|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 9, 2015 14:32:48 GMT
Unless I missed something, you jumped away from the stars a little too quickly. My main concern is the Southern Cross. We've probably all seen the time lapsed footage of the stars rotating around the north star, but does the Southern Cross do the same? Is it visible from Australia, South America, and Africa directly south at the same time? Does it rotate around in the big circle or does it spin around in the same spot? Was this explained earlier and I missed it?
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 9, 2015 14:39:35 GMT
Unless I missed something, you jumped away from the stars a little too quickly. My main concern is the Southern Cross. We've probably all seen the time lapsed footage of the stars rotating around the north star, but does the Southern Cross do the same? Is it visible from Australia, South America, and Africa directly south at the same time? Does it rotate around in the big circle or does it spin around in the same spot? Was this explained earlier and I missed it? I provided some links at the beginning where you can find more information, but here is another one for you: Southern Cross |
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 9, 2015 14:52:35 GMT
Ok thanks, but this still poses a bit of a problem for me. The paragraph above the one you quoted states that it spins around in a circle as the year progresses, but from looking at flat earth model, should it not be a full earth diameter out of view 6 months after visibility? Still stumped if you can help me out would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 9, 2015 17:04:26 GMT
I know no one replied but I've been looking into it and my logic in the above post is a bit flawed. It would not disappear 6 months later but instead rise and set across the night sky. In which case, it spinning around in a circle in 1 yr is equally awkward. With all of the great CGI demos flat earthers have done is there one that explains the movement and visibility of the southern cross? Anybody on board with me here? I have been reading up on some past FES message boards and am having a hard time finding a logical explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 9, 2015 18:13:05 GMT
Found this time lapse of Southern Cross. It appears to have a visible axis towards bottom left of screen. Should the stars not do a full sweep across the sky in southern hemisphere if the axis is at the north pole? An apparent axis should not be this close to noticeable when looking at stars in south. Has this been explained in any Flat Earth Theory? Still confused over here. Help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 18:18:41 GMT
Someone who is informed on this please reply to him. I don't want to lose one of our active users who has the thinker's statue as his avatar. "The man on the rock", or similar. They told me that I am represented well by that statue, too. Because I like to sit on rocks facing the ocean and just think, for hours. Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable on stars, so we have to wait a little longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 9, 2015 18:57:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 9, 2015 18:58:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 9, 2015 20:14:21 GMT
Thanks for the article, got some further insight, and questions.
("Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star. It is scarcely polite to contradict the statements made, but it is certain that persons who have been educated to believe that the earth is a globe, going to the southern parts of the earth do not examine such matters critically. They see the stars move from towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied. But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute movements of the southern constellations")
The "special experiments" necessary, Have they been done? This is what I'm looking for, the real and absolute movements of southern constellations. At least a good model to help put it in perspective. Curious as to why this thorn in the side of Flat Earth isn't better explained.
("whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south--pole star included--sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning")
This is exactly what I am expecting to see in the video posted above, a sweep over a great southern arc. One that would leave and then come back 24hrs later after circling the great circumference of the Flat Earth. Is this article suggesting that there is a cluster spinning one way in addition to the sweep across the south. I can buy that but am very curious as to why we don't have visual confirmation. Should have been obtained and well documented somewhere. Someone tell that lottery winner to put this on the list. Not done looking into this. If anyone finds something else, conclusive or not, please post.
Thanks Again
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 9, 2015 20:43:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 9, 2015 21:16:12 GMT
Hi jayjay - I tried that on the other forum. I really had no information about how the stars move in the south and wanted better answers than I had already found from the standard FE sources. I asked but received no substantial answers to settle it for me. But there was a fellow who was from New Zealand who I was hoping to hear back from but then I was exiled. I don't know if he ever got my message, but I called for people from the Southern Hemisphere to study the movements of the stars and report back to us. Real-life information rather than from books.  |
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 9, 2015 22:29:50 GMT
Thanks matt, If you somehow hear back from New Zealand, see what he says about the stars down there. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 9, 2015 22:46:40 GMT
We need to attract members from the South. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 4:55:58 GMT
A very related video and interesting for us, albeit from a flat earth skeptic:
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 10, 2015 6:05:50 GMT
A very related video and interesting for us, albeit from a flat earth skeptic: Congratulations go to Steve this time. His concave Earth might be wrong, but his debunking of Eric's work is right on. That is what I don't like about this whole thing. So many "reasonable" people ignore facts and say they are fake or they simply manipulate them and say actually something else happens when it doesn't. That is disinformation. In fact, I remember a long time ago Wild Heretic said that the flat Earth map is wrong because of the flight times. Well, he is right. It doesn't mean the Earth is concave though. That is where they start making up stuff too. It seems the idea is to believe in anything but the standard model |
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 10, 2015 13:57:49 GMT
The problem with the standard model is not necessarily the shape they are trying to sell, but all the bull that comes with it. ex. Distance of sun and moon, we're spinning, rotating and flying through space at unbelievable speeds but being sucked in and stabilized by gravity, an unproven force. Distances were calculated by "If this is true, then how far would these objects need to be" formulations. Eric can't explain the stars but, he makes a good point when it comes to gravity simply being a property of density. You can prove this by putting an air filled balloon in the bottom of a pool and let go of it. It will accelerate upward until it reaches a terminal velocity then it reaches the surface, a density that changes its course. The opposite of what happens when you jump out of a plane. Objects may accelerate at similar speeds in the air but have different terminal velocities according to their density and the density of what they are inside of. You can shoot something downwards at a speed greater than its terminal velocity and it will slow down until it reaches TV.
The magnetic gravity illusion they are selling is not that hard for a non-skeptic to accept because you can have two magnets that will suck together until they are so far apart that the attraction disappears, but it is incredibly obvious that they are faking this effect in "space videos". Thanks for posting the video, definitely gives other avenues to examine.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 10, 2015 15:00:46 GMT
The problem with the standard model is not necessarily the shape they are trying to sell, but all the bull that comes with it. ex. Distance of sun and moon, we're spinning, rotating and flying through space at unbelievable speeds but being sucked in and stabilized by gravity, an unproven force. Distances were calculated by "If this is true, then how far would these objects need to be" formulations. Eric can't explain the stars but, he makes a good point when it comes to gravity simply being a property of density. You can prove this by putting an air filled balloon in the bottom of a pool and let go of it. It will accelerate upward until it reaches a terminal velocity then it reaches the surface, a density that changes its course. The opposite of what happens when you jump out of a plane. Objects may accelerate at similar speeds in the air but have different terminal velocities according to their density and the density of what they are inside of. You can shoot something downwards at a speed greater than its terminal velocity and it will slow down until it reaches TV. The magnetic gravity illusion they are selling is not that hard for a non-skeptic to accept because you can have two magnets that will suck together until they are so far apart that the attraction disappears, but it is incredibly obvious that they are faking this effect in "space videos". Thanks for posting the video, definitely gives other avenues to examine. I agree with your remarks. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 7:45:07 GMT
The moon being upside down in the southern hemisphere is not the only problem you will need to solve. ( Incidently the sun is also upside down in the SH as shown by sunspots.)
The moon cannot be seen in the southern hemisphere at times it can be seen in the north and visa versa. Same for the stars and the sun. Many of the stars in the northern hemisphere can never be seen in the southern hemisphere and visa versa
If the sun was a spotlight (what actually does that mean by the way) it would still be an object in space that blocks other objects and so it would be visible because it blocked the stars behind the sun unless the stars were all at the same height above earth as the sun.
Ordinary people are capable of measuring the approximate distance to the moon. The greeks did this by lighting fires on mountains, having an idea how far the mountains were apart and then measuring the angle to the moon from each mountain at the same moment in times as one mountain signalled the other. So the Greeks knew the moon was a relatively local object whereas with the sun the measured angles were apparently identical.
In principle an ordinary person can get an idea of how far away the sun is also, you just need access to the human made tools that enable you to have some idea how far away the sun is. For example a modern surveyors theodolite pointing at the sun can probably give you an angle to the edge of the sun with sufficient accuracy that can be compared to the same models angle at a known distance away. What it will show at least is that the sun is an incredibly long way away because the angles measured from each of the distant mountains are very very similar - unlike the moon which even the greeks could see was different at the same time from distant mountains.
Either way it would be easy to tell the Sun was not a local object and that it was a huge distance from the earth. And so forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 14, 2015 23:17:37 GMT
I know no one replied but I've been looking into it and my logic in the above post is a bit flawed. It would not disappear 6 months later but instead rise and set across the night sky. In which case, it spinning around in a circle in 1 yr is equally awkward. With all of the great CGI demos flat earthers have done is there one that explains the movement and visibility of the southern cross? Anybody on board with me here? I have been reading up on some past FES message boards and am having a hard time finding a logical explanation. I twent through a journey of painstakingly going through every flat earth forum, Youtube video and all comments, etc etc to try and figure out the so called Pole Stat conundrum. I found nothing of substance that explains it. Mark Sargent says the stars are projections, others ignore the problem or don't understand it. This video explains the biggest problem I have found with the Flat Earth Theory: Southern star trails...it's 2 minutes long, give it a watch. If something doesn't make sense about what is being said I it let me know, me and a friend put it together. |
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 14, 2015 23:38:46 GMT
Thanks man! It's a good video that sums up the issue perfectly. I am with you that it is impossible on the flat earth map, and other researchers should not be using northern star movement to prove flat if they can't explain the south movements. There are so many issues with accepting globe as well. One of the members pointed out that Rory Cooper thread is good for exploring this conundrum. As baffled as I am on this, I am not quitting on finding a better explanation than projection. Your work on this is much appreciated and if you come up with anything else, please let me know. Also, did you see the pyramid video I posted on other thread that you started? Might be a dead end, but answer might be at equator instead of poles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 15, 2015 2:36:02 GMT
I know no one replied but I've been looking into it and my logic in the above post is a bit flawed. It would not disappear 6 months later but instead rise and set across the night sky. In which case, it spinning around in a circle in 1 yr is equally awkward. With all of the great CGI demos flat earthers have done is there one that explains the movement and visibility of the southern cross? Anybody on board with me here? I have been reading up on some past FES message boards and am having a hard time finding a logical explanation. I twent through a journey of painstakingly going through every flat earth forum, Youtube video and all comments, etc etc to try and figure out the so called Pole Stat conundrum. I found nothing of substance that explains it. Mark Sargent says the stars are projections, others ignore the problem or don't understand it. This video explains the biggest problem I have found with the Flat Earth Theory: Southern star trails...it's 2 minutes long, give it a watch. If something doesn't make sense about what is being said I it let me know, me and a friend put it together. Wait a second here...something is not adding up. OK...So according to the video, if I am on the southern tip of South America, and I look UP I can see the stars rotating CLOCKWISE, so far so good. Now I move over to the southern tip of Africa, and I look UP, and I see the same stars rotating CLOCKWISE. WHAT is the problem with THAT? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 15, 2015 6:44:15 GMT
I twent through a journey of painstakingly going through every flat earth forum, Youtube video and all comments, etc etc to try and figure out the so called Pole Stat conundrum. I found nothing of substance that explains it. Mark Sargent says the stars are projections, others ignore the problem or don't understand it. This video explains the biggest problem I have found with the Flat Earth Theory: Southern star trails...it's 2 minutes long, give it a watch. If something doesn't make sense about what is being said I it let me know, me and a friend put it together. Wait a second here...something is not adding up. OK...So according to the video, if I am on the southern tip of South America, and I look UP I can see the stars rotating CLOCKWISE, so far so good. Now I move over to the southern tip of Africa, and I look UP, and I see the same stars rotating CLOCKWISE. WHAT is the problem with THAT? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 15, 2015 6:48:50 GMT
>>Wait a second here...something is not adding up. OK...So according to the video, if I am on the southern tip of South America, and I look UP I can see the stars rotating CLOCKWISE, so far so good. Now I move over to the southern tip of Africa, and I look UP, and I see the same stars rotating CLOCKWISE. WHAT is the problem with THAT?
There is no problem. All you see is that somewhere in the sky there is a central point. It will be in a different point in the sky depending where you are. The nearer you get to the poles the higher the point becomes. So in south america you might see it midway above the horizon and in the west and in south africa you will see it lower in the sky and but now it might be in the East
You can navigate with the stars so naturally they will be seen in different points of the sky depending upon where you are on
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 15, 2015 6:55:55 GMT
Wait a second here...something is not adding up. OK...So according to the video, if I am on the southern tip of South America, and I look UP I can see the stars rotating CLOCKWISE, so far so good. Now I move over to the southern tip of Africa, and I look UP, and I see the same stars rotating CLOCKWISE. WHAT is the problem with THAT? The problem is not just the motion: it's the fact that you can see this same pattern of concentric circles in front of you at those Southern locations. This is SO easily solved if you map the stars onto the Globe model: the stars fit seamlessly, whereas I cannot even imagine how they possibly fit on a flat system. Mark Sargent replied to me when I asked him and he basically said 'projections' but I dont buy it. If it is a projection, it seems calculated to make us believe the Earth is a Globe. I don't think the Creator is a deceiver. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 15, 2015 7:04:08 GMT
>>Wait a second here...something is not adding up. OK...So according to the video, if I am on the southern tip of South America, and I look UP I can see the stars rotating CLOCKWISE, so far so good. Now I move over to the southern tip of Africa, and I look UP, and I see the same stars rotating CLOCKWISE. WHAT is the problem with THAT? There is no problem. All you see is that somewhere in the sky there is a central point. It will be in a different point in the sky depending where you are. The nearer you get to the poles the higher the point becomes. So in south america you might see it midway above the horizon and in the west and in south africa you will see it lower in the sky and but now it might be in the East You can navigate with the stars so naturally they will be seen in different points of the sky depending upon where you are on 'All you see is that somewhere in the sky there is a central point' Well no actually the stellar circle patterns are visible at all those lattitides looking South, but if you look on the video, certain points are facing the opposite way to each other eg South America and Australia (on the flat map) so how on earth could you see the same pattern? According to perspective, you wouldn't even be able to see from one side of the flat earth sky 'dome' to the other, and you certainly can't see the Northern circumpolar system with Polaris from the South. The worst aspect of the problem is not only that no flat model seems to plausibly fit the stars; but that the globe model fits it perfectly. On the Globe, you can see the southern circumpolar star system from all those points in the south because they are all facing the South Pole. Which neatly explains the opposing motion of the North and South systems too. Samuel Rowbotham didn't deal with this issue because he evidently didn't see it. His section on stars in 'Earth Not a Globe' is outdated and palpably false. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 15, 2015 8:48:08 GMT
Thanks man! It's a good video that sums up the issue perfectly. I am with you that it is impossible on the flat earth map, and other researchers should not be using northern star movement to prove flat if they can't explain the south movements. There are so many issues with accepting globe as well. One of the members pointed out that Rory Cooper thread is good for exploring this conundrum. As baffled as I am on this, I am not quitting on finding a better explanation than projection. Your work on this is much appreciated and if you come up with anything else, please let me know. Also, did you see the pyramid video I posted on other thread that you started? Might be a dead end, but answer might be at equator instead of poles. Looking into the pyramid video bro. Will get back to you on that! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 15, 2015 10:55:55 GMT
Thanks man! It's a good video that sums up the issue perfectly. I am with you that it is impossible on the flat earth map, and other researchers should not be using northern star movement to prove flat if they can't explain the south movements. There are so many issues with accepting globe as well. One of the members pointed out that Rory Cooper thread is good for exploring this conundrum. As baffled as I am on this, I am not quitting on finding a better explanation than projection. Your work on this is much appreciated and if you come up with anything else, please let me know. Also, did you see the pyramid video I posted on other thread that you started? Might be a dead end, but answer might be at equator instead of poles. Looking into the pyramid video bro. Will get back to you on that! :-) Thank you phoenixthezetete - great video. That is what I was trying to get answers for at the other forum, but no one of expert quality would touch it. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 15, 2015 11:03:17 GMT
Looking into the pyramid video bro. Will get back to you on that! :-) Thank you phoenixthezetete - great video. That is what I was trying to get answers for at the other forum, but no one of expert quality would touch it. Yeah, right on. Me and my friend both got banned from IFERS for pushing this point and asking for a solution from the supposed 'Flat Earth Experts' and 'Flat Earth Specialists'. When my friend posted the video, his account was banned and thread removed. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 15, 2015 11:08:33 GMT
Maybe this questions sacres them. I don't know. I am still very sympathetic to Flat Earth Theory, and to be honest I still have a lot of issues with the Globe Model. There are strong proofs that the Earth may be flat, so I remain more or less agnostic on it at the moment.
If I see a plausible explanation for the star trails (and no, 'the stars are projections' doesn't cut it) I would take the Flat Model. But to be honest, I don't hold out much hope for a solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 15, 2015 11:08:50 GMT
Thank you phoenixthezetete - great video. That is what I was trying to get answers for at the other forum, but no one of expert quality would touch it. Yeah, right on. Me and my friend both got banned from IFERS for pushing this point and asking for a solution from the supposed 'Flat Earth Experts' and 'Flat Earth Specialists'. When my friend posted the video, his account was banned and thread removed. Really. Wow. For someone who claims to be waging a "just war" against the system, accusing those in authority of conspiracy and stifling the truth because it does not accord with the New World Order view, it seems that the same philosophy is held and the same kind of power wielded at the other forum. If someone is truly interested the finding truth, they should not be afraid of it, or afraid of honest, sincere questioning. |
|
