Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.
Do you just take every photo you see at face value?
If so, then how can you refute any picture from space?
Unbelievable. Completely and utterly unbelievable.
The Sun rises in the West but it doesn't look like it does, the analemma is a diagram of the Sun's whole path through the year and the Sun isn't directly over "us" when it switches gears.
I don't even know where to begin with this.
Let's start with the stars rotating in the opposite direction.
I mean... really? No seriously, really? Would you like to take a little jaunt down to a southern hemisphere nation - any of them - and take a look at which direction they are going?
They are going east to west. And asserting that they're not going from east to west because it doesn't fit your theory is not just false, it's frightening. Do you know why it doesn't look like they're rising in the West?
Because they DON'T.
And your little diagram up there serves absolutely no purpose in explaining this.
Even in a flat model, I don't know how this is supposed to do so.
You have also completely neglected the fact that over the course of two days, before and after the equinox, anyone that isn't under the sun would observe a change in direction - based on your assertion that it changes direction.
It doesn't change direction - it cannot change direction and no amount of filibuster will be able to prove that it ever changes direction.
Nobody has ever seen it change direction and you cannot prove it changes direction.
And even if it isn't directly above "us", that "us" cannot include the hundreds of millions of people that live on or around the equator and between the tropics who would all see it happen.
The analemma supports the spherical earth view that the world spins on a tilted axis - you may not understand what it actually represents but you cannot skew it to show that the sun races a figure 8 on its yearly path - it represents the difference in position because of the wobble on the Earth's axis. You cannot spin this to support your theory any more than you could post a picture of a pebble and call it a mountain. This is unutterably absurd and you really need to check your sources before posting anything like this.
And you still haven't addressed the fact that you have gone against one of the core concepts of the Flat Earth theory - that the sun is always above the earth - and then tried to defend a theory that states that the sun is always above the earth.
Explain yourself.
Are you actually saying that the stars rise in the west in the southern hemisphere?
No, no seriously - is that the assertion you just made?
The middle school explanation is that the tilt of the earth's axis of rotation makes it drift between the tropics. The period of this drift is incompatible with your gear-switching model, particularly because, once again, if the sun were jumping to a "gear" rotating in the opposite direction, then its path in the sky would reverse and it would rise in the west and set in the east. This is not the case.
To summarise - "we don't know why we are right bu you're wrong." Once again, go back and read again - the switching either demands that (a) the sun goes from rotating clockwise to anticlockwise as it "changes gears" or (b) it stops and changes local direction to continue going clockwise around a different circle. Neither of these things are "visible" in the least.
The "switching gears" is a problem - what determines the switch? Is it on a timer, or does it just happen?
And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "traveling North-South" too - what is its periodicity? What makes it stop and turn back? Is it on a track?
Read it again - in a figure 8, an object makes one circle around a point clockwise, then chicanes and circles the other point anti-clockwise. This comment here was an alternative to that: if we want to maintain the direction of the sun around each point (i.e. if it circles each point in the same direction), it has to stop at the point where one circle meets the other and reverse apparent direction.
Look at it this way - put two clocks side by side: the hands when pointing at the 3 go "down" towards the 6 and "up" towards the 12. They are rotating in the same direction but to jump from the 3 on one clock to the 9 on the other, you have to change apparent direction at that point.
Unless the sun circles each point int he same direction, it would go east to west in the north and west to east in the south. This is not the case.
From an observer on the ground witnessing the Flat Earth sun making these circles around one point and then the other, it would describe flat ellipses centered over said point over the horizon.
What's more, when the sun "changes gears", they would start going around in the opposite direction.
I don't know about you, but I have never seen the sun go backwards in the sky.
No one is saying it's fake. Several us went outside this week to see it for ourselves. I'd did the string thing and I held up a ball next to the moon. The phases of the ball and the phase of the moon matched. I'm just surprised you didn't go out and look at things for yourself.
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively
Pay attention to the green zone in the link below. Notice that the every latitude experiences twelve hours of sun on the equinoxes.Can you explain how people all across the globe see the sun for at least 12 hours but the sun doesn'tâ cover at least half of the disk? The only places that see the sun for more that 12 hours are very near the poles. Can you help me understand?
I can't for some reason load the sun animation .gif.
Can you link us to the evidence that all points on earth experience exactly 12 hours of daylight on that day?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hours_of_daylight_vs_latitude_vs_day_of_year_cmglee.svg
Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.
And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.
There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.
It is fantasy.
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively.
I... I don't even. I just can't. If it weren't so painful it would be funny.
Do you read your posts aloud before sending them? You probably should. A pen and paper might help too so you can draw some diagrams of the ridiculous claims made by your models.
The motion of the sun is the single greatest hole in the Flat Earth theory and your attempts to plug it are only making it exponentially larger with every post.
Incidentally, those walls of ice encountered at the Antarctic coast are the Antarctic fucking coast, not some unsubstantiated ice wall that has never been measured, circumnavigated or even witnessed. As soon as someone has been around the whole thing and confirmed that it is the contiguous ring of ice, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is complete fantasy.
Can you explain how people all across the globe see the sun for at least 12 hours but the sun doesn'tâ cover at least half of the disk? The only places that see the sun for more that 12 hours are very near the poles. Can you help me understand?
I can't for some reason load the sun animation .gif.
Did you try it though?
So what is the norm?
The analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.
Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.
An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?
Nice try, but Round Earth Theory can't claim that this is some kind of perspective effect that makes the sun significantly lower than it actually is. We are told here all the time that there are Sunrise and Sunset calculators that will predict the time of the sunrise and sunset in down to the minute under RET.
Tom, the sun is exactly where it's supposed to be, as is the moon. The optical illusion comes when you try to join them, you can't look at them both at the same time as they are opposite each other, when you do it with just your eyes the angle looks wrong, so you hold the string where the sun is and stretch it over to where the moon is and the angle is right, try it, simple empirical proof.