This forum is preserved as a permanent archive. The community continues at eMedia Press.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

North - South

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aljhoa
    replied
    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post
    What keeps these satellites in orbit? Isn't that practically the same question as this one: "how the earth is circumnavigated" (on a flat surface of the Earth)?

    This is how:

    In the following diagram, fig. 86, let N, represent the. northern centre, near to which lies the "magnetic pole." Then



    the several arrows marked A, S, are all pointing northwards; and those marked E, W, are all due east and west. It is evident from the diagram, that A, S, are absolute directions--north and south; but that E, W, east and west, are only relative, that is they are directions at right angles to north and south. If it were not so then, taking the line N, A, S, as representing the meridian of Greenwich, and W, E, on that meridian as due east and west, on moving due west to the meridian 3, 4, N, it is evident that a vessel represented by the arrow 1, 2, would be at angle with the meridian 3, 4, N, much greater than 90 degrees, and if it continued to sail in the same straight line 2, 1, 5, it would get farther and farther away from the centre N, and therefore could never complete a path concentric with N. East and west, however, are directions relative to north and south. Hence, on a mariner arriving at the meridian 3, 4, N, he must of necessity turn the head of his vessel in the direction indicated by the arrow 6, 7, and thus continuing to keep the vessel's head square to the compass, or at right angles to north and south, he will at length arrive at 90 degrees of meridian from N, A, S, when the head of the vessel will be in the direction of E, W, 8. Continuing his course for 90 degrees more his path will be E, W, 9. The same course continued will in the next 90 degrees become E, W, 10, and on passing over another 90 degrees the ship will have arrived again at the meridian of Greenwich N, A, S, having then completed a circle.



    South Pole Star Trails

    Explanation: No star dips below the horizon and the Sun never climbs above it in this remarkable image of 24 hour long star trails. Showing all the trails as complete circles, such an image could be achieved only from two places on planet Earth. This example was recorded during the course of May 1, 2012, the digital camera in a heated box on the roof of MAPO, the Martin A. Pomerantz Observatory at the South Pole. Directly overhead in the faint constellation Octans is the projection of Earth's rotational axis, the South Celestial Pole, at the center of all the star trail circles. Not so well placed as Polaris and the North Celestial Pole, the star leaving the small but still relatively bright circle around the South Celestial Pole is Beta Hydri. The inverted umbrella structure on the horizon at the right of the allsky field of view is the ground shield for the SPUD telescope. A shimmering apparition of the aurora australis also visited on this 24 hour night.
    APOD: 2012 August 2 - South Pole Star Trails


    Originally posted by aljhoa View Post

    Are the following photos taken from the one sided Earth?




    Star trails create arches over the horizon in a long-exposure picture of the night sky taken from Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
    Space Photos This Week: Gravity Waves, Chicken Nebula





    These star trails are centered on the celestial north pole. They were recorded in a time-lapse photograph over the course of about eight hours.
    Open Course : Astronomy : Introduction : Lecture 2 : North Pole Star Trails Photo

    Where on your "flat earth navigation chart" the counter rotating South Pole and North Pole star trails can be taken ?


    Al

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    Originally posted by aljhoa View Post
    This is two-dimensional thinking in the Milky Way Galaxy traveling through the universe where the planets go around the stars and the solar systems move around the galaxy as a unit generally tipped by some angle. Because of this angle the planets at times are ahead of their star and sometimes behind as the solar systems move in the galactic orbit and travel in the universe.

    Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
    SparkNotes: 1984: Important Quotations Explained


    Al
    Al, don't be silly, here is very simple calculation, you can't escape from the strength of this argument, there is no way to overpower it, NO WAY!!!

    And remember, it is just one among many arguments of that kind!

    If the Earth were a globe there wouldn't be SINGLE serious argument against "the fact" of Earth's rotundity, NOT SINGLE ONE!!!

    Question: How many irrefutable arguments against the Earth's rotundity i have already presented to you in this thread?

    You think you can escape from this argument by mumbling about "two-dimensional thinking", and the ultimate irony is that you say that to me, instead vice-versa...

    I repeat:

    Let's make it more plausible by making this simple calculation:

    150 000 000 millions km : 3200 km (distance from equator to north pole) = 46875...

    Now, all you have to do is to imagine that the source of the heat is 46. 875 km which is 29mi 223.12yd remote from you and you enjoy benefits of summer season, and guy who is placed just 1 m behind you is freezing?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

    Who is crazy here?
    Answer it, fight it directly, speak clearly - distinctly - understandably, do not use mumbling technic, it can't help you, believe me, you just bury yourself deeper and deeper...
    Last edited by cikljamas; 05-24-2014, 04:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • aljhoa
    replied
    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post
    This is two-dimensional thinking in the Milky Way Galaxy traveling through the universe where the planets go around the stars and the solar systems move around the galaxy as a unit generally tipped by some angle. Because of this angle the planets at times are ahead of their star and sometimes behind as the solar systems move in the galactic orbit and travel in the universe.

    Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
    SparkNotes: 1984: Important Quotations Explained


    Al

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    I deleted by accident my previous post, but i have copies of all my posts, so we are going to resurrect my post:

    Originally Posted by Uncle Charlie
    Mind boggling. Have you got any good links showing satellite theory as it pertains to a motionless earth? One can plainly see the arc of the orbiting television satellites by following it with a 2.5 meter C-Band dish antenna and going from one satellite to another. You can see the signal degrade as you move even a minute amount along the arc in any direction. Also, what keeps these satellites in orbit using this model? I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept but it is hard to break old concepts even for the sake of argument.
    Mind boggling indeed! But, who is responsible for that? That is the right question we have to answer! And my whole thread is the answer to that particular question! What keeps these satellites in orbit? Isn't that practically the same question as this one: "how the earth is circumnavigated" (on a flat surface of the Earth)?

    This is how:

    In the following diagram, fig. 86, let N, represent the. northern centre, near to which lies the "magnetic pole." Then



    the several arrows marked A, S, are all pointing northwards; and those marked E, W, are all due east and west. It is evident from the diagram, that A, S, are absolute directions--north and south; but that E, W, east and west, are only relative, that is they are directions at right angles to north and south. If it were not so then, taking the line N, A, S, as representing the meridian of Greenwich, and W, E, on that meridian as due east and west, on moving due west to the meridian 3, 4, N, it is evident that a vessel represented by the arrow 1, 2, would be at angle with the meridian 3, 4, N, much greater than 90 degrees, and if it continued to sail in the same straight line 2, 1, 5, it would get farther and farther away from the centre N, and therefore could never complete a path concentric with N. East and west, however, are directions relative to north and south. Hence, on a mariner arriving at the meridian 3, 4, N, he must of necessity turn the head of his vessel in the direction indicated by the arrow 6, 7, and thus continuing to keep the vessel's head square to the compass, or at right angles to north and south, he will at length arrive at 90 degrees of meridian from N, A, S, when the head of the vessel will be in the direction of E, W, 8. Continuing his course for 90 degrees more his path will be E, W, 9. The same course continued will in the next 90 degrees become E, W, 10, and on passing over another 90 degrees the ship will have arrived again at the meridian of Greenwich N, A, S, having then completed a circle.


    Originally Posted by aljhoa
    I did not!
    How come you still haven't seen this video of mine? The Earth is immobile 2 Didn't i tell you, you do not read what i write and quote, you do not watch valuable videos, and then you again and again pose same old (already answered 1000 times) questions?

    Well, correct your misbehaviour and see above video of mine. In first half of this video i even read the text for you, for watching and reading text presented in the second half of my video turn on the full screen and enjoy the music!!!

    Do not skip this time these two valuable posts (quotes) of mine (they perfectly suit to above video of mine and complement it too):





    I highly recommend these marvelleous videos of my friend Rory Cooper too:

    The earth is flat Polaris says so

    The earth is flat the 4 seasons say so.

    The earth is flat the horizon says so.

    Next argument shown in this photo kills both: the sanity of heliocentism and the sanity of geocentrism which does not include flat earth hypothesis:



    So, we done it... you just have to read this post before previous one...

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    Next argument shown in this photo kills both: the sanity of heliocentism and the sanity of geocentrism which does not include flat earth hypothesis:



    Let's make it more plausible by making this simple calculation:

    150 000 000 millions km : 3200 km (distance from equator to north pole) = 46875...

    Now, all you have to do is to imagine that the source of the heat is 46. 875 km which is 29mi 223.12yd remote from you and you enjoy benefits of summer season, and guy who is placed just 1 m behind you is freezing?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

    Who is crazy here?
    Last edited by cikljamas; 05-24-2014, 04:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • aljhoa
    replied
    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post
    Thanks Al for confirming my theory!
    I did not!

    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post
    And you have to explain away seeing Polaris from the tropic of capricorn
    Originally posted by aljhoa View Post
    Polaris is not visible about 1+23.5degrees below the "edge" of the NH where the "son" points North (bin there done that).



    fanaticismfanaticism - definition of fanaticism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


    Hail Columbia! with Lyrics; First American National Anthem - United States of America - YouTube


    Are the following photos taken from the one sided Earth?




    Star trails create arches over the horizon in a long-exposure picture of the night sky taken from Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
    Space Photos This Week: Gravity Waves, Chicken Nebula





    These star trails are centered on the celestial north pole. They were recorded in a time-lapse photograph over the course of about eight hours.
    Open Course : Astronomy : Introduction : Lecture 2 : North Pole Star Trails Photo



    Milky Way Panorama Poster


    Al
    Last edited by aljhoa; 05-23-2014, 11:08 PM. Reason: link fix

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Charlie
    replied
    Mind boggling. Have you got any good links showing satellite theory as it pertains to a motionless earth? One can plainly see the arc of the orbiting television satellites by following it with a 2.5 meter C-Band dish antenna and going from one satellite to another. You can see the signal degrade as you move even a minute amount along the arc in any direction. Also, what keeps these satellites in orbit using this model? I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept but it is hard to break old concepts even for the sake of argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    Originally posted by aljhoa View Post
    What would you see if a rigid floating hoop is placed on a ball and ocean at the "horizon"?

    Al[/SIZE]
    Thanks Al for confirming my theory!

    So, first quote provided by your link says:

    For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
    It is in accordance with this:



    Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 1

    Second quote provided by your link states:

    For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).
    Since we have in above quote (concerning milage (36 km)) almost exact concordance with our example described (and calculated (distances and perspective) using mr. Rowbotham's formula) in my last post ("New Jersey - Iowa" example (37 km - 23 miles)) we have to conclude that according above quote we could see 37 km - 23 miles remote water splashes only if we would stand on the hypothetic (not existing) New Jersey's deck which would have to be 100 meters high MINIMUM!!!

    But in reality standing on the New Jersey's deck just 10-15 meters above water line we are able to see 37 km remote water splashes!!!

    Now, you have to explain away how is this possible if we live on a Globe! And you have to explain away seeing Polaris from the tropic of capricorn and billion other similar examples which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the surface of the Earth is flat, not rotund!

    Sorry for avoiding to answer your question again, but if you clarified it maybe i could answer it next time (after clarification)...

    Cheers!
    Last edited by cikljamas; 05-23-2014, 02:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • aljhoa
    replied


    @cikljamas you keep ignoring my questions and there are no adverse consequences for answers,
    the above table and equations in the below link my help providing them.
    Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What would you see if a rigid floating hoop is placed on a ball and ocean at the "horizon"?


    Al

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post
    Just read my posts (and everything that i link too), all informations are already there, they are waiting for you...

    Al, we have another lesson for you: USS New Jersey guns firing Many interesting things in this video:

    1. How far these bullets flew?

    2. How high were those water blows induced by bullet's explosion?

    3. How flat (even concave) is horizon in this video?
    Answers:

    1. New Jersey's main battery consisted of nine 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns in three triple turrets, which could fire 2,700-pound (1,225 kg) armor-piercing shells some 23 miles (37 km).

    2. Let's compare it with this:


    Now see this: kamikazee water splash ww2

    So, the most generous proposition of the water splashes height caused by New Jersey's 2,700 pound armor piercing shells explosion would be the top of the highest Iowa's mast (50 m above water line), but we could be even much more generous than that according to next calculation:

    23 miles raised to second power gives 529 * 8 = 4232 * 2,54 = 10749 cm = 107,49 m

    Conclusion: Water splashes that we can distinctly see (their entire figure) could not be seen (on rotund Earth) because they would be more than 50 m (107,49 - 50 m) below the horizon!

    Since we watch it from the New Jersey's deck which height is probably about 11 m above water line, our horizon line allow us to see further but not so much further to reduce enough negative perspective effect induced by the obstacle of 107 m high water hill...

    3. Very flat!

    Case closed!

    Cheers!
    Last edited by cikljamas; 05-23-2014, 11:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    Originally posted by aljhoa View Post
    So what is the column water height on the flat Earth?


    Al
    Just read my posts (and everything that i link too), all informations are already there, they are waiting for you...

    Al, we have another lesson for you: USS New Jersey guns firing Many interesting things in this video:

    1. How far these bullets flew?

    2. How high were those water blows induced by bullet's explosion?

    3. How flat (even concave) is horizon in this video?

    Leave a comment:


  • aljhoa
    replied
    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post



    Let's make the same calculation as above:

    46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

    So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?
    So what is the column water height on the flat Earth?


    Al

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    Originally posted by aljhoa View Post
    @cikljamas using the above picture, your ingenuity and math prove that the body of water is not a "sphere". Also stop using vulgar words leading to nowhere.

    Al
    1. What vulgar words?

    2. You should not have mentioned words "math" and "prove" because now you are gonna get some real math and proofs.

    First of all you have to read this:



    Now watch carefully (ALMOST IDENTICAL (regarding our problematic picture) SITUATION IS DESCRIBED HERE):



    How mr Rowbotham had yielded these numbers (key number is 1472 ft)?

    Well, my calculation gives a little bit different result (irrelevantly but anyway let see how it goes):

    47 miles distance (in our picture we have 46 miles distance from those buildings to cameraman, it's almost the same distance, interesting isn't it?) raised to the second power gives 2209 * 8 = 17672 inches * 2,54 = 44,886 cm = 0,44 km = 1452 ft. (Mr Rowbotham says 1472 ft, irrelevantly as i said) edit: 886 cm makes the difference... - irrelevantly as i sad
    Now let see again our picture:



    Let's make the same calculation as above:

    46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

    So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?

    The tallest building (second from left) is Willis Tower 1451 ft (442 m) high, and the building number 10 from the left is John Hancock Center 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper.

    Conclusion: We could barely see (if the earth were a globe) the top of the Willis Tower (former name Sears Tower) but we could not see the top of the John Hancock center which would be 86 meters below the horizon.

    Not to mention those other buildings - lilliputian dwarfs comparing with these two giant buildings - that we can plainly see too...

    If you would like to ask "why don't we see entire building figures" than you have to remember this : http://www.energeticforum.com/255927-post20.html ... and bare in mind this too:

    If it is argued that "there are times when the surface of the sea is perfectly calm, and that at such times at least, if the earth is a plane, the telescope ought to restore the hull of a ship, irrespective of distance, providing its power is great enough to magnify it," the reply is that practical experiments have proved that during what is called a "dead calm," the undulations or waves in the water amount to more than 20 inches, as will be seen from the following extracts:--




    Cheers!
    Last edited by cikljamas; 05-22-2014, 01:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • aljhoa
    replied
    Originally posted by cikljamas View Post
    My point is that you obviously do not read my posts or/and do not understand plain english or/and who knows what else...
    @cikljamas using the above picture, your ingenuity and math prove that the body of water is not a "sphere". Also stop using vulgar words leading to nowhere.

    Al

    Leave a comment:


  • cikljamas
    replied
    My point is that you obviously do not read my posts or/and do not understand plain english or/and who knows what else...

    Translation:

    What to say...waste of time...what to say...


    What to say...waste of time...what to say II
    Last edited by cikljamas; 05-21-2014, 05:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X