GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

  • 1592 Replies
  • 281584 Views
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #390 on: December 15, 2014, 08:48:31 PM »
There is a lot of debate here about the shape of the Earth, so I thought this would be the perfect place to mention that I am doing an experiment that will prove the shape of the Earth, but I need the help of the community.

Maybe you would like to consult this book before you try your experiment:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf
I am not going to read a book just because you suggested that it might have something to do with my experiment.  If there is one particular part that you want me to read then please tell me, but I don't want to read the whole thing.

You could be a part of my experiment if you want to, I would like to include both round earthers and flat earthers.

All i want to say is that you should elaborate the whole idea in details, before you/we are going to undertake this experiment. If you take into account all important factors, then i hope it could work it out well. As for taking part in your experiment, i am willing to participate if you persuade me that you know what you do, and if it turns out that the whole thing is feasible...

There is one excerpt, that i would like to share with you here:

There is in Greenwich  Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax  0.31" on that vernier we should find it to  be one 15,484th part of an inch.  When  angles  are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that  “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and  personal errors.”

Are you suggesting that mikeman's experiment is invalid unless it compensates for solar parallax on the order of  seconds of arc? The participants will be doing well to get measurements on the order of 1 degree, maybe better if everything is very carefully measured, level, and plumb. If the participants are widely spaced, covering many degrees distance, degree-accuracy should be sufficient to deduce the overall shape and size of the earth.

The instruments available in Tycho Brahe's time were too crude to measure stellar parallax - it's too small because of the very large distances to even the nearest stars. If Tyco really said that [citation needed], it may have been true then, but it's obsolete now that instrumentation has vastly improved. You keep bringing this up. It's still irrelevant. Please stop.

You (yes, you!) can check some things instead of just parroting them here if you know anything about what they're trying to talk about. When your source gives the degree spacing as "about three-quarters of an inch" and then goes on to describe the length on the vernier circle to represent 0.31 seconds of arc, to five digits of precision, that's a clue that he's not particularly competent in the subject.

If the vernier circle is, in fact, six feet diameter, then its circumference would be pi * 6 ft * 12 in/ft, or about 226.2 inches. 226.2 inches/360° = 0.628 inches per degree, or just barely over 5/8 inch degree spacing, an error of about 1 part in 6 compared to "three-quarters of an inch". To actually have 3/4" degree spacing, the vernier circle would have to be more than seven feet in diameter.

OK, 0.628 in/deg rounded to the nearest quarter degree is three-quarters inch per degree, but just barely, and there's no real problem with that. The problem your source then takes this 0.75 inch/degree as exact, divides by 3600 seconds/degree and then divides by exactly 0.31 seconds to come up with 0.0000645833 inches which, inverted, is the exact-sounding 1/15484 of an inch. It may be exact sounding, but it's about 16% off.

Your quote looks like drivel that is supposed to sound "scientific".

Quote
The "Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth,
Citation needed.

Quote
no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from  different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric  Parallax.”  .  .
Citation needed.

Quote
If  that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has  no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles.
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?

[Spoiler] It's just arm waving and technical-sounding words. It doesn't mean a damn thing.

Quote
Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point;
No shit. Has anyone who knows what he's talking about ever said it would?

Quote
and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet  this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false. The fact is that the  stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See  diagram  13.) It would be as reasonable to say that  all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.[/i]
No one who knows what he's talking about suggests the stars are perpendicular to the center of the Earth - because that has no meaning. Nor have they said the stars are necessarily perpendicular to, or tangent to, or any fixed angle to the surface of the earth.

Have you ever looked at the hub of a bicycle wheel? The spokes are almost tangent to the hub - they don't radiate straight out from it.


This whole argument is a complete strawman and totally ludicrous.

Quote

In addition : HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : <url to some youtube video>
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #391 on: December 16, 2014, 09:08:11 AM »
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?

I would say that an author wanted to say something like this:

From the pen of one another author:

...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036

From the pen of one another author:

I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:

-He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."

Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis. The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.

I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.

You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.

I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":



And i can corroborate that above words of our second author are really true!

Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1″ in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2″). This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, α Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned α Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0″.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.

Sir John Herschel says:--

"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."

Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words

"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1″; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."

The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.




« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 09:13:16 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #392 on: December 16, 2014, 09:57:28 AM »
I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.
Probably too busy laughing and shaking his head.

Quote
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.

I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":

http://i.imgur.com/CwsDKZ5.jpg
If you're viewing a polar star, you're turning with Earth's rotation.  I'm not sure what remaining stationary while rotating the pipe away from you is supposed to prove.

Quote
http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg
Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge of photography.  You also apparently never tried the experiment I suggested a while back to do with your camera.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #393 on: December 16, 2014, 10:15:51 AM »
The Earth is 8 light minutes from the sun, but the closest star is about 5 light years.  The closest star is over 300,000 times further from the Sun then the Earth is, and that is just the closest star, many of the stars that we see are 50 or more light years away.  Even the closest star at about 5 light years away and according to some simple trigonometry the anual parallax is about 0.0001 degrees.  Stellar parallax is tiny, the only way it can be measured is with the precision instruments that are in the hands of those that you claim are in on the conspiracy.  Just because I can't observe it with my hobbyist telescope doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #394 on: December 16, 2014, 10:17:32 AM »



Challenge accepted.





What do you have to say now?
I think, therefore I am

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #395 on: December 16, 2014, 10:54:42 AM »



Challenge accepted.

http://inspirationfeeed.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/204817.jpg

http://imgdonkey.com/big/OGZ6VWs4Zg/long-exposure-photo-from-the-tail-of-plane-in-flight.gif

What do you have to say now?
Yeah, this is too easy.  Shot this a while back driving through town.  I'll get a better one next time, with a cleaner windshield and my newer camera that does longer exposures. 

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #396 on: December 16, 2014, 08:31:08 PM »
You cited this to back up your argument, so you're responsible here for what it says. Do you have any idea what any of this means?

I would say that an author wanted to say something like this:

From the pen of one another author:

...the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?

Quote
From the pen of one another author:

I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:

-He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."

Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis. The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.

I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.

It sounds like the writer didn't understand the purpose of the cart-wheel experiment. If the astronomer was well known, I'm sure he got a lot of letters from cranks.

Quote
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.

I've just performed above depicted experiment with this very "instrument":



And i can corroborate that above words of our second author are really true!

"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!

But, hey! At least you're trying experiments. Good on you for that.

Quote
Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1″ in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2″)
Lyra is a constellation, not a star - the author is no doubt referring to the bright star Vega in the constellation Lyra. Errors like this cast doubt on the competence of the author in the subject at hand. A real astronomer simply would not make an error like this; a gadfly trying to sound presumptuous would almost be expected to.

How many times have you brought this up? Stellar parallax was simply too small to measure with the instruments available in Tyco's time. Stars are too far away!

Quote
This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, α Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned α Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0″.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.

The unit of length one Parsec (parallax-second, abbreviated pc) represents the distance where a baseline equal to one AU (average radius of earth's orbit) will produce one second of parallax. 1 pc is about 3.26 light years. Alpha Centauri is now estimated to be at a distance of about 1.34 pc based on a measured parallax of 0.747 seconds of arc. The measurement above puts it at just barely over 1 pc. Distance in pc = 1 / parallax in seconds.

Quote
Sir John Herschel says:--

"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."
A much more precise way to determine parallax is to measure the apparent motion of a star against much more distant stars in a photographic plate. Such techniques, not available in Herschel's time, eliminate most of the corrections and confounding factors listed above.

Quote
Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words

"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1″; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."

The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.

See above. Most of these problems simply go away using different techniques.

Quote



Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #397 on: December 17, 2014, 11:40:53 AM »
Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.
Or maybe that the ground itself would be blurry because it's 'moving' while the picture is being taken?  He'll probably never address this, nor the pictures posted, only re-post the same thing again in a month or so.

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #398 on: December 17, 2014, 02:00:37 PM »
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?

"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."

"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!

Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.

Please don't be ridiculous!

A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.

Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???

Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!

This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...

I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!

Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?

How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?

On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?   

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #399 on: December 17, 2014, 02:45:43 PM »
Please don't be ridiculous!

A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.

Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???

Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!

This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...

I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!

Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?

How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?

On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?

About the effect of rotation vs translation, imagine that you drive a car on a motorway and look at a distant mountain. Even if you drive very fast in a straight line, the mountain seems to hardly move at all relative to you. But as soon as you turn your car even a by a little bit, you can see that the mountain moves.
I think, therefore I am

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #400 on: December 17, 2014, 02:58:48 PM »
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.  I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up.  Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?

Are you asking for a 1:1 scale?  Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
Why would I want 1:1 scale? We already had this conversation. I wanted the experiment done with scale distances related to the size of the magnet. You could also put compasses to represent the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn along with the equator.

Let us know how that experiment works out for you.  :)

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #401 on: December 17, 2014, 07:07:15 PM »
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
Not crazy, just smart enough to understand that what is seen works quite well with a spherical Earth.

Quote
On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
The polar star and the circular trails around it would be higher above the horizon. 

Also, look up the difference between 'time-lapse' and 'long exposure' photography, and let us know which one you're talking about.

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #402 on: December 17, 2014, 07:43:18 PM »
It was stated that the Earth's magnetic field could not work with compasses on a flat Earth.  I provided a simple experiment that shows that it can.  I know that you can not refute my experiment, so now you are just moving the goal posts as much as you can in order to try to slip me up.  Well, it aint working out too well for you, now is it?
Have you done the experiment to scale yet?

Are you asking for a 1:1 scale?  Are you really this dense, or are you just doing your trolling routine again?
Why would I want 1:1 scale? We already had this conversation. I wanted the experiment done with scale distances related to the size of the magnet. You could also put compasses to represent the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn along with the equator.

Let us know how that experiment works out for you.  :)
Work is tough isn't it?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #403 on: December 17, 2014, 08:18:47 PM »
If the Earth were spherical and rotating, would "zenith stars" from the latitude of England behave any differently? What would you expect them to do?

"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."
Have you actually checked this for yourself - an attitude that seems popular with the supporters of the notion that the Earth is flat? I have. It's wrong.

Or, are you simply parroting (another popular term here) something you copied from some anonymous author? Was this Rowbotham again? If so, anonymous is better. Do you really think Sirius, Canopus, and Alpha Centauri appear to circle Polaris? They don't.

Quote
"Move the tube by only a quarter-inch" were you turning it so the end swung the specified 1/4". Of course this would happen. If the tube remains parallel with its original direction but translates without rotation that small distance, the view of the distant target will hardly change at all. We've been saying this all along: rotation will give huge effects where translation is hardly noticeable. Do you listen? No!

Are you suggesting that the rotation of the Earth is bumpy like traveling in a vehicle on a typical road? It's not. The rotation of the Earth is very smooth, thus the smooth, sharp star trails.

Please don't be ridiculous!

A time-lapse camera, let's say in Oslo allegedly rotates 850 km per hour, which is 236 meters per second, and in the same time (in a same second of time) our time-lapse camera moves 30 km (alleged orbital speed of the Earth = 30 km/sec.) in a straight line.

Now, these 236 meters per second make a huge difference because "alleged rotation gives huge effects", but alleged revolution is nothing alike rotation and that is why translational speed of 30 000 meters per second doesn't make any difference at all???

Still confusing translation with rotation, I see. Here's an easy way to tell which is which: if you're referring to linear measure such as km, meters, miles, feet, furlongs, etc. (even if it's per second or other unit of time) you're referring to linear distances (or velocities). If you work with angles, such as, most commonly, degrees and, sometimes, radians, it's angles (if per second, angular velocities).

That said, to your "these 236 meters per second make a huge difference" and at the same [one second] "our time-lapse camera moves 30 km", I have to ask: make a huge difference in what? What angles have changed? How far away is what we're looking at?

Quote
Only completely insane person would claim such claims!!!
Thanks a lot. Note  that in all these arguments I've never questioned your sanity or your intelligence, only your premises and conclusions. I don't think you're crazy or stupid, you're just wrong sometimes. It happens to all of us. The remedy is learning good information and how to apply it. It's not always easy, but usually easier than trying desperately to fit bad ideas to what we can easily see.

Quote
This speed (30 000 meters per second) would make/cause one huge blurred speck out of the fixed stars in your time-lapse photograph, were you on the rotating/revolving earth (while attempting to shoot the stars) that rushes through space at such unimaginable speed(s)...

Again, it's the change in angle (due to the rotating earth wrt the stars) that causes the streaks stars make in a fixed (wrt earth) long-exposure photo, not the distance traveled.

Quote
I have ascertained (doing my experiments) that if we move just a few inches in a straight line, an angle of our stand point (with respect to a certain observational point) will be changed and we will be able to notice this change very easily!
This is true if the point you're observing is nearby. Try this with something, say, 30 miles away and report back. It's all in the angles, and they strongly depend on the distance to the object if you're moving laterally. They don't depend at all on the distance to the object if you're rotating instead of moving laterally.

Quote
Now, an angle of the Earth (with respect to Polaris) that traverses 300 000 000 km wide orbit every half of the year, never changes enough so that we would be able to notice at least a slightest different position of Northern Star above us?

How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
How far away is Polaris? How significant is 300,000,000 km (Wow!!! that seems like a lot!!!) compared to that? How "slight" is "slight"? Polaris does actually have measurable parallax, by the way, but it is, indeed, slight, because it's far away.

Quote
On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?

None at all if it's stars that are circumpolar from 25 N. There will be those and a lot more stars that are circumpolar from the Arctic Circle, if that's the question you're asking.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #404 on: December 18, 2014, 01:39:36 AM »
How crazy one has to be to believe in such nonsense?
Not crazy, just smart enough to understand that what is seen works quite well with a spherical Earth.

Quote
On top of that:

If the Earth rotates, what kind of differences should we expect comparing time-lapse photographs of the circumpolar stars that are made at the latitude let's say 25 degree north with the same kind of photographs that are made at the North Pole or somewhere in Arctic circle?
The polar star and the circular trails around it would be higher above the horizon. 

Also, look up the difference between 'time-lapse' and 'long exposure' photography, and let us know which one you're talking about.

I think he meant long exposure photography.
I think, therefore I am

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #405 on: December 18, 2014, 04:14:57 AM »


"It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible."


Yes; this is simply a cut 'n' paste from the flat earthers' hero Samuel Rowbotham.  And it's completely erroneous—as is 99% of all Rowbotham's other pseudo-science.  It never ceases to amaze me (and give me a good laugh at the same time) how flat earthers such as cikljamas blindly accept as truth the nonsensical 150-year-old ramblings of a snake-oil salesman in preference to 21st-century science.

Then again, every comment posted by cikljamas shows an inexplicable acceptance of combined quasi-religious/quack science beliefs rolled into one massively distorted world view.  He seems to be totally out of touch with reality, or suffering from some major delusional disorder.

Unless he can comment with scientific logic and facts relevant to the 21st-century, the vast majority of his claims can be dismissed without further argument.


*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #406 on: December 18, 2014, 04:56:17 AM »
1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :



2. From a pen of one another author:

For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.

3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:



Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:

Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:

Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?

So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?

So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!

Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!

4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.

5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127

6.  A movie clip : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Pay attention to this comment:

placeksue via Google + 6 months ago:
 
This is a PERFECT movie for those that want to know what TRANSHUMANISM is about.....YOU will be TRUMAN ....and the rest are your actors TODAY on CNN/FOX/presidents/queen/vatican.....but when they get rid of who they want and chip the zombie dumbied down DNA....voila....New World Order. I suppose for many they don't care....mostly because they are already zombies, they actually think their football, baseball, sports are REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well since they already are sleeping, its only for those that don't WANT to go to sleep with Bush Senior and company of nazi's

7. I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html

8. WAKE UP!!!

9. If you still refuse to wake up, then i must admit that i am very curious about what would be your possible answer to this very question : Why are you still defending such a garbage of a theory??? Or should i let Brad Pitt to put a question to ausGeoff: #t=2m46s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=2m46s

10. Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

Does this make any difference?

Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

If such was the conviction of Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of Pythagoras, and of Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth ? Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #407 on: December 18, 2014, 06:29:27 AM »
2. From a pen of one another author:

For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
Your concept about Polaris is mistaken. Polaris is not completely motionless in the sky. It has its own apparent orbit (it's the arc at the centre of the star trails below). If you can see Polaris through your tube all night while the Earth rotates then obviously it will remain visible in your tube throughout the year because the effect of Earth revolution is less noticeable than that of the Earth rotation.




4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
This is just a copy paste from ENaG right?
I think, therefore I am

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #408 on: December 18, 2014, 06:47:36 AM »
This is just a copy paste from ENaG right?

Of course it is.  ALL of the rubbish that cikljamas posts is.  I'm guessing he's not had an original thought in years, but hopefully for him that could change when he attains adulthood.  We can all live in hope?

For anybody bringing 150-year-old pseudoscience to a nominally science-based 21st-century forum, it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight LOL.


Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #409 on: December 18, 2014, 10:32:58 AM »
1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :
http://i.imgur.com/iFiQp2D.jpg
2. From a pen of one another author:
 I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth.
3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:
http://i.imgur.com/qfQjsfg.jpg
4.  The following diagram will show the arrangement.
5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg1645127
6.  A movie clip : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Pay attention to this comment:
7. I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html
8. WAKE UP!!!
9.  Or should i let Brad Pitt to put a question to ausGeoff: #t=2m46s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=2m46s
10. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute

1. Can you explain the purpose of the remote controls.
2. The astronomers are correct.
3. Your equator is still in the wrong place.
4. Where is the diagram?
5. A link to more random stuff that has been addressed.
6. No.
7. Aliens are at least possible.
8. Ok.
9. What's in the box?
10. Lot's of stuff. Let's just go with the part about "a force more than sufficient to kill every everyone".  Since you have gone to the effort of rigging up pipes to view through, here's another device you can make.  Mount a ball onto a pole, but allowing it to be spun, with a rod coming off it with another smaller ball on the end of that.  Spin the larger ball at a rate allowing the smaller ball to make one revolution per year.  Might I suggest having a calender on hand to keep track of time.  If, after only a few hours, you think the force upon the smaller ball is enough to kill everyone, let us know.  Or keep spinning it slowly for a few more hours or days.  Feel free to report back with results.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #410 on: December 18, 2014, 12:09:34 PM »
1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :



What is the purpose of this instrument? Why does the material it's made of matter?

Quote
2. From a pen of one another author:

For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period.

The field of view sighting through this tube with the observer's eye centered at one end would be just slightly over 1°. Polaris is currently at declination 89°19'40", or 0°40'20" = 0.672° from the North Celestial Pole (NCP)[nb]According to Stellarium, Polaris was more than 1° from the pole 100 years ago; in 1848 it was 1.5° from it.[/nb]. This means it would appear to have moved 1.34° from the original point 12 hours later. If we relax the requirement that the observer's eye be centered at his end, we can double the "field of regard" (the total field that can be seen, although not necessarily all at the same time) to twice the FOV, or just over 2°. In order for Polaris to be continually visible, the tube must be aligned close to the NCP and observer's eye must look through the tube at an angle[nb]Polaris could just barely skirt around the very edge when viewed from the edge of the author's sight tube early in the 20th century if it were exactly aligned to the NCP. When did this supposedly take place?[/nb]. Remember this.

Quote
The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations.

Argument from incredulity. What "practical calculations" are those?

Quote
Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.

Nope. The author expects us to believe it's possible to discern parallax of much less than one second of arc using an uncalibrated sight tube with a FOV of about 1° and FOR of about 2°.

Quote
3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:



I'm not sure I see how that illustration is supposed to show much of anything. The equator is also mislocated; haven't we seen this before, and commented about it then, too? You keep reposting junk. Please stop.

Quote
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:

Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:

Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator [as what?] we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
Does that somewhat incoherent statement mean that Polaris, about 0.7° from the pole (41' is a bit less than 0.7°; where did 0.8° come from?) should be at culmination geometrically 0.7' above the horizon from the equator at the local stroke of New Year's Day? It's not.

Polaris has a geometric elevation of 0°21'29" (0.36°) at 2015/01/01 00:00:00 UTC from 0° longitude on the equator. Stellarium estimates its apparent (refracted) elevation to be 0°47'17" viewed from sea level at that location and time. At culmination (20:09:27, almost 4 hours earlier) , Stellarium predicts Polaris will have an apparent elevation angle of 1°03'54" at the equator and just barely be above the horizon at about latitude S 1°13' then.

Almost half a year later (1 July 00:00:00 UTC - not 1 June), Polaris is on the opposite side of the pole as it was at midnight Jan 1. about 30' below the horizon geometrically and 2' above it with refraction.

Quote
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?

So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!

Yes, seeing Polaris at all from 1° south latitude requires it to be offset from the pole. Atmospheric refraction alone isn't going to do it.

Quote
Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!

Polaris is not going to be visible from S 12° from within 50 miles of the surface. Period. Who said it was - other than some unattributed mid 19th-century newspaper article of questionable veracity?

Quote
4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.

Has anyone tried to carry out the aforementioned experiment? How did they align the two tubes? What are their diameters? Do you remember the part above where  a non-centered eye will cause the FOV to shift? What was done to eliminate this source of error? Do you know how far a star will appear to move at sidereal rate in 1 second? [ans: about 1/4 of one minute of arc, or about 1/240 of 1°] How closely coaligned were those two tubes again?

Quote
<re-hash and woo>
Quote
10. Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

Does this make any difference?

And you bring this old stuff up yet again. Debunked several times already. Please stop.

Quote
Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

If such was the conviction of Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of Pythagoras, and of Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth ? Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."


Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."

Citation needed.
 
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #411 on: December 19, 2014, 12:25:07 AM »
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA

The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

Let's take a closer look at above sentence and the meaning of these words.

If the Earth moved in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit, and even if we allowed that HC bull shit assumption (regarding "endless" distances of the stars) is true, what kind of change we would be able to observe in the sky, anyway?

1. This information comes from World Almanac. The distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years...

2. Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years

3. Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08. Located around 131 light years away from Earth

4. At magnitude 4.95. the dimmest of the seven stars of the Little Dipper is Eta Ursae Minoris. An F-type main sequence star of spectral type F5V, it is 97 light-years distant. It is double the Sun's diameter and is 1.4 times as massive and shines with 7.4 times its luminosity. Nearby Zeta lies 5.00-magnitude Theta Ursae Minoris. Located around 855 light-years distant.

5. The Orion nebula is located at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years

6. Casiopeia is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way.

7. The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation.

So, for example, Casiopeia constellation is 11 000 ly away from us, and the distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years, and while the Earth whirls in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit around the Sun there is no change in relative position of the stars (for the observer on the Earth) due to their very different distances from the Earth???

Quote
" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."

To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.

If you can buy this utter nonsense, go ahead, buy it, all i can do is to repeat once more: Not one sane person will ever buy this crap of a theory which is utter insult to the dignity of every man on the Earth!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

"      HONEST AND NOBLE CONFESSIONS.
When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary and central position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we can ours, in adition to which they have the evidence of their senses, and SCRIPTURE and FACTS in their favour. WHICH WE HAVE NOT : it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system .... However perfect our theory may appear in our estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth that, IF OUR PREMISES BE DISPUTED AND OUR FACTS CHALLENGED, THE WHOLE RANGE OF ASTRONOMY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROOFS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.— Dr. Woodhouse, a late Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge."

Those who believe the plain and provable facts of the Bible are set down as lunatics, but the above shows where the lunacy really lies. John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the men of the modern astronomical school, although most of his followers do. In his Journal he writes :

"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth, some affirm it lo be only three, and others ninety millions of miles."

Gravitation is a clever illustration of the art of hocus-pocus—heads I win, tails you lose ; Newton won his fame, and the people lost their senses.

Lord Beaconsfield wisely said—"A subject or system that will not bear discussion is doomed." Both Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an " exact science," yea, according to them, " the most exact of all the sciences."

I shall just add the vigorous testimony of Gothe: "It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."

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

I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."
" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.

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

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

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #412 on: December 19, 2014, 02:10:08 AM »
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA
This has been debunked in the same page. Stop bringing old stuff again and again.


The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

Let's take a closer look at above sentence and the meaning of these words.

If the Earth moved in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit, and even if we allowed that HC bull shit assumption (regarding "endless" distances of the stars) is true, what kind of change we would be able to observe in the sky, anyway?

1. This information comes from World Almanac. The distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years...

2. Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years

3. Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08. Located around 131 light years away from Earth

4. At magnitude 4.95. the dimmest of the seven stars of the Little Dipper is Eta Ursae Minoris. An F-type main sequence star of spectral type F5V, it is 97 light-years distant. It is double the Sun's diameter and is 1.4 times as massive and shines with 7.4 times its luminosity. Nearby Zeta lies 5.00-magnitude Theta Ursae Minoris. Located around 855 light-years distant.

5. The Orion nebula is located at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years

6. Casiopeia is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way.

7. The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation.

So, for example, Casiopeia constellation is 11 000 ly away from us, and the distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years, and while the Earth whirls in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit around the Sun there is no change in relative position of the stars (for the observer on the Earth) due to their very different distances from the Earth???
And if you had done your home work, you could have found the following analogy:
  • Earth orbit diameter = 300 million km
  • One light year = 9.5 million million km
So observing a star located 1 ly away from the moving Earth is like observing an object 31.5 km away while you move one meter!

If it is 68 or 210 ly then just multiply that by the same factor.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2014, 02:50:24 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #413 on: December 19, 2014, 10:17:33 AM »
Even if the Earth were round, but UNTILTED a day would be the same amount of time everywhere on earth!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.320#.VJPd3iAA

Read the replies. None of this is going to change. Please stop reposting this old stuff.

Quote
The shapes of "constellations" don't change over thousands of years.

Let's take a closer look at above sentence and the meaning of these words.

If the Earth moved in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit, and even if we allowed that HC bull shit assumption (regarding "endless" distances of the stars) is true, what kind of change we would be able to observe in the sky, anyway?

1. This information comes from World Almanac. The distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years...

2. Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years

3. Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08. Located around 131 light years away from Earth

4. At magnitude 4.95. the dimmest of the seven stars of the Little Dipper is Eta Ursae Minoris. An F-type main sequence star of spectral type F5V, it is 97 light-years distant. It is double the Sun's diameter and is 1.4 times as massive and shines with 7.4 times its luminosity. Nearby Zeta lies 5.00-magnitude Theta Ursae Minoris. Located around 855 light-years distant.

5. The Orion nebula is located at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years

6. Casiopeia is approximately 11,000 light-years (3.4 kpc) away from us in the Milky Way.

7. The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation.

So, for example, Casiopeia constellation is 11 000 ly away from us, and the distance to the main stars of the Big Dipper ranges from about 68 light-years (ly) to about 210 light-years, and while the Earth whirls in it's 300 000 000 km wide orbit around the Sun there is no change in relative position of the stars (for the observer on the Earth) due to their very different distances from the Earth???
This is very interesting. As you point out, even "near" stars and "deep sky" objects are far away, so they don't visibly move due to parallax from the Earth's orbit except when very carefully measured, and then the nearest ones are seen to move very, very slightly. How many times do you have to be told this? The proper motion of stars appears very small to us (because they are so far away) so they don't appear to move relative to each other except over vast periods of time. Because of this the constellations haven't changed shape appreciably over recorded history.

What in the list above disagrees with that?

You might want to check your distance to Cassiopaea, though. Like the other constellations, her stars are at varying distances from earth; Wikipedia says the nearest, η Cas (Achird), is about 20 LY away - closer than others you listed, but by no means the closest star. The bright radio source Cas A, a supernova remnant, is on the order of the distance you gave for the whole constellation. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Calling something bullshit doesn't mean it is. Why are you so angry?

Quote
Quote
<more stale quotes>

Already dealt with.

Quote
If you can buy this utter nonsense, go ahead, buy it, all i can do is to repeat once more: Not one sane person will ever buy this crap of a theory which is utter insult to the dignity of every man on the Earth!

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Your comment will be given all the consideration it deserves. Have a nice day.

Quote
<more stale quotes>

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

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

"Parallax" [Rowbotham] believed a lot of things that were wrong. His book "Zetetic Astronomy" is Chock Full o'ErrorsTM and misinformation; relying on this book for anything other than its entertainment value is a mistake.

Alchemy died away because it was based on the wrong model - its foundation was that elements could be transmuted into other elements using chemical reactions. It failed utterly in its intended purposes, among them turning common metals into valuable ones, but served the noble purpose of being the predecessor to chemistry, and many of the former's careful lab experiments and observations became basis for the latter. Chemistry is based on a better model and has produced phenomenal results, including better living

Little-known facts: Isaac Newton's day job for much of his life was alchemy. His much better known (and far more successful) work in physics and invention of the calculus was a sideline. In later life he was assigned to be Master of the Royal Mint, brought in to solve problems with counterfeiting, which he did successfully. Did you ever wonder why many coins have milled edges? Newton's idea. He's also credited by some with inventing paper currency while he was Master of the Royal Mint.

At any rate, alchemy died out because it wasn't based on a sound idea (even though Newton himself believed in it; he didn't know what we have learned since, and science will replace inadequate models with better ones, no matter who believed in the old one). The spherical model of earth does not have this shortcoming; this is continually and independently verified in many ways, so it's unlikely to die out anytime soon (if ever). If a better model is found, it can displace the spheroidal Earth, but to do that it has to explain all the observations already neatly explained by the current model at least as well, and at least some of them better. This will be a tall order, and nothing presented by those proposing a flat earth comes remotely close. How do sunsets work on a flat earth, again?

Have you considered typing less and reading and listening more? I'd suggest finding better material to read than long-debunked mid-nineteenth-century pseudoscience if you want to learn about life, the universe, and everything.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #414 on: December 20, 2014, 01:32:54 AM »
Have you considered typing less and reading and listening more? I'd suggest finding better material to read than long-debunked mid-nineteenth-century pseudoscience if you want to learn about life, the universe, and everything.

Unfortunately, if cikljamas were to do just this, his whole belief system would crumble in a matter of minutes.  He seems to revel in living in the past, along with its antiquated science and ignorance of the universe beyond the earth's atmosphere.  Bear in mind that in cikljamas's favoured period in science, radio wasn't invented, now were airplanes or radar or telephones.

The poor guy must be totally confounded by GPS, television, cellphones, DVDs, computers etc.  I'm actually surprised that he's even been able to hook up with an ISP, and set up a router, and use a PC and keyboard—considering his absolute dismissal of 21st century science.  Then again, it doesn't surprise me at all whenever rabid conspiracy theorists choose to conveniently ignore anything that's at odds with their conspiracy of the day.

And cikljamas doesn't actually type much himself. Zero original thought.  Most of "his" comments are simply those of others collectively culminating in his regular tsunamis of copypasta.

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #415 on: December 20, 2014, 02:46:28 AM »
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?

Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:

Noun: SHILL

A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others

Act as a SHILL:

"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).

Fuck you NASA employees!

Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!

As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.

Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #416 on: December 20, 2014, 03:39:01 AM »
Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!

Particularly for providing unequivocal proof that the flat earthers have absolutely no idea about mathematics, astronomy, geophysics, astrophysics, jet propulsion and satellites, radio communications, astronautics, logic, or even common sense.

And I'd also like to offer special "thanks" to cikljamas for exactly the same attributes.  Well done boys!  Keep up the stupidity in 2015.    ;D

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28262
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #417 on: December 20, 2014, 04:24:15 AM »
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?

Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:

Noun: SHILL

A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others

Act as a SHILL:

"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).

Fuck you NASA employees!

Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!

As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.

Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
They are running scared of you. That's why the attacks on you are getting more frequent. The attempted ridicule of your work, almost to frenzy status by the usual suspects is, or should be telling to all who have the ability to use their heads.

Don't give up with these clowns. Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.


*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #418 on: December 20, 2014, 05:59:36 AM »
I have proved that the Earth is flat beyond any reasonable doubt, and i did it by using broken english!!! You shills should be terribly ashamed bearing in mind that fact, but you don't even know the true meaning of that word (a shame), do you?

Now, shall we check the true meaning of one another word:

Noun: SHILL

A decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others

Act as a SHILL:

"The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).

Fuck you NASA employees!

Oh, i forgot to wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


Special thanks goes to SAROS and SCEPTIMATIC!

As for NASA employees: Enjoy your lunacy, that's all you've got, i just hope that you are payed well, because you are doing a good job as a professional shills.

Mahalia Jackson - Joy to the World (Vinyl, 1962) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Tom Jones - I'll Be Home For Christmas - 1970 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Michael Bublé Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
KLM Wishing you a Magical Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

HELIOCENTRICITY DEBUNKED : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
They are running scared of you. That's why the attacks on you are getting more frequent. The attempted ridicule of your work, almost to frenzy status by the usual suspects is, or should be telling to all who have the ability to use their heads.

Don't give up with these clowns. Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.

Scepti, i don't give up, i am still here with you!!!

Great croatian singers sing just for you:

JACQUES HOUDEK - Christmas in New York (2011) : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
CHRISTMAS WALTZ - TOMISLAV MUŽEK - VIP HNK CHRISTMAS CONCERT 2013 : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Marko Tolja & Olja'zz band - Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Special addition:

I'll be seeing you & Learnin' the blues sung by Tomislav Mužek : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Marko Tolja - A Song For You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 06:02:11 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #419 on: December 20, 2014, 06:22:01 AM »
They are running scared of you.
Of course we are, he posted a Michael Bublé video.

Quote
Your input is exceptional and is being taken in by those who can see the reality.
;)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.