North - South

[cikljamas]

Cikljamas, what you wrote is just pure nonsense. Do you really not understand what was meant by the example? They mean that from a higher altitude you see farther, and that is why you could still see the Sun!!! You don't have to literally climb. He just compares the horizon range from different altitudes at the same time, if you're at 0 metres you will see the Sun disappear let's say at 6 pm, if you were at 3000 meters you would see it disappear for example at 6.20 pm and so on...

So, it's about the time (timing) anyway...



It would be nice if i could say: you finally figured it out - "it's about time"

[Saros]

So, it's about the time (timing) anyway...



It would be nice if i could say: you finally figured it out - "it's about time"

It is about time you realize the meaning of what I have written, and that your flat Earth idea is preposterous along with the 'evidence'. But wait, maybe you were joking all along.

[Saros]

Here is a much better explanation concerning the issue, and please get it this time.

Does a mountain make the day longer?

So you see, the numbers are very important, if you paid attention you would know that earlier we were speaking in rough terms.

[Saros]

Also please check out the following article about twilight.Why is twilight short near the equator?

[cikljamas]

Also please check out the following article about twilight.Why is twilight short near the equator?

Thanks Saros, i have already read that nonsense...

Let's call our first scientific lie "CLIMB UP lie", and now i am going to introduce to you another lie which we are gonna name "BENDING UP lie"...

According to your idols - liars:

Well, technically, by the time we see the Sun touch the horizon is already eight minutes since the sun was there.

Now, if we assume that when sun sets you instantly LIFT UP yourself 30 meters higher, you could see same spectacle (shown in "BENDING UP" video) again.

But, let's be much more generous, let's say that you should LIFT UP yourself 300 meters higher to watch same spectacle again, you could still watch same sunset using that method 30 times in a row climbing instantly 300 m by 300 m up to the top of Mt Everest, every time sun sets behind the horizon, couldn't you?

Now, let's say that this spectacle lasts just 2 minutes, which is extremely (short time) generosity, so we have again 1 hour postponed sunset at the altitude of Mt Everest...

Saros, it is not in accordance whit what i assert, it is in accordance with the theories of your idols - scientists who are filthy liars, remember?

But let's assume that you should instantly climb up not 30 meters, not even 300 meters, but 10 000 meters, COULD YOU SEE THAT WHOLE SPECTACLE (SUNSET) AGAIN?

No, you still could not see that whole spectacle again!!!

And you know why? Because you live on the flat Earth:









So, how do we see those towers if the Earth is round?

How come horizon is eye leveled even at altitude of 39.045 m (Felix Baumgartner's jump) ???

The Sun is fading away because The Sun recedes from us, not because The Earth rotates!

All evidence prove that this is the fact!!!

There is no evidence (whatsoever) which support heliocentric nonsense!!!

You say this is impossible?

The real truth about light bending hoax

[Saros]

Now, if we assume that when sun sets you instantly LIFT UP yourself 30 meters higher, you could see same spectacle (shown in "BENDING UP" video) again.

But, let's be much more generous, let's say that you should LIFT UP yourself 300 meters higher to watch same spectacle again, you could still watch same sunset using that method 30 times in a row climbing instantly 300 m by 300 m up to the top of Mt Everest, every time sun sets behind the horizon, couldn't you?

Now, let's say that this spectacle lasts just 2 minutes, which is extremely (short time) generosity, so we have again 1 hour postponed sunset at the altitude of Mt Everest...

Saros, it is not in accordance whit what i assert, it is in accordance with the theories of your idols - scientists who are filthy liars, remember?

But let's assume that you should instantly climb up not 30 meters, not even 300 meters, but 10 000 meters, COULD YOU SEE THAT WHOLE SPECTACLE (SUNSET) AGAIN?

No, you still could not see that whole spectacle again!!!

And you know why? Because you live on the flat Earth:

OK, now I am convinced you don't have any reading comprehension skills.

You cannot have such a short twilight at the equator and much longer at higher latitudes if the Earth were flat!

You would not have polar night, and polar day if the Earth were flat!

You wouldn't observe the Moon simultaneously from Stockholm and Kenya if the Earth were flat!

You didn't read any of the links I sent you, did you?

From Mount Everest the sun would set only about 10 minutes later compared to a location at the same latitude at the sea level, but you didn't read anything, because you're smarter than anyone. On top of that you're arrogant enough to call everyone a liar.

Regarding the towers, again the same show of ignorance. You are extremely bad at math, or you're just pretending, but anyway this discussion is getting increasingly boring. Go and try to convince someone else. Actually, I would go, you stay here and talk to yourself.

[cikljamas]

I have proved with simple math that "instant 30 m CLIMB UP" lie is filthy lie indeed, so how would you call someone who spread lies like that? I call him or her a liar!

Felix Baumgartner's jump (eye leveled horizon) is solid proof (and it is just one among many other proofs) that "light bending" theory is also notorious lie, so should i call "light bending" theory proponents by any other name beside Liars? Should i maybe call them Truth tellers?

So, let's consider once again Mt Everest 10 min. postponed sunset theory:

I consider it genuine theory which means that we indeed could watch sunset from the top of the Mt Everest 10 min. longer than from the ground level...

But can we use such opportunity to check whether such opportunity happens as a consequence of Earth's curvature and rotation on it's axis or we have to infer that Mt Everest 10 min. postponed sunset is a result of Sun's recession?

So, imagine that the Sun has set and you are lifted up instantly at the top of Mt Everest what would you see?

If the Earth is round you should see almost the same picture that you have been watching just 10 minutes before (on the ground level). What do i mean? I mean that the diameter of the Sun's circle should be the same as it was 10 minutes before because the only change that has happened was changing the angle of sight...

If the Earth is flat from the peak of Mt Everest you should see pretty different picture with to certain extent smaller diameter of the circle of the Sun, because the Sun would be (10 min. after ground level sunset) further away enough to produce such visual effect...

Typical ground level sunsets:




Typical high mountain level sunsets:

[Saros]

I have proved with simple math that "instant 30 m CLIMB UP" lie is filthy lie indeed, so how would you call someone who spread lies like that? I call him or her a liar!



But can we use such opportunity to check whether such opportunity happens as a consequence of Earth's curvature and rotation on it's axis or we have to infer that Mt Everest 10 min. postponed sunset is a result of Sun's recession?

So, imagine that the Sun has set and you are lifted up instantly at the top of Mt Everest what would you see?

If the Earth is round you should see almost the same picture that you have been watching just 10 minutes before (on the ground level). What do i mean? I mean that the diameter of the Sun's circle should be the same as it was 10 minutes before because the only change that has happened was changing the angle of sight...

If the Earth is flat from the peak of Mt Everest you should see pretty different picture with to certain extent smaller diameter of the circle of the Sun, because the Sun would be (10 min. after ground level sunset) further away enough to produce such visual effect...

Check the sunset times for Paris and Cologne, for instance, which are 403 km apart. The sun sets in Paris at 21:58 today, and in Cologne at 21:50. This is eight minutes difference due to the fact that Paris is more westward. When you're on top of Mt.Everest you have a horizon visibility range of over 350 km, so basically you still see the Sun because you catch a glimpse of the horizon from 350 km away, but the Earth is rotating, so it doesn't last very long, about 10 minutes later the Sun has also set 350 km away. This is consistent with spherical Earth. That is not because the Earth is flat. Actually what you see in this manner can only be seen on a round spherical Earth. If the Earth were flat we would never have night, as we would experience twilight after sunset which lasts till dawn. The sunlight would scatter and brighten the skies all over the place after sunset; this is what is presently seen in the northern regions in the summer, because the sunbeams fall there at such an oblique angle that they scatter in the atmosphere above the surface. By the way, your flat Earth is possible only if sunbeams are directional like a spotlight, which is not the case. The sun couldn't shine directly over a region on the surface of the Earth and simultaneously shine on the Moon if it were a spotlight. The sun is obviously a sphere which scatters light in all directions in space, therefore flat Earth is impossible based on what we observe.

[Hrothgar]

Did you just blow off my question?

what keeps the com satellites up?

come to think of it if the sun goes down over the edge of the earth instead of going around like a mobile then why doesn't it hit the foundations of the earth?

If your sticking to the staying above us thing then how could there even be a sunset. After all Saros is right about it still being light. In fact it wouldn't go down it would just get smaller and arc to the side until it was a star and then arc in from the other side as it gets bigger as morning approached, if it was as small as you claim. I may not be accurate on the illumination but the behavior is spot on.

[cikljamas]

Saros, one reader with these words commented the article on "LIGHT BENDING" filthy lie:

How would you comment this comment?

what keeps the com satellites up?

come to think of it if the sun goes down over the edge of the earth instead of going around like a mobile then why doesn't it hit the foundations of the earth?

If your sticking to the staying above us thing then how could there even be a sunset. After all Saros is right about it still being light. In fact it wouldn't go down it would just get smaller and arc to the side until it was a star and then arc in from the other side as it gets bigger as morning approached, if it was as small as you claim. I may not be accurate on the illumination but the behavior is spot on.

CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, WINTER AND SUMMER; AND THE LONG ALTERNATIONS OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS AT THE NORTHERN CENTRE

Range of Vision, Tilted Balls and the Flat Earth

[ethan]

I've seen who sent cameras up in weather type balloons to very high altitudes and then either had pictures transmitted back to them or used GPS on the setup to recover them when they come back to Earth.

Yes, I posted a link to this earlier. No one has ever captured a picture of the magical "ice ring" that is on the border of the flat earth.

This clarifies the entire topic. It is Purely faith-based.
This debate isn't about the truth for you, it is a debate about your faith.

You have convinced yourself that the Bible is the word of god and that if the earth is round your entire faith is wrong.

This has never been about the truth, or what is logical in nature.
All this entire topic is really about...is you protecting your reality and your faith in the God.
A flat earth makes no logical sense, and there is no evidence it exists.
That doesn't matter to you...because nothing will come between you and your faith in God.

This is why religions can be dangerous. The only thing I have faith in is evidence.

in my opinion his diagrams are grossly exaggerated, he shows a curvature which is not seen from such a low balloon altitude

clkjamas constantly uses exaggerated diagrams and calculations.
He will do whatever it takes to confirm his faith. Nothing that anyone says here will change his mind.
What makes him think its impossible to go into space? Do you see?...It must be impossible to go into space, because everyone who has been them, knows the earth is round.

SpaceX will eventually be taking private flights into space.
Everyone who goes will see the round earth and clkjamas will be here...calling them liars.
Even if clkjamas was dragged into space and shown the round earth, he would call it a hallucination or hologram.
This topic has never been about the truth, it has been about cikljamas's faith.

Its a shame, cikljamas seems like a smart person.
His efforts could be spent doing something much more productive.

[Hrothgar]

total clap trap

I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching that.

[cikljamas]

I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching that.

How could you waste 10 minutes of your life watching that?

Close your eyes because you shouldn't watch this:

This is how it is (approximately):



This is how it should be if heliocentric theory was correct:

SUMMER SOLSTICE (N. HEMISPHERE):



VERNAL EQUINOX (N. HEMISPHERE):



AUTUMN EQUINOX (N. HEMISPHERE):

[Hrothgar]

You sir,

have the 3 dimensional visualization of a cyclops. You fail at your tracking of rotation of a globe at the same time as an orbit. fail to take in the wobble of orbit due to the ever changing of ratio of gravity pulling each body due to positions. You fail to acknowledge phenomena such as when the moon gets larger as it sets due to atmospheric lensing that wouldn't occur under your horizon belief. You fail to believe that god is great enough to make more than a petri dish. in your microcosm there is nothing to do but wallow on the ground awaiting the end, obedient to beg your way into a reward. I believe In a god so great that the universe (meaning one word) was indeed as would be interpreted as an explosion at that level and to have that word coalesce as described in ancient times meant to enlighten illiterate herdsmen. I see a creation so great as to be infinite. I would see this as a challenge to rise above ourselves to touch the infinite. You simply fail to believe in a god worth anything.

good day.

[cikljamas]

have the 3 dimensional visualization of a cyclops. You fail at your tracking of rotation of a globe at the same time as an orbit. fail to take in the wobble of orbit due to the ever changing of ratio of gravity pulling each body due to positions. You fail to acknowledge phenomena such as when the moon gets larger as it sets due to atmospheric lensing that wouldn't occur under your horizon belief. You fail to believe that god is great enough to make more than a petri dish. in your microcosm there is nothing to do but wallow on the ground awaiting the end, obedient to beg your way into a reward. I believe In a god so great that the universe (meaning one word) was indeed as would be interpreted as an explosion at that level and to have that word coalesce as described in ancient times meant to enlighten illiterate herdsmen. I see a creation so great as to be infinite. I would see this as a challenge to rise above ourselves to touch the infinite. You simply fail to believe in a god worth anything.

good day.

You fail to provide any evidence for your heliocentric dream!

You fail to realize this:

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

Bernard Cohen in Birth of a New Physics, 1960, concurs: "There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."One, too, must understand the philosophical and psychological implications inherent in the dethronement of man from the center of the universe. And one must not be so naive as to think that such subtleties are not systematically employed by Satan and his agents in the ultimate plan to destroy the Catholic Church.

This Church teaches that there is no contradiction between science and religion, and that faith is higher than science, and in fact, that theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Nevertheless, because of the machinations of the Evil One, this cancerous heresy, heliocentrism, succeeded in displacing man from the center of the universe, where Jesus Christ came to redeem man. But more importantly, it appeared to have discredited Holy Scripture.

Indeed, the far-reaching consequences of this cannot be underestimated. A contemporary Catholic scholar, Paula Haigh, in a letter to The Remnant (May 12, 1989) speaks her observations most emphatically: ", and the Church, in her condemnation of the Copernican system, was guided by the Holy Spirit (in spite of all the politics involved) and spoke infallibly for our future guidance." Walter van der Kamp (1913-1998), founder and past director of the Tychonian Society, affirms: "For the Galileo affair and its aftermath, as all historians of whatever aspect of human action and thought, acknowledge that it has wrought a change in our attitude towards the world, not equaled by anything since Our Lord walked among us."(5) To an incalculable degree, man was spiritually wrenched from his Creator, God.

20th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this.John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.