ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE,
BUT
A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship
1899
(Post 33/47)
R. A. Proctor, in his work "The Sun," says that:
"The determination of the sun's distance is not only an important problem of general astronomy, but it may be regarded as THE VERY FOUNDATION OF ALL OUR RESEARCHES."
In R. Russell's "Story of the Solar System," we are informed that:
"The mean distance of the earth from the sun may be taken to be about 93 million miles, and this distance is employed by astronomers as the unit by which most other long celestial distances are reckoned."
Seeing then, that everything depends on the knowledge of the sun's distance from the earth, it is no wonder that it is regarded as one of the prime problems in astronomy. Surely this will be right; if not, all the rest will be wrong. Let us see what the wise men say. Let us see with what concurrence of "precise" calculations they agree as to this admittedly very important matter.
Sir R. Ball tells us that "the spirit of astronomical enquiry is NOT SATISFIED WITH APPROXIMATE RESULTS."
I have already quoted R. Russell as stating that the distance of the sun from the earth is 93 million miles.
In the "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by J. W. Draper, pages 173 and 174 informs us as follows on this important matter:
"In the time of Copernicus it was supposed that the sun's distance could not exceed five million miles, and indeed there were many who thought that estimate very extravagant. From a review of the observations of Tycho Brahe, Kepler, however, concluded that the error was actually in the opposite direction, and that the estimate must be raised to at least 13 million. In 1670 Cassini showed that these numbers were altogether inconsistent with the facts, and gave as his conclusion 85 million. The transit of Venus over the face of the sun June 3, 1769, had been foreseen and its great value in the solution of this fundamental proposition in astronomy appreciated. With commendable alacrity various governments contributed their assistance in making observations, so that in Europe there were 50 stations, in Asia 6, in America 17."
"But on the discussion of the observations made at the various stations, it was found that THERE WAS NOT THE ACCORDANCE THAT COULD BE DESIRED—THE RESULT VARYING FROM 88 TO 109 MILLIONS. The celebrated mathematician, Encke, therefore revised them in 1822/4 and came to the conclusion that the sun's horizontal parallax, that is, the angle under which the semi-diameter of the earth IS SEEN FROM THE SUN, is 8.576/1000"; this gave as the distance 95,274,000 miles. Subsequently the observations were reconsidered by Hansen, WHO GAVE AS THEIR RESULT 91,659,000. Airy & Stone by another method, made it 91,400,000."
"Theoretical Astronomy" informs us to the following effect:
"Copernicus computed the distance of the sun from us to be 3,391,200 miles; Kepler reckoned it to be 12,376,800 miles; Ricciola 27,360,000; Newton said it did not matter whether we reckoned it 28 or 54 millions, for he said that either would do well. Benjamin Martin in his Introduction to the Newtonian Philosophy .... says that its distance is between 81 and 82 millions of miles .... Thomas Dilworth says 93,726,900 miles; Mr. Hind has stated positively that it is 95,298,260 .... Gillis & Gould say that it is more than 96 millions, and Mayer more than 104,000,000."
In the face of these alarming figures it would be a wonder if astronomical enquiry were satisfied with approximate, or any other RESULTS, for results are just what cannot be arrived at.
Regiments of figures are paraded with all the learned jargon for which science is famous, but one might as well look at the changing clouds in the sky and seek for certainty there, as to expect to get it from the propounders of modern astronomy. The authoress of "Sun, Moon, and Stars," however, comes to the rescue of the learned and tells us that:
"It is only of late years that the matter has been clearly settled. And indeed, it was found quite lately that a mistake of nearly 3,000,000 miles had been made, notwithstanding all the care and all the attention given .... the distance of the sun from the earth is no less than about 91,000,000 miles."
Following after a certainty in modern astronomy, is like following a phantom. Sir R. Ball, in his "Story of the Heavens," page 28, completely destroys this "clearly settled" matter, for he says (and he ought to know):
"The actual distance of the sun from the earth is about 92,700,000 miles."
That saving clause "about" is very handy indeed.
As the sun, according to "science" may be anything from three to one hundred and four million miles away, there is plenty of "space" to choose from. It is like the showman and the child. You pay your money—for various astronomical works—and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be "very scientific" and to be "mathematically certain" of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions. You will at least have plenty of "space" to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice. You can always add a few millions to "keep up with the times," or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the "very latest" accurate column of figures.
Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy—full of surprises. One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did. But is there no means of testing these ever-changing never-stable speculations and bringing them to the scrutiny of the hard logic of fact? Indeed there is. The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed. It is used alike by the engineer and the carpenter. Let us put the statements of the learned as to the immense distance of the sun from the earth—anywhere between three and one hundred and four million miles—to this test.
When the sun is on the equator and thus has no declination, the angle it makes with the earth and sea at all points on that circle is a right angle. At an angular distance of 45° from the equator, north or south, the distance of the base line from the observer to the equator is of necessity the same as the sun's vertical distance from the earth's equator. That is to say, in any right-angled triangle where the angle at the apex of the triangle is 45°, the other angle must of necessity be the same; as these two angles in any such triangle are equal to the right angle, viz., 90°. The angles being equal the sides are of necessity equal; therefore the base line is equal to the vertical. This principle holds good whether the triangle represents a field plotted by the surveyor; the measurement of the roof of a house erected by the builder; the distance a ship is from the land, known as the "four point bearing"; or the distance of a heavenly body measured with a sextant, the minutes and seconds of which correspond to miles and sixtieths of miles reckoned on the earth's surface. Whether the measurement is vertical as in the case of a housetop, church spire, or the sun in the heavens; or horizontal as in the case of the ship's distance from the shore, or the land plotted by the surveyor, the same principle holds good. It is the principle on which Cook measured the height of a tree, as the following quotation tells us.
In "Cook's Voyages," by A. Kippis, page 54, it is said that:
"One of the trees at the height of six feet above the ground, was 19ft. 8in. in girt. Lieutenant Cook having a quadrant with him, measured its height from the root to the first branch, and found it to be 89 feet." (See Fig. 1, below).
 |
| Fig. 1. |
 |
| Fig. 2. |
From the figure (Fig. 2, above) it is evident that 45° is the angular distance of the sun at 45° north, and no other angle can be got in actual practice (allowing, of course, for such corrections as height of eye, semi-diameter, &c.); so that the distance on the surface of the earth to the equator—from O to E, is the same as from the equator to the sun in the heavens—E to S. Multiplying 45 by 60 (60 geographical miles=1 degree), we get 2,700 geographical miles as the distance from O to E and thus from E to S. THE SUN IS THEREFORE 2,700 MILES DISTANT FROM THE EARTH. If the Sun were 96,000,000 miles distant from the Earth, an observer at 45° N or S latitude would be that distance from the Equator!!!
To make it perfectly clear to the navigator, let the following horizontal triangle represent the usual way the ship's distance from the shore is found, known as the four point bearing, to which reference has already been made.
Let X be the position of Beachy Head, bearing N W by compass from a vessel bound down channel; A the position of the vessel when the headland bears N W, and B her position when the headland bears N by compass. It is required to determine the vessel's distance from Beachy Head, when the ship is at the position marked B. As the navigator will well understand, the vessel must be put on the course corresponding to the four point bearing, and as Beachy Head bears N W the course is West, and when the land is abeam and bears N, the distance the ship has sailed from the first position to the second one, is the same distance the ship is from the land at the point B.
If the navigator will apply this principle to the sun's distance, he will at once see that the distance of the sun from the earth cannot be either more or less than the distance of 45° of latitude from the equator, viz., 2,700 nautical miles.
It may be objected that this measurement is on the assumption that the waters of the world are horizontal. This I have produced abundant evidence to prove is the case, but even if the earth were the globe of astronomical imagination, the following diagram will show that the distance is in no wise altered, and would be the same if the observer could get an observation on a globular surface.
Let O be the place of observation at 45° north or south latitude, and S the sun when it has no declination; then the angular distance of the sun is less than 45°, on account of the depression of the observer's position, THEREFORE the angle O S C must be added to the observation, being the allowance for CURVATURE to be made, which brings the observation to 45°. The distance on a globe, therefore, would be the same as on a flat surface, provided the observer could get an observation of the sun's angular distance on a globe, which I have already shown to be impossible. IT IS AS CERTAIN AS THAT TWO AND TWO ARE FOUR, THAT THE SUN'S DISTANCE FROM THE EARTH IS TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NAUTICAL MILES. We challenge the whole scientific world to disprove this statement.
~ ~ ~
Doesn't work. If I used your idea here and knowing the distance of Cartegena, Columbia to the equator of about 624 miles, and the sun being 79.6 degrees above the horizon during the equinox, I calculate the sun to be 3399 miles high. Your theory is wrong and gives inconsistent answers. Disproved.
ReplyDeleteNo. Your "calculations" are wrong. Using a sextant, which is an extremely accurate instrument for measuring distances, the sun is found to be just 32 nautical miles wide and 2700 up, case closed.
DeleteI mentioned this in my reply to you below, but will mention it here as well. The reason is because you are looking at an apparent sun, not its true position because of the atmosphere refraction.
DeleteNo, you are wrong. A sextant can only measure angles. So, if I measure 79.6 degrees with a sextant in Cartegena, that would mean the sun is 3399 miles high. Which is not 2700 miles. So which is it? You can't use a formula which produces different answers. In math they call it an incorrect theory or approach, not a valid solution. All types of things, but you don't rely on one instance of an equation working and call it a day. I've come up with many reasons why earth is not flat and why the sun isn't 32 miles across.
ReplyDeleteBecause you are using it wrong, I will just paste an excerpt from the above page, which you obviously did not understand, "When the sun is on the equator and thus has no declination, the angle it makes with the earth and sea at all points on that circle is a right angle. At an angular distance of 45° from the equator, north or south, the distance of the base line from the observer to the equator is of necessity the same as the sun's vertical distance from the earth's equator. That is to say, in any right-angled triangle where the angle at the apex of the triangle is 45°, the other angle must of necessity be the same; as these two angles in any such triangle are equal to the right angle, viz., 90°. The angles being equal the sides are of necessity equal; therefore the base line is equal to the vertical. This principle holds good whether the triangle represents a field plotted by the surveyor; the measurement of the roof of a house erected by the builder; the distance a ship is from the land, known as the "four point bearing"; or the distance of a heavenly body measured with a sextant, the minutes and seconds of which correspond to miles and sixtieths of miles reckoned on the earth's surface. Whether the measurement is vertical as in the case of a housetop, church spire, or the sun in the heavens; or horizontal as in the case of the ship's distance from the shore, or the land plotted by the surveyor, the same principle holds good."
DeleteI'm an engineer an understand math very well. You apparently don't since you don't understand my comment. When you move closer to the equator, with the knowledge of the right triangle and 45 degrees, the angle to the sun is larger. So using that angle and the tangent, and calculating the height of the sun, it isn't consistent with the result of the original calculation. The height of the sun gets higher as you calculate the angle closer and closer to the equator. So, that means the equating for calculating the suns height is more complicated than a simple triangle. Probably something like a curve would help. When an equa tin is inconsistent it is wrong. Earth is not flat, every way I look at it, the flat earth proofs just fall apart. I'd love to be wrong but all observations point to a spherical earth.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are talking about is impossible, it is discussed in the very last paragraph of the page above. All navigation is plane, as you learned (hopefully) from the chapter on navigation. But above all, is THE FACT that it is the property of water to be flat, to find its LEVEL, hence the earth is flat. When you can prove otherwise with a demo and not fables let me know.
DeleteYou clearly don't understand the argument deathblosom is making. It's because you have no genuine understanding of geometry. You just copy and paste from your fallacious textbook totally oblivious as to why it's wrong.
DeleteDo you know what an "apparent sun" is? Here is an example, you are looking at a fish that is under the surface of the water and you reach in to grab it where you think it is but it is not there, because of refraction. The atmosphere causes the same effect, and people are working on this, to determine the exact position of the sun and a proper flat earth map will follow. This is why you get all those different readings. However, the method described above, at 45 degrees from the equator, where the equator is midway between the two tropics, is a very reasonable approach under these circumstances. I will add the videos to the end of the article above, soon.
DeleteCelestial navigation is impossible on a flat earth. See why here:
ReplyDeletehttp://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html
Here is how Polaris proves flat earth: If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground. Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp. In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result. http://blog.flatearthtextbook.com/2016/11/figure-of-earth.html
DeletePolaris is a great example of why the earth is NOT flat. As noted, the further you go from a lamps on a street, the less light you see from them and the closer they get to the ground. This is the angular distance that is changing, but also the intensity gets lower, meaning the light appears to dim, this is because light sources typically radiate uniformly, so the further away you get, the less it lights a square area. Now Polaris does not get dimmer as you move several miles or hundreds of miles away. It's position in the sky will change as do the other stars, but because it is so far away, the intensity doesn't change, this is measured in magnitude and well known. Now the further south you go, beyond the equator, Polaris does go below the horizon. We know this because when we move further away from our original observation, the angular distance between stars stays the same, meaning they are VERY far away, so when we see a star that is 10 degrees south of Polaris go below the horizon, we know that Polaris is already 10 degrees below the horizon. We have star charts that show this very well. Go here and build your own! http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/make-a-star-wheel/ Seriously, don't try to fool yourself into thinking the stars get closer together and stay above the horizon. There are millions of stars and if this happened I would guess the horizons would look much brighter with the stars appearing closer together, but that doesn't happen. Earth is spherical and that explains all our observations.
ReplyDeleteNo, we know earth is flat for a fact, based on flat water alone. It is as you say, the distance is very great (thousands of miles) to Polaris so there is no reason for it to dim on a flat earth, just as the sun sets without changing size. What you fail to recognize is your limit which is directly related to your proximity to the plane. Even at 20 miles up you are still essentially on the ground, the horizon always rising to eye level as expected on a plane. Your field of view is not even a pin dot on a map. So, just take a camera and put on a flat road and take an illuminated orb and keep it above the ground or on the ground and move it away from the camera and watch it set, then you will understand how proximity affects perspective on a flat plane.
DeleteOh boy....you'll sit there and read my information and totally ignore it. You don't address anything but try to explain things the way YOU understand it. You are certainly no doctor. A doctor or someone with an advanced degree will look at all credible data, assess and evaluate it and come to a conclusion. When you ignore facts, you come to wrong conclusions, such as flat earth. The fact that you can't see Polaris from south of the equator tells me that the earth can't be flat. The flat earth map, or Gleason map is a projection of a globe. It uses spherical coordinates and distorts continents like Australia into a long rectangle when it is almost a square! The sun where I live actually goes below the horizon, you can actually see that happen and once the light stops bouncing off the atmosphere, we call that the blue hour in photography, it becomes dark. Would never happen on a flat earth. If the sun never changes size, then we would never have darkness at night. If the sun actually projects a circular light pattern on a flat earth, the sun set and rise times would not work out. For example, cities in the same longitude, but different latitudes in the southern hemisphere have different sun set times. The areas around Buenos Aires, Argentina would have earlier sun set times than Ascucion, Paraguay, yet in their summer, Buenos Aires has a much later sun set time. Totally blows out the idea of FE.
ReplyDeleteFunny you mention Argentina, the place where thousands of miles of level railways are http://blog.flatearthtextbook.com/2016/11/railways.html at that link you can see what other engineers and surveyors have to say about "the curve" it is never included in real life projects. Here is a modern quote from YouTube: Pinned by dmurphy25, Yolanda Whittle, 8 months ago: "100% right! I'm a surveyor and engineer, and there is no development project that has factored curvature of Earth! Not one single runway, road, or railroad survey or design factors in the curvature of the Earth! Once we graduate, curvature of Earth is never brought up again! Ask any surveyor or Civil Engineer out there if they have to calculate Curvature of Earth and factor into their projects!" And you continue to say: "The fact that you can't see Polaris from south of the equator tells me that the earth can't be flat." You continue to post this after I explained to you above, so I will just leave the link this time http://blog.flatearthtextbook.com/2016/11/figure-of-earth.html so here you are accusing me of ignoring your information while you go ahead and ignore my information? Not only that, you draw wild conclusions about me, because your reality has been crushed, but expect us to take you at your word that you are an engineer? Buddy, you are all over the place, if YOU followed YOUR OWN ADVICE you would not fail to see the earth is flat and motionless, you speak more and more like a zealot rather than a rational human being seeking the truth. As for how the sun sets, I will post a video on this page, http://blog.flatearthtextbook.com/2016/11/sun.html titled "SUN SETS JUST FINE ON FLAT EARTH - deniers most hated experiment"
DeleteOh, and you can keep working on that flat earth map, but the heliocentric theory answers all the questions. You'll have to work hard to show how a flat earth can work with the position of the sun doing a figure 8 during the year. http://www.space.com/31567-sun-analemma-figure-eight-sky-photo.html And also, how does the sun continually hover over the earth. Magic? Rocket engines?
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, even your measurements of the apparent sun are much closer to reality and prove it is not 100 million miles away. Of course the impossible "tilt" matches the sun's declination at the two tropics 23.4 degrees, to mimic the suns actual path over flat earth as it spirals back and forth between the two tropics crossing the equator twice per year at the equinoxes. The FACT that the analemma is lopsided where one loop of the figure 8 pattern is 5 times bigger than the northern loop, proves without doubt that the longitudes DIVERGE (GET WIDER) as you go south of the equator, the shape of the analemma cannot be created any other way except on flat earth.
DeleteAlso, you have no clue what the sun is, you might consider studying what sonoluminescence is on YouTube, it definitely seems to explain stars and it confirms the Biblical account of "water above" the firmament, that is what space is.
I'd be glad to listen to your argument if you can provide some math to back it up. Just saying the atmosphere causes the sun to appear above the horizon isn't sufficient. If the atmosphere really caused that much of an affect, the stars would be greatly affected by it, but they are not. As far as youtube, you can't study anything there. There is SO much incorrect information, and moron can post complete garbage and people believe it! Open a book, do experiments. One proof of a spherical earth is that the stars stay exactly the same angular distance from each other, from zenith to horizon, and when they go below the horizon. If the earth were flat you would see the stars come closer together at the horizon. They do not. Flat earth is wrong again! Are you starting to wonder about FE? Good, you really should step back and look at the big picture and don't go to youtube looking for answers.
ReplyDeleteNo, more like, if the earth was really spinning 1000 mph on the surface combined with all the other speeds in different directions going millions of miles per hour, you would never see the same stars twice, if you could see them at all. And yes the atmosphere most definitely causes "that much" of an effect, obviously and demonstrably. Math, unfortunately for you, cannot create reality.
DeleteThat is shocking! So you admit you have zero proof of anything you say. Good show! I know the sun is very far away from earth, I've taken pictures to prove it never changes it's size across the sky, need to take with a longer lens to show this a little better, but that means if the sun is far away, then it would always be seen day or night. Since that doesn't happen, the earth has to be rotating to cause day and night. That means flat earth can NOT be a reality. You don't have to prove the earth is moving 1000mph to prove that one.
ReplyDeleteNo, you already proved it is only a few thousand miles away, by measuring the distance to the apparent sun. Either you prove the sextant is inaccurate along with trigonometry itself, or concede that the sun is only a few thousand miles away. If you succeed, all celestial navigation text books will have to be rewritten.
DeleteI told you to stay away from youtube, you can't learn there as there is lots of bad info and it is hard to filter the good from the bad. You do need to consider the source. Now, as far as the longitude getting larger as you go south, that has been proven wrong. 1 degree is approximately 60 miles and is consistent all over the earth. So you are wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but what they hell are you both arguing about. One says 2750 and the other says 3399. Don't you both see that compared to the 93,000,000 that our masters told us, you are bot correct. What is 640 miles between friends compared to the preposterous 93,000,000 miles.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is actually 93,000,000 I was only showing that the calculation isn't right at all. Either it works or it doesn't, and it doesn't. If you look at the flat earth map, you will see Australia stretched out, but if you take 60 miles per degree longitude, you will see that the flat earth map is a projection, even says so in the patent application. It only means that the flat earth map is not flat, but spherical. You notice that it uses spherical coordinates, look it up here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system We don't use the radius part of a spherical system, but treat it as a constant and latitude and longitude are used to determine the position on a sphere! Earth is spherical!!!!!
ReplyDeleteYou don't know how to use the map. It is IN FACT the same map the air force uses. It works PERFECTLY. It is equidistant from the north pole, all distances are accurate. There is slight distortion from east to west but not anywhere as bad as the fake globe, where Greenland is 14 times too large for example. I would LOVE to see you navigate with a globe and the south pole! Moreover, all navigation is plane "as if the sea was flat as a sheet of paper" and basic trigonometry is used. Globe-huggers ALWAYS FAIL at dead reckoning south of the equator and many times this is fatal--because longitude diverges south of the equator.
DeleteAustralia has a railroad in the south over 4000 km in practically a straight line, therefore, it is BY FAR more accurately depicted on the AE map than anywhere else. Also, the flat maps came FIRST! And nobody uses a globe or the south pole to navigate.
No wonder that the globe is so grossly distorted because entire sections had to be removed from the oceans to conform the flat earth to the ball.
The Gleason map also shows EXACTLY how the sun lights up the flat earth, once you take atmosphere into consideration, which is NEVER done in the ball model because it would only serve to accentuate how flawed it truly is.
All one needs to do is put a hemispherical glass on top of the ae map with the same diameter and slightly greater to see the PERFECTION!!!
Excellent videos on YouTube DEMONSTRATE this perfectly, as they demonstrate the setting sun on flat earth perfectly too.
93 million miles away was arrived at by consensus, and when one tries to model it in auto cad it FAILS COMPLETELY! But simply common sense tells you that you cannot feel heat at that ridiculous distance.
And since ONLY the parallel rays are visible to fake ball earth, forget about seeing a nice radiant sun with rays obviously coming off in 360 degrees around our SMALL LOCAL SUN.
Boy, someone has been drinking the kool-aid! Where to start. The Gleason map in no way explains how the sun lights up the flat earth. Please explain how a round focused light can illuminate exactly half the earth, meaning there is basically a line down the middle of the flat earth map. To even approximate a line with a round light source, you have to be very far away, unless you are using a snoot or something to focus the light. But since the sun is viewed as circular in my pictures, that isn't what happens. In my pictures the sun doesn't change size at all, ever. If it doesn't change size, it has to be very far away.
ReplyDeleteNot one flat earther has ever demonstrated or mathematically explained the setting sun...ever. Most claim it doesn't set and only looks like it because of atmospheric refraction. But they are just regurgitating what someone else told them because refraction actually makes the sun look higher than it is, not lower.
The southern hemisphere is drastically distorted, not slightly. Australia is about the same size north-south as it is east-west. It looks nothing like what Gleason map shows.
As far as Greenland being 14 times bigger than it should. Not sure where you got that or where you are going. You can go here for actual size comparisons. https://mapfight.appspot.com/gl-vs-usc/greenland-united-states-contiguous-size-comparison
Here are my 2 pics taken during March, one around noon and the other later in the day. https://plus.google.com/photos/114491516978765292815/album/6274546043092324305
Also, here is my explanation of why the sun would not project to illuminate half the earth at one time.
Another new one I learned, the southern hemisphere's viewable constellations can be seen by looking in different directions at the same time! I've been to Antarctica and the sun actually is up all the time, 24 hours!
Pics here. https://plus.google.com/photos/114491516978765292815/album/6257079192185991281?authkey=COWPkufcxv6IHw
Those are YOUR affirmations that you recite to delude yourself. You have NO CONCEPT of what the sun is when you think it to be a "round focused light" hovering over the flat earth. This is the weakness of globe-huggers that they can only understand oversimplification, and not the complexity of reality--you cannot even understand or analyze your very own observations.
DeleteThe sun we see is NOT the actual sun but an APPARENT sun, seen through the lens of the dome shaped atmosphere. OBSERVATION tends toward the highly probable placement of the actual sun outside the dome, and this is easily DEMONSTRATED by placing a hemispherical shaped refractive medium over the Gleason map (solid glass will do) with a slightly larger diameter, and shining a light on it at a distance--this recreates PERFECTLY what we observe in nature.
Denial is your best friend, but on the globe Greenland is a ridiculous 14 times too big, practically the size of Africa. A simple Google search is all it takes to debunk your denial.
Australia too is severely distorted on the fake globe. The fact that a railway over 4000 km in length, that is practically a straight line, runs all along the southern part Australia shows just how severely distorted the fake globe truly is. The Gleason map is far less distorted, and represents Australia far more accurately than any bogus globe can ever do.
The sun sets just fine on flat earth, I have excellent DEMONSTRATIONS of how it works, you can deny all you like, it is all you can do when clinging to your globe religion,
Most people have seen the giant moon rises and giant sunrises as well as the giant moon sets and sunsets--attributed to atmospheric magnification--where it would be greatest close to the horizon.
Here is a good puzzle for you from YouTube by Zechariah Williams:
There is one thing the globalists could not reverse engineer. You'll need to take your time and investigate this one. It's better to have a globe on hand but basically there's an issue with the motion of the sun during the winter for those in the northern hemisphere. In the heliocentric model, the earth is actually closest to the sun during winter but the alleged tilt of the Earth's axis is leaning away from the sun (tilted back - this tilt is what causes the seasons). If you have a backwards leaning earth in the winter, when California for example, reaches the terminator line (where there is light and darkness) it will be traveling from a lower position to a higher position as the day goes on.. and when it begins it's rotation toward the backside or dark side, it descends back DOWN once again to a lower point. If the observer is descending down as it gets darker, how is it that the sun also goes down? Haha! Can't happen.
In mid day then, the sun should be at its lowest point (because the observer is rising due to the tilt and rotation). as the "night" approaches, the observer is descending downwards and so the sun would actually rise before the terminator line is reached. This is hard to explain in text without diagrams but I hope you get the point. There is no counter argument or explanation for this, only ignorance and denial. Period.
And the reason the sun keeps its size as it travels away has to do with the difference between illuminated and non-illuminated objects, as discussed in this blog on the OUR EARTH MOTIONLESS post https://flatearthtextbook.blogspot.ca/2016/11/our-earth-motionless.html from which the excerpt below comes from:
ReplyDeleteWho but is more or less acquainted with that phenomenon which shows us an object diminishing in proportion to the distance, so that if an object is placed at a distance which exceeds 5,000 times its diameter, the human eye is unable to see that object? It is on the basis of this law that the sizes of all the heavenly bodies have been calculated. According to their seeming size and the ratio of their distance from the earth, science has endeavoured to determine the number of times that their real size surpasses their seeming one. But in determining by that principle our scientists have neglected to consider one of the most important points; they forget that the law which makes objects apparently diminishing in proportion to their distance from the observer does not affect luminous bodies; the brighter the light of the body the longer its bulk will remain unchanged in our sight, whereas an object but faintly lighted becomes invisible, as I have said, at a distance which exceeds its diameter 5,000 times. If the said law extended to luminous bodies, then a flame one inch wide could not be seen at the distance of 225 yards, whereas we know from experiment that the size of its apparent bulk does not change even when the candle is carried to a distance of several thousand yards. As the sunlight is extremely bright, the bulk of the sun must therefore seem unchangeable at an extremely long distance, and IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE SUN IN REALITY IS BUT LITTLE BIGGER THAN IT SEEMS TO US AT THE DISTANCE. Besides that, it is not only possible but a great deal more plausible to accept the assumption that the laws which shew to us an object diminishing with the distance are applicable only to our own dense atmosphere which surrounds us, and are not operative in a medium so rare as that of the upper spheres. When, after a clear and cold night, the vapours of the air are drawn down to the earth, and the rising sun illuminates the air cleared from the mist, then the mountains, the villages, the environs and edifices, at other times hardly delineated in the blueish atmosphere, suddenly rise before our eyes as if growing up by enchantment; they seem nearer and allow us to examine the slightest details of their structure. In this case the law of the diminution of objects is evidently changed. And there in the ether, in that attenuated matter—or rather let us only speak of ether as empty space—in this vacuum of the universe how can these laws be ever applied? Generally speaking, as far as I know from personal experience, the science of optics is not quite accurate, the sight of the human eye is more or less influenced by the purity of the atmospheric air.
You are funny! I can always tell when a parrot is regurgitating what he has been taught by the flat earth flim flam schemers. You tend to ignore proof I provide and spout things like flat earth laws with zero proof.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the material that makes the dome?
Also, why does the sun move faster in winter than summer, for those of us in the northern hemisphere. The winter path is longer, yet the days remain the same length.
Also, during winter in the north and summer in the southern hemisphere, the amount of daylight keeps increasing the further you go south on through Argentina and Chile on to the South Georgia Islands and to Antarctica. Eventually you get 24 hour sun, which means you can see the sun in all directions, remember I posted pics of me there and I did see the 24 hour sun even south of Mcmurdo (800 miles north of what we call the south pole).
Please answer my questions, you have nothing to prove in your elongated oration above, just some false reality there that you wish to believe.
That's astounding! You must be THE FIRST one to make such observations as a south pole midnight sun. Congratulations! No mention of this anywhere in the literature of the old voyagers and explorers, I wonder why? Anyways, it is always amusing to read what a deluded globe-hugger offers as proof for his delusion. You obviously were not availed of the tools of learning at any point in your life. You are a product of the memorize and regurgitate system, that you were an inmate of. The solid arguments alone such as no curve, no spin, water is always level, etc. is what's driving people to dump the fake globe--all it takes is a little thinking and it's lost for good.
DeleteYou remind me of the lost soldier that doesn't know the war is over. Let me guess, you believe in vaccines, fluoride, and the greenhouse gas religion?
Thanks for proving my point of how disingenuous you are by not answering ANY questions and providing zero proof. Guess you just don't understand that no proof means no one believes. For one, you are obviously not a doctor. I have a BSEE degree and have worked in the aerospace industry for 33 years. Time for you to move out of mom's basement and see the real world.
ReplyDeleteTypical, attack me because you cannot attack the message! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What deductive reasoning skills you have! Wow! Even ending with an appeal to authority no less. I guess that's all it takes to prove your fake globe? Listen bud, you are a BULLSHITTER and aerospace is a fraud. Let's talk rocket engine nozzles shall we? The Wiki article on Rocket Engine Nozzles SPECIFICALLY STATES that rockets push off air, you better go and correct it! You see, there is only one diameter that is ideal at any given altitude, where a wide nozzle is needed at high altitudes BECAUSE the air is thin, can't get enough back pressure to PUSH OFF THE ATMOSPHERE DUNCE! So, when we use a wide nozzle at ground level, the rocket is immobilized. Have fun with that. https://youtu.be/cEb6XFHTMPs
DeleteAnd you should be familiar with the Machinery's Handbook? Well, it proves that burst speed of a spinning object is SOLELY due to surface speed and INDEPENDENT of radius, I have a picture right out of the book in a video. No magic giant radius can save your fake globe. The biggest thing on flat earth that has a surface speed equal to fake globe earth at just over 1000 mph is the titanium fan blade of the trent 900 jet engine developed for the A380 air bus, with a force at the tip of each blade equal to a 110 tonne locomotive! It is ABSURD to think your fantasy ball of sand and water can hold together better than titanium. Your BULLSHIT math only works on paper, in reality there are PHYSICAL LIMITS. Thus, your "proof" amounts to showing that an elephant can fly if it flaps its ears a certain speed, is ALL YOU GOT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_K3Ix0zn8 [Why do globe-earthers use linear motion analogies]
Each video is only a few minutes because that's how easy it is to debunk your globe religion, actually, it is easier than that, just go outside and walk around.
You believe this BULLSHIT: "There is a point when the radius of an item becomes large enough that linear motion and circular motion almost effectively blur together." I'll stick to the reality of the Machinery's Handbook: "The stress which tends to rupture A SPINNING OBJECT is based SOLELY upon the edge\rim\surface speed INDEPENDENT OF RADIUS" CASE CLOSED.
You are too easy of a target here. Ha ha ha. So according to you, and that video with the guy putting pressurized air into the bottle. It needs air to move. Have you really even thought about that? I"m guessing not. A rocket, like the recent falcon heavy launch, is very heavy. It works by throwing mass one way so the rocket can go the other way. You notice the video says the 'optimal' nozzle size. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work in a vacuum. It is optimized so that with a certain amount of fuel and nozzle size, you get the most delta v. Look at it this way. When the rocket leaves the launch pad, it is pushing off the cement there, according to you. So it should move very fast relative to the launch pad because it doesn't move. Now, once the rocket rises far enough, it would only be pushing on the air. Air is light and moves very easily, so it is much harder to push off of that. So the rocket should slow down it's acceleration, but it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteDuring the southern hemisphere’s summer, December for example, the sun sets to the southwest of Buenos Aires, Argentina. This is not consistent with the flat earth map and the supposed path of the sun. It also rises from the southeast. The further south you go, the later the sunset and earlier the sunrise until you get to 24 hour sun below 66 degrees south latitude. Befriend someone from New Zealand, they’ll tell you. And strangely, I don’t know of any flat earthers that live in the southern hemisphere. Do they exist?
How does the sun change speed to keep all days 24 hours long? The circumference of the distance the sun travels in the winter is longer than the distance it travels during a day in the summer. Tell me how the sun slows down and speeds up continually each year. Sooner or later it will run out of fuel, no?
I'm not really familiar with Machinery's handbook, but in the real world things that work on a small scale don't necessarily work on a large scale. The earth isn't flying apart, that is obvious. But if you do the calculations, you will see that the difference in gravity, I know you don't believe in it, but it shows that the difference in weight between a person on the equator and pole is something less than 1 percent, so the math says that the world should not pull apart due to spin. The larger the radius the less the centripetal force effect. Those rides in the carnival that sling you around, if you made the radius larger but keep the angular speed the same, you will feel less force. That's how it works.
So admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. I haven't looked anything up here, this is all on the top of my head. You are picking on the wrong guy, you better call Jerianism or whatever his name is and I will shut him down too.
Oh, there are people that race sailing around the continent of Antarctica too, and they do it in around 100 days. Ask any sailor if they can sail a ship, solo, 78,000 miles in 100 days. They can't, but you can do 8400 miles in 100 days. And continually turn right or left, depending on which direction you go, and you turn towards the land, not away. Come on now, give it up. You have provided zero proof. You just make baseless claims. You do seem to parrot flat earth ideologues pretty well, but it seems way too canned. Just stop the nonsense.
"It works by throwing mass one way so the rocket can go the other way." is pure fiction. There is NO REASON then that changing the diameter of the nozzle should have any effect whatsoever but it does. Also, as you see in the video demonstration, https://youtu.be/cEb6XFHTMPs two nozzles were used both the same width, and the one that did not have any holes poked in the sides (to allow equalization with the ambient atmospheric air pressure) immobilized the rocket, while the one with the holes allowed the rocket to push off the air. It doesn't get clearer than that. Your explanation of throwing mass FAILS!
Delete"When the rocket leaves the launch pad, it is pushing off the cement there, according to you." Is false. My other demonstration https://youtu.be/CLjxKhdQSrI shows that the rocket is immobilized by bending the exhaust thrust column by 90 degrees, which is EXACTLY what the flame trench is doing, it is acting as the throttle to achieve a gradual lift off--proves my point that rockets push off air perfectly. Then, as the rocket climbs, more and more of the exhaust thrust column is penetrating the atmosphere until it is completely unobstructed, at which point the max thrust it is capable of is realized.
"Air is light and moves very easily, so it is much harder to push off of that. So the rocket should slow down it's acceleration, but it doesn't." The video demonstration of immobilizing the rocket by using a wide high altitude thin air nozzle at ground level, effectively does away with your nonsense here. https://youtu.be/cEb6XFHTMPs
As for the sun in the south, you have no clue how it works. You have a flawed notion of a spherical object the hovers over the blue frisbee--this is false, as I have already explained. Moreover, there is no such thing as a 24 hour sun in the south, stop lying please. When the dome atmosphere combo is taken into consideration, the sunlight, sun rise, and sun set is represented perfectly, I'll be uploading a nice demonstration real soon, check it out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOnjR0GsOyA
There is an angel that drives the sun, according to the Bible. Now then, explain how you get elliptical orbits, they do require speed changes which we magically do not feel. Also, explain how a tilted globe can travel in an elliptical orbit while spinning? What rubbish!
Too bad for you, I suggest you get familiar with the Machinery's Handbook, because it will correct your flawed thinking. In REALITY there are physical limits. You believe this BS: "There is a point when the radius of an item becomes large enough that linear motion and circular motion almost effectively blur together." I'll stick to the reality of the Machinery's Handbook: "The stress which tends to rupture A SPINNING OBJECT is based SOLELY upon the edge\rim\surface speed INDEPENDENT OF RADIUS" CASE CLOSED.
What don't you understand about the integrity of a spinning object is lost at a certain surface speed that is SOLELY dependent on surface speed and INDEPENDENT of radius? Is it the math that's too complex? Or is it the word SOLELY or the word INDEPENDENT that you are having a problem with? The Machinery's Handbook don't lie.
This reduces your "proof" to an existence on paper only--no different than "proving" an elephant can fly if it flaps its ears a certain speed--is all you got to go by, not convincing in the least.
The wiki I see says rockets can clearly work in a vacuum.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
So what? It also states a wide nozzle is needed at high altitudes BECAUSE the air is thin, can't get enough back pressure to PUSH OFF THE ATMOSPHERE. You lack discernment because you don't think, you are only trained to regurgitate.
DeleteOh, you looked up the wrong article, I said look at the article on Rocket Engine Nozzles, not rocket engines. Nice try, but another FAIL!
ReplyDeleteThe Machinery's handbook is incorrect. You seem to think I don't know math. I have taken Calculus 1, 2,3, Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Linear Algebra, Modern Physics, Controls systems, among others including orbital mechanics.
ReplyDeleteLet me make this clear for you.
Today, in Antofagasta, Chile, 11 hours 10 minutes of sunlight. This is 23 degrees south latitude
Punta Arenas, Chile, 14.5 hours of light, 53 degrees south latitude.
Machu Pichu Base, Antarctica gets 15.5 hours of light. 62 degrees south latitude.
You see the trend here? More light at 62 degrees south latitude than at the tropic of capricorn (23S which is where the sun should be during the southern hemisphere's longest daylight)?
You are totally clueless and have no idea how things work. You pick and choose what points you want to make from particular sources and ignore all the others.
I don't believe the machinary handbook, and you don't believe the pictures of the earth from space.
But I know for a fact that there is 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Stop misleading people that know the truth!
Orbital Mechanics is a bogus study, pure fiction. Explain how elliptical orbits are possible? And account for the necessary speed changes.
Delete"I don't believe the machinary handbook, and you don't believe the pictures of the earth from space."
You are telling people you believe in fiction and disregard reality.
Here's a video of a rocket working in a vacuum.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic
ReplyDeleteTotally debunked https://youtu.be/ksnEuyxiNkE?t=10m14s
Deleteha ha ha! That guy that 'debunks' is a moron. Get someone with some credibility. He makes baseless claims just like you and you believe every word. That is hysterical!
ReplyDeleteFyi, his comments caused the guy to redo the whole thing! https://youtu.be/-BsrzO7aXNs And my comment got a heart from him and it seems yet another redo is in the works. All it requires is THINKING, not credentials, your appeal to authority is a fallacy, as you know, it has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. It is also an ad hominem personal attack, because you cannot attack the information.
DeleteNot sure why you don't understand elliptical orbits. Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun and the moon is in an elliptical orbit around the earth. Sometimes to moon is closer to earth and they call this a supermoon (when it is a full moon and closer to earth). And it turns out that circular orbits are a special case of elliptical orbits. This is when the eccentricity of the ellipse is zero. Here is a link where a guy explains elliptical orbits fairly simply. But I know you won't believe it because you don't believe in gravity, but you are wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59qniggFpFQ
ReplyDeleteThe explanation I give for why buoyancy isn't why we are stuck to the earth's surface is this. Look at this video and tell me why these people don't all float to one end of the plane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZY8279b7BU
"Gravity is a subtle force" hahahaha!!!! very funny! That video does not prove gravity in the slightest. Also you never even came close to answering my questions.
DeleteThat video certainly does not answer my questions. It is purely imaginary, you simply cannot model this or any other claim you have in reality. The best they could do was mention the parabolic path of a stone, that in no way is analogous to orbit, and maintaining it.
Here is a puzzle for you t o answer, it is a copy paste of a reply I made: HOW TO CORNER A GLOBE PREACHER: We are on a spinning globe right? How is it that the ball fell next to the canon? How did "gravity" cause this result? Was gravity behaving like a magic tracktor beam?--As it does to geostationary fake satellites? If so, then why are planes immune to this effect? And butterflies too? No way out for you now, is there? Waiting for your reply. If you don't answer again, then it proves you have nothing, our discussion is over, Coriolis is fake.
Ed Haynes refuses to answer! HAAAHHAHAAHHAAHAA!!!! Here is THE answer people: THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THERE IS NO GRAVITY, CASE CLOSED! The canon ball went straight up, and came straight down, it is more dense than air, and there is no Coriolis--is the reason it fell back down next to the canon. With a little more precision, it will fall right back into the canon, and this has been done before!
No such thing as a spinning retarded globe! They cannot even explain a simple thing like this event! Because if they say "gravity" is the reason it fell next to the canon and not hundreds of meters away due to the 5 football fields per second Coriolis (spin of earth at the equator) then that means "gravity" is a tracktor beam and since EVERYTHING must be subject to gravity, it means planes could not fly freely, it means gravity is SELECTIVE...it means you can call bullshit on gravity, the globe, and everything about the stupid heliocentric freemason religion!
Oh, and you certainly did not explain how a tilted spinning object is created and maintained in an eliptical orbit. The video also misrepresented the facts, because only circular orbits can make any sense, and demoed with a ball and string, Kepler did not "discover" elliptical orbits, he simply tried to make up a reason as to match the glaring error of Copernicus--who was being called out for circular orbits since anyone could see they were not circular. Obviously this is why Copermicus wanted his theory published after his death.
ReplyDeleteIf you ever posted any information I could refute it easily. Instead you point to videos that actually show a rocket motor working in a vacuum. Here is another explanation of elliptical orbits, only using math instead of a diagram and simple explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLdlfWT7UN0
ReplyDeleteWhy do you parrot your heroes? Which one is it Dubay or Jeranism? Those guys don't have a clue. In case you didn't realize it, planes and butterflies have wings and a low mass to lift ratio, which makes them float in air easily. Notice how a plane motor slows down once it reaches its cruising altitude? It takes energy to overcome gravity, which is a force. To stay at altitude the plane only needs to spend enough energy to stay aloft, not climb, so they throttle back the engines.
Can you explain how a plane would overcome buoyancy, mathematically? I'll even take verbally as I don't expect you know math well.
Oh, the ball falling next to the cannon is easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu8oUiparD0
We are all moving. The atmosphere, the cannon and the cannonball.
Again, can you explain how people on the zero G plane don't bunch up at one end due to buoyancy?
Explain why the sun rises in Punta Arenas, Chile at 133 degrees (SE) on Dec 20 and sets at 227 degrees (SW)? How does the sun set south of a city that is at 53S latitude? Not possible on a spinning disk with a sun speeding up and slowing down using infinite amounts of energy.
No, your view of a ball hovering over a flat disk is false, I have told you many times, you must have dementia. All we see is the APPARENT SUN! Which is why we often film clouds BEHIND THE SUN! The actual sun is reflecting on the dome atmosphere combo. That explains every observation, just put a hemispherical refractive substance (glass will do) over an AE map with a slightly larger diameter than the map, and shine a light on it and you will see how perfectly the sun we see is represented. I remind you AGAIN that you never consider the atmosphere let alone the dome atmosphere combo.
DeleteThe video of the rocket in a "vacuum" did not show the pressure gauge at all, because once the rocket fired, the small container was instantly PRESSURIZED! He gave my comment a heart, when I told him that he should have used the tiniest rocket possible, like a match rocket, he understood why, you have NO CLUE! My comment has many thumbs up. You are desperately clinging to your fake globe, it is glaringly pathological at this point.
Are you serious? I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmAFp27gYFA and that is your answer as to why the cannon ball fired straight up on earth lands back in the cannon or within 2 feet.
DeleteSo according to that video, what's stopping a jet plane from just going straight up and waiting for the destination to appear?
Or are you suggesting we can only travel with the spin? What if I fire the cannon horizontally in the opposite direction the train is moving? Will the ball just go right back in? How about firing it in the same direction the train is moving, will it go back in the cannon? Think of all the energy we could save just by taking advantage of earth spin! Maybe you could power the sun? Help it speed up when it's feeling tired? Right? There is mothing wrong with an observable fact, the sure sign of delusion is trying to change that observation to fit your fake globe, but it is what we observe it to do, the sun speeds up and slows down and i recently saved a video on how to measure the speed for yourself.
"Explain why the sun rises in Punta Arenas, Chile at 133 degrees (SE) on Dec 20 and sets at 227 degrees (SW)? How does the sun set south of a city that is at 53S latitude? Not possible on a spinning disk with a sun speeding up and slowing down using infinite amounts of energy."
DeleteYou have the wrong idea. This is how the sun works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOnjR0GsOyA Gleason AE Map With Dome Glass
Funny how you left out lift regarding plane wing design, I think it was grade 4 we learned about that, and about the design of the wing causing the air on top to move faster creating lift from below. The zero G hoax is easy, in free-fall there is no reason to bunch up, the plane and all are going the same speed. You'll have to do much better than that globe-hugger.
DeleteThere are many different orbits that are elliptical. One the russians used Molniya. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit
ReplyDeleteAnd your precious cicular orbit is used by geostationary satellites. They orbit the earth on a 24 hour period, so they hover above the equator. All objects in orbit are falling towards earth, kind of. They are just moving so fast that the 'miss' earth and continue to orbit. That is the beauty of orbits and why they don't expend fuel to sustain the orbit. What fuel does the moon use? It doesn't, it is in orbit. Just like the moons of the other planets, which we have been observing for hundreds of years.
Dream on! hahaha!!! Then you will have NO PROBLEM with this: HOW TO CORNER A GLOBE PREACHER: We are on a spinning globe right? How is it that the ball fell next to the canon? (from my cannon shot straight up video) How did "gravity" cause this result? Was gravity behaving like a magic tracktor beam?--As it does to geostationary fake satellites? If so, then why are planes immune to this effect? And butterflies too? No way out for you now, is there? Coriolis is fake.
DeleteEd Haynes refuses to answer! HAAAHHAHAAHHAAHAA!!!! Here is THE answer people: THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THERE IS NO GRAVITY, CASE CLOSED! The canon ball went straight up, and came straight down, it is more dense than air, and there is no Coriolis--is the reason it fell back down next to the canon. With a little more precision, it will fall right back into the canon, and this has been done before!
No such thing as a spinning retarded globe! They cannot even explain a simple thing like this event! Because if they say "gravity" is the reason it fell next to the canon and not hundreds of meters away due to the 5 football fields per second Coriolis (spin of earth at the equator) then that means "gravity" is a tracktor beam and since EVERYTHING must be subject to gravity, it means planes could not fly freely, it means gravity is SELECTIVE...it means you can call bullshit on gravity, the globe, and everything about the stupid heliocentric freemason religion!
"There are many different orbits that are elliptical. One the russians used Molniya. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit
DeleteAnd your precious cicular orbit is used by geostationary satellites. They orbit the earth on a 24 hour period, so they hover above the equator. All objects in orbit are falling towards earth, kind of. They are just moving so fast that the 'miss' earth and continue to orbit. That is the beauty of orbits and why they don't expend fuel to sustain the orbit. What fuel does the moon use? It doesn't, it is in orbit. Just like the moons of the other planets, which we have been observing for hundreds of years."
Is a truly absurd fantasy. "That is the beauty of orbits..." hahaha!!!! hhhaaahhaaahhaaahaa!!! HHHAAAAHHHAAAAAHHAA!!!!! So, let me see if I understand you correctly, there is a invisible tracktor beam enveloping the earth and hurling it around the sun at 67,000mph expanding and contracting like a rubber band while creating an elliptical orbit, AND causes the earth to tilt and spin and swing its own satellite around... wtf? Seek help!
You have been trained well to not answer questions you don't understand or which you don't have an answer. I'll wait. Please answer my questions.
ReplyDeleteNow with respect to the dome, I know you are smoking something and caught you in a BIG lie. If the sun is outside the dome and dome reflects the sun answer this:
1. How can you film the clouds going BEHIND the sun if the sun isn't within the dome? The clouds are within the dome. Big lie, how do you explain that.
2. Care to explain HOW the reflection works on a concave surface to show a circular sun at exactly the same size all the time? And by what I mean by explain is use a little math or something. Video even. Don't just say 'it explains every observation'. Explain it. You say a LOT of baseless ideas.
So using sunglasses changes the location of the actual sun? What does a refractive interface between you and the sun have to do with the position of the actual sun?
DeleteA picture is worth a thousand words. https://youtu.be/pOnjR0GsOyA Gleason AE Map With Dome Glass
And so you don't understand the conservation of energy. E1=E2. E1=kinetic energy + potential energy, likewise with E2. If E1 is perigee (the lowest part of an elliptical orbit) then kinetic energy is highest and potential energy is lowest, and it's the reverse for E2 at apogee (highest point in an elliptical orbit).
ReplyDeleteCan you explain WHY elliptical orbits don't make sense?
Can you explain WHY Molniya orbits don't work?
Didn't think so.
Daniel Pratt has a message for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcc_gfjSg1I with over 50 million a day NASA where is your working model? 500 years of globe fakery and no model! GTFOH!
DeleteBut you claim density or buoyancy is why we are stuck to earth. If there is equilibrium, like the zero G plane, then buoyancy should make the people go one way, down, just like on earth.
ReplyDeleteThat hemispherical prism is interesting, but it leaves no room for air so we all die. No clouds, no planes. Try again! Ha ha ha!
That quack in the beginning, I didn't even watch but if we aren't evolving, how come the avergage heigh of people is much more now than it was even 200 years ago? How come more and more people need glasses? Because we sit in front of computers and aren't outside looking far away all the time. Some people like truckers don't need glasses because of their environment.
You still haven't said how the sun sets sw of Punta Arenas. In your hemispherical model it sets to the west. Fail again.
Wing design, you are almost right, lift isn't from below but above. Fail again.
You still haven't addressed orbits. Why is circular OK but elliptical isn't? So if you are OK with circular then you believe in satellites? Cool, what are you arguing about then?
Read about Hohmann transfers here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
And that last video is funny! You should definitely follow a guy that says he is dumb. Creating the heliocentric model is dumb and we can't spend doing something that is insane.
Just because you don't understand math doesn't mean the rest of us need to step back in time and believe all types of weird juju. And stop masqerading as a doctor. You don't have enough knowledge and stop parroting your leaders. I know that is your MO, but you haven't proved a single thing. You have only posted opinions.
If you live within 57 degrees of the equator, which I bet you do, you can see ISS pass by ocassionally. If you live with 28 degrees of equator, you can see the Hubble go by. But I bet you don't bother. Just go away please and stop believing the BS.
"Wing design, you are almost right, lift isn't from below but above. Fail again." You are making false statements as usual. Maybe Wiki can tell you "According to Newton's third law, the air must exert an equal and opposite (upward) force on the airfoil, which is the lift. ... In the case of an airplane wing, the wing exerts a downward force on the air and the air exerts an upward force on the wing." Every part of the plane is involved too.
DeleteAnd again you are trying to make shit up:
"But you claim density or buoyancy is why we are stuck to earth. If there is equilibrium, like the zero G plane, then buoyancy should make the people go one way, down, just like on earth."
After I already told you:
"The zero G hoax is easy, in free-fall there is no reason to bunch up, the plane and all are going the same speed. You'll have to do much better than that globe-hugger."
LoL! I had intended to use your link of the toy train, the link I gave was a different topic, but since you responded, keep in mind that Granite CANNOT be recreated by slow cooling from a molten state. MOREOVER, it cannot be created like that plus be loaded with polonium halos, as we find in reality. Fiat creation is the ONLY conclusion. I have two videos on this at two chapters on this blog. The one is a lecture and question session where you can see another prof (like you) get severely triggered, because he made a fool oh himself, and the other is a documentary which also gets into polonium in coal and synthesizing coal in less than one year by Argone Labs, all references such as press releases and journals are shown.
https://flatearthtextbook.blogspot.ca/2016/11/age-of-earth.html
https://flatearthtextbook.blogspot.ca/2016/11/how-old-is-earth.html
You would think that our eyes should have evolved to adjust for computers? hahahaha!!! What a joke evolution truly is when you think about it!
Refraction can explains how it sets SW at that location, you keep excluding the dome atmosphere combo. You really should look up the ones using auto cad who used a losmandy mount and tracked the sun for two years, and built a super computer to process the data, and have a working model.
No, you can pretend circular orbits work, in the same way they gave us the ball on a string analogy in grade 2. But you must imagine a tracktor beam from the sun enveloping the earth + moon and all the fake planets, which are just stars. At least you have a working model, but with ellipses, you have nothing. Tell the deluded Hohmann to create a physical working model.
No, he said with the 50+ million a day budget, and all the billions to this date NASA has blown, they do not have a single demonstration of the solar system they preach, not even any real photos.
I have seen the jet plane I mean ISS more than once fly over Vancouver BC, Canada, where I am from, been here all my life except 5 years on the east coast at Temple Dental, adding a DMD to my BSc from U.B.C. I don't need to pull an authority card, except when I am giving a health related lecture.
The ISS is in a swimming pool, #bubblesinspace
Hubble is on the SOPHIA plane, there is a great 30 minute phone call by a Stanford student who exposed NASA while they were on the phone! That is funny! Please, you go away, back to your dark ages freemason globe and "planets" I'll stick to REALITY.
"That hemispherical prism is interesting, but it leaves no room for air so we all die. No clouds, no planes. Try again! Ha ha ha!"
DeleteIs not a valid argument. The point was to use a refractive medium, to see how light behaves. But if you did scale down the atmosphere dome combo, it would be solid. It is well accepted that the atmosphere acts as a convex lens, due to all the moisture droplets, which is how the expert tried to explain Joshua Nowiki's photo of the Chicago skyline from across the water and very far away, on prime time news.
Your original response to the train video I sent is preposterous and shows no ability to reason. It is the conservation of momentum. Just like the cannon. This is one of the fundamental things taught in physics and has been proven again and again, just like the train video. Are you saying they fake that? Ride in a car and throw a ball up and down. Same thing, as long as there is no other external force.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the lift for a plane, you are right, I always seem to get in my head because of the lower pressure on the upper part of the wing it has a suction effect, which it does to some extent because of the pressure differential.
Oh, and Hubble is not on Sophia plane. Some guy got an interview with a scientist that didn't realize he was getting hoaxed by a flat tard. I worked on Hubble. I was in charge of the gyros, solar arrays, transmitters, batteries etc. Anything to do with the spacecraft bus. Solar blankets, SIC&DH (Science Instrument command and data handling unit) Reaction wheels, fine guidance sensor. Hubble was modeled after the keyhole satellites, which looked down at earth, spy satellites made by the same contractor. Sophia is a telescope mounted in a 747 that has various instruments installed on it. Several more are being developed still to improve on existing ones. No ISS isn't in a swimming pool. Several pics here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335646/In-deep-space-end-NASA-astronauts-train-mission-worlds-largest-swimming-pool.html
Picture of me, yes, that's me by the Hubble mock up in Houston's pool. https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/114491516978765292815/6274888856699994146
Another pic of ISS, see how the lighting is way different? https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_894.html I know you will say it is photoshopped, but it isn't. All you need to do is get an expert to look at the photo for proof, but you won't do that either.
Really, you should stick to dental stuff. I build spacecraft for a living, been doing it for over 30 years. I know they orbit the earth so the earth is not flat.
That's a really cool pic of you in the pool! I could not load the other link but will try later. My understanding is that you have no first hand experience in space itself? Correct?
DeleteI'm not saying NASA does not exist, you are a real person and you have involvement with the gear, but that does not prove rockets go to space, or that space is a vacuum, or that rockets don't push off of air.
Your argument " I build spacecraft for a living, been doing it for over 30 years. I know they orbit the earth so the earth is not flat." is NOT PROOF!
You ASSUME they go to space. The thing is, only ONE OF US is right, and so far it is me, and that will never change, earth will never be a globe, rockets will always push off air.
When you can demonstrate a working model of the freemason contrived solar system, then you can go to bat with that. Our unaided natural vision is more than good enough to dismiss the notion of a curve, no curve means no globe and no space and no rockets that don't need air. That is the first domino that knocks all the others down--no curve.
So, making a model is out of the question for your heliocentric faith. Proving there is a curve where there is none, is also out of the question. That leaves you with blind faith alone and a bunch of equipment.
Look here for info on Sofia, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/overview/index.html.
ReplyDeleteNotice at the bottom is says Sofia operates in the Infrared. Not the visible spectrum. Hubble operates mostly in the visible spectrum and some infrared. Seems you are wrong again! The WFC3 is the only instrument on Hubble that does IR. STIS, ACS, COS and NICMOS are all in the visible. The FGS is also called an instrument but it really is for fine guidance.
Oh, another pic of me by the shuttle the night before launch for the SM4 mission. STS-125. https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/114491516978765292815/6417841542397156450
Another great photo! You look as happy as a pig in shit! And you know I mean that as a nice thing to say. I'm going to err on the side that you actually believe everything you have been saying, so please accept my apologies for calling you a liar, or anything else. I respect people who are the real deal, before you were just an antagonist.
DeleteAll I can say is you should keep an open mind, and find ways to prove to yourself if there is a curve or not. A genuine desire for truth and a promise to yourself to accept the results no matter where the chips fall is all it takes. That's how I did it.
Rockets do go into space, and I know it for sure. You know how I know this? We build them with unique commands and identifiers so that no one else can communicate with our spacecraft. Sometimes there is a special box that un-encrypts the data for security. There is a special box on the ground that encrypts the commands sent up. The box on the spacecraft also does this for the data coming down. There is only one place that can control the spacecraft, and when we turn the spacecraft on and load commands and the telemetry says the solar arrays deployed, the science instrument turned on, etc, we know that it is in orbit. We can only communicate with it when it is within sight of a ground station. For earth pointing satellites that are in a sun synchronous orbit (that has one side of the spacecraft facing the sun most of the time the ground stations are Svalbard in Norway, Poker Flats Alaska and Antarctica. This way the earth satellite cam map the whole earth every day or so.
ReplyDeleteSo back to your hemispherical glass thing. That doesn't work because you guys claim there is a dome not a thousand miles think piece of glass. Again how do you see the clouds go behind the sun, and how do those clouds get there? Takes a lot of faith to believe that one. Also, it would mean that Antarctica gets sun for half a day all the time. I haven't winter overed but it gets dark there 24 hours a day in the winter, just like the summer is 24 hours sun. I was there and saw it. Pics here https://plus.google.com/photos/114491516978765292815/album/6257079192185991281?authkey=COWPkufcxv6IHw and here. https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/114491516978765292815/6289065329267128850
I keep an open mind and honestly started to wonder, but there is no way satellites are faked. On hubble they took up new gyros and brought back the old ones. Gyros that had failed were dismantled carefully to figure out the failure mechanism. We saw on telemetry from Hubble which gyros had failed and commanded others to work. The only thing that flat earthers have going for them is that they say the earth looks flat. And it does! But that is only looks. Guys try to fake videos by zooming out from the sun claiming it changes size. I've taken pictures of the sun and it doesn't change size. Look at these 2 pics taken the same day, around noon and later in the afternoon. Same size. https://plus.google.com/photos/114491516978765292815/album/6274546043092324305
If the sun is a constant size, noon or late afternoon, that means it isn't close like flat earthers think it is, otherwise it would obviously change size, or if the sun is a spotlight then it would look elliptical later in the day or early in the morning. It does not.
If the sun is far away, and the earth is flat, there would be daylight all the time. It is not daylight so this tells me the sun is far away and the earth is not flat.
WHY THE SUN DOES NOT CHANGE SIZE https://youtu.be/75rBxMI8SME Again, nobody said there is a solid glass atmosphere. It is perfectly ok to refer to the atmosphere behaving as a convex lens when explaining mirages, doesn't mean it is made of glass, please stop saying that nonsense, it is a false point. The "experts" use such ANALOGIES all the time, look at you guys, orbits are like a ball and string, so then, where is the string? Nope gravity is false it has to be a string, only one side can face the other object etc. see what i mean? Stop that.
DeleteThe glass works, but more tests need to b e done, we don't know how wide it should be, or tall etc. In the old days they had a chocolate chip cookie analogy for atoms, that is the best they could do to summarize the observations of the day. Today we have a different model, but one thing stayed common to both, the heterogeneity of the atom.
The other problem is the AE is distorted east to west, so of course any dome you put on it cannot correct that, but in terms of light going thru a refractive medium it is an excellent demo, much better than the zero examples you have of your model isn't it?
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't said how the sun speeds up and slows down. I hope you understand the energy thing, but you have difficulty with elliptical orbits and the changes in kinetic and potential energy so maybe not.
Flat earthers don't understand the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day. 24 hours is how long it takes for the earth to rotate and have the sun at the same location, say high noon. A sidereal day is about 4 minutes shorter than a solar day and is the time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees in inertial space. Some flat earthers think that at noon it should be nightime 182 days after it is actually noon and pointing at the sun. They don't understand celestial mechanics and the definitions that were set up to make things easier for man. Time wasn't given to us and it just worked out. It was set up to work the way it does.
I know you want to think the earth is flat and that you are special because you found something that others didn't. But you are wrong. The earth is and will be spherical until the day you and I die. You have to prove it, otherwise NOTHING will change. They will still teach spherical earth in schools, NASA and other space agencies will launch satellites and orbit earth and other planets and moons. You are you several hundred believers will continue to be looked at strangely and ridiculed. NOTHING will change unless you prove something. You seem like you are a nice enough person but you have fallen for a fallacy. I've looked at all the flat earth concepts and each one fails to stand up to reality. I give you, or whoever, credit for creativity on the hemispherical dome thing, but that is a fantasy too. You need to show darkness in Antarctica for 24 hours.
Nothing is going to change, and especially not because YOU believe something that you can't prove. Think about how many things you have to deny to make flat earth minutely plausible. If you can show there is a dome, then the game changes.
A good experiment would be to have 2 people on opposite sides of Antarctica during the 24 hour darkness and have them see the same constellations, at the same time. The southern hemisphere sees different constellations and stars. You want to believe that the atmosphere prevents you from seeing that. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. You would see the stars getting closer and closer together as they get closer to the horizon or further away from you, but they don't. The angular distance between the stars remains constant. This tells me that either the stars are moving around us or we are rotating. Since all the other evidence we have points to a round earth, I believe we are rotating not the stars.
The fact that the sun sets, goes below the horizon, is a game over for flat earth. I know you guys say it is refraction, but refraction actually makes things look higher than they are. There is no way the sun would even get close to the horizon. Basic physics, which I know isn't your strong point.
Got to head out for dinner. Just answer some of my previous questions you have ignored or explain why the sun looks like it goes below the horizon. Your hemispherical thing won't show the sun going below the horizon. If so, show the math and how the optical path is bent.
Go up the thread, there is nothing I did not answer. I gave you a video showing how the sun sets https://youtu.be/75rBxMI8SME in my reply just above. You continue to ignore the atmosphere and its lensing effect. That is denial of facts.
DeleteYou still did not explain anything about gravity, how this tracktor beam envelopes the earth and moon swinging them 67,000mph around itself in an elliptical orbit that requires speed changes for sure, the whole while the earth is tilted and spinning 1000mph and keeping a moon in an elliptical orbit around itself.
You talked about potential and kinetic energies but that is not a demo, surely you can produce a working MODEL that proves your explanation accounts for elliptical orbits? But you cannot, and you will NEVER be able to, because it is fiction.
Yes, the lensing has been shown conclusively to account for star rotations, you can disagree all you like, that is denial again.
EVERYTHING is changing, FE grows daily. You have claims, but no proof of your claims. Start with the basics, surely you can dazzle people with your rockets (which fall right back down) and your cgi, and paintings (great videos on here by astronomers of 50 years even who show what the stars really look like, sonoluminessence is a great model) but where is the curve?
Here is a surveyor from a YouTube discussion thread:
In surveying we level up on one spot, then use our instruments to turn angles using lasers over vast distances. Sometimes miles over a day. After we gather data on the angles of the turns we make (both vertical angles and horizontal angles) for a period of time (days, weeks and monthes) we compile that data and do the math only on the angles, never taking unto account fictitious curvature and can be within inches over distances close to100 miles. There may be spots where there is a curve from the contours of a small hill over, say...a mile of land, but overall there is no curvature to the land over large distances(up to 100 miles or so). Plus i have also had experience operating a GPS (ground positioning system) survey setup. What i learned from that tech is also interesting but would take me forever to type it out on my phone, so i will save that for later. Thanks for your comment. :)
String? There is no string, so, as you say, stop the nonsense. That is absurd. The lensing has no conclusively shown anything. A convex lens is much different than a hemispherical hunk of glass. You admit there is more testing to be done so you don't have a model. Flat earth doesn't even rise to the level of theory as it doesn't fit the definition of a theory. Not sure why you are so gullible or what you think explains all the inaccuracies. And no, you have not answered all the questions.
ReplyDeleteAgain, why does the length of sunlight during the southern hemisphere's summer get longer and longer as you go south towards Anrartica. Your hemisphere glass shows the daylight time should shorten during their summer, but it does not.
How do you prove or show clouds going behind the sun when it is external of the dome and how and what are those clouds?
Here is a working model of the sunlight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLRA87TKXLM
I don't need to show a model of orbits, you said you have seen ISS. Orbits exist, it is a whole field of study with deep planetary probes, Molniya orbits, elliptical orbits, geosynchronous orbits, formation flying, sun synchronous orbits...well I guess you get the point.
Oh, and a friend of mine used to be a surveyor and he said absolutely he knows the earth is round. He is from Australia, but he just thinks you guys are kooky.
Keep growing that FE. Ha ha. Another 7+ billion people and you'll have it solved! ha ha ha!
Oh, and please watch the last couple minutes of that video. That is KEY! It explains how the daylight time of the model matches reality. Something a FE doesn't do.
ReplyDeleteAnd world birth rate vs death rate is about +11 births a year/1000 people. That means 11 million people a year. There just aren't enough FE to even put a dent in that.