falsity of HC fraud theory!!!

to reality!!!

[aljhoa]

Al

[cikljamas]

THIS PICTURE...



...IS IN PERFECT ACCORDANCE WITH THIS WIKI ILLUSTRATION:



Now, why don't you explain to us your parallel rays theory?

Maybe because you are full of titbit garbage arguments?

[Ernst]

Draw it to scale (including the distances between them) and all will be obvious to our valued readers, but not to you.



Ernst.

[cikljamas]

Maybe you can explain to our valued readers your parallel-theory using this wiki illustration:



Maybe you should bare in mind this size ratio also:





Maybe you should bare in mind this distance-size ratio also:

[Ernst]

One might argue that the light rays of the Sun, given its distance, are virtually parallel.
Thus the shadow of the Earth (at 380 000 km) is about as big as the Earth.
That would solve the issue for intelligent folk.

But then...

Loony the Lost Lunatic Looser.... well...

let me just say I'll leave the arguing to someone else.
Just wanted to add this little detail.

Hi idiots, are you having a good fun?

Yes, we are. But don't worry about it, you are still by far the funniest!


Ernst.