|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 10, 2015 20:50:17 GMT
This is it. The one sticking point that prevents me from fully believing in the Flat Earth (at least the standard model that is presented) If you can solve this, I will be utterly delighted, because I have found NO Flat Earther that can explain it in a plausible way. So here goes: How can we see circular star trails in photos taken pointing towards the South? I just cannot fathom how you can stand on a far-Southern land mass and time lapse photograph a concentric set of circles surrounding Sigma Octantis? The photos look exactly like circular star trails taken at the North Pole.
At the North Pole, the stars move in concentric circles around Polaris, and as one moves South, this pattern of circles gets lower in the sky from the point of view of the observer. As you pass the 'equator', the stars move over head in an arch and Polaris disappears over the Northern horizon. This is due to perspective and the vanishing point of the observer. All this makes sense on the Flat Earth; but as you move further South and look towards the Southern direction from where you are standing, you will notice that the stars in the Southern sky once again begin to move in concentric circles around another star, Sigma Octantis. They move the opposite direction than the stars moving around Polaris, and they create concentric star trails the exact same way the stars do in the North. In other words, the stars in the night sky appear to move around TWO points, in axial motions. This is easily proven from the thousands of amateur photos of star trails taken from, say, Australia, camera pointing to the Southern skies.
Please could someone explain where the second rotation point comes from? I know Sigma Octantis is not the 'South pole star' in the same obvious sens that Polaris the North Pole Star, it is very dim compared to Polaris, Sigma O is not perfectly still in the sky, and actually traces a very small circle in the sky itself; but if you look at any photo of the Southern skies you can unmistakably see the same concentric circle pattern you see in the North. I simply see no way this is possible on a Flat Earth. This video is not made by me, but it presents the problem very well. To give an example of what I mean in photo form, this photo was taken by at The Very Large Telescope by the European Southern Observatory on Cerro Paranal in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. And this photo is the classic familiar sight of the circumpolar stars surrounding Polaris, the North Pole Star: I think as Flat Earth investigators we must realize this geometry of star patterns is a mystery from the Flat Earth model perspectuive, and try and think what could be creating the second axial point of motions in the Southern sky. With all due respect to Samuel Rowbotham, and all the other Classical Flat Earth writers, they didn't have the access to camera technology that we now have, and couldn't see the concentric circles in the South sky, moving around an axial point. It wasn't an issue for them, but sadly I have seen this used against the Flat Earth position many many times on the Internet, and no one appears do have a solution or a model that explains it. PLEASE HELP ME OUT! (not KICK me out like they did at IFERS for asking this question lol )
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 10, 2015 21:11:23 GMT
We have an entire thread on this. Polaris and the rotation of the stars. serendipitous.boards.net/thread/64/polaris-rotation-starsYou will not get kicked out, but check out that thread to see what we have been saying Some of us are very much with you and are trying to get a good model of explanation.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 10, 2015 21:16:08 GMT
We have an entire thread on this. Polaris and the rotation of the stars. serendipitous.boards.net/thread/64/polaris-rotation-starsYou will not get kicked out, but check out that thread to see what we have been saying Some of us are very much with you and are trying to get a good model of explanation. Excellant! I never saw a good answer for this on the FES forum (which perhaps doesn't mean much) and apart from sole chap called Tom Bishop on there, who had some theory about Celestial Gears, I didn't see even one serious attempt at an answer. It's a very tough challenge to the Flat Earth model, and whilst I am open to the Flat Earth Theory for many other reasons, this is something that ought to have a solution. After all, we can all SEE this stuff, it's not out the reaches of anyone here to actually examine this themselves. Thanks for the heads up about the other thread, Blessings, Phoenix
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 10, 2015 21:18:52 GMT
Oh I didn't say we had a good answer. I'm just as stumped as you are. But trying nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 10, 2015 21:30:30 GMT
Oh I didn't say we had a good answer. I'm just as stumped as you are. But trying nonetheless. No no, totally! Hey man, I am stumped on this and quite frankly I WANT to find a solution. I just cannot deny my senses and the Zetetic method should bear this out. :-)
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 12, 2015 1:19:24 GMT
Someone sent me this video today, it sums this issue up perfectly:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 1:40:18 GMT
OK now this guy actually proposes a good answer:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 2:02:26 GMT
Hmm, phoenixthezetete, I don't know almost anything about the stars but his reasoning sounds very familiar... no wonder LIT was busy in the last few hours. I think I know who made the video you posted...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 2:57:33 GMT
be sure to watch the video on the Coriolis effect
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 3:16:35 GMT
OK now this guy actually proposes a good answer: Yes, thanks, I didn't miss it. I hope we'll get comments from others who are more expert than me on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 3:18:58 GMT
It is VERY interesting. He is saying, basically, that this happens because the earth is NOT a flat ROUND mass...but a Flat SQUARE. Hence why the stars in the middle appear to travel STRAIGHT.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 12, 2015 7:27:44 GMT
It is VERY interesting. He is saying, basically, that this happens because the earth is NOT a flat ROUND mass...but a Flat SQUARE. Hence why the stars in the middle appear to travel STRAIGHT. Interesting idea. His reasoning that the globe has been gradually introduced first by accepting the existence of one pole and then later adding the other is very original. I don't really see any strong evidence for the existence of geographical poles either. Basically, they put them where they're now in relation to the sky and the Sun. That is how latitudes and longitudes work too. This allows for huge misconceptions. The early navigators sailed the world guided by the stars, the cartographers were mapping the world by latitude and longitude also bearing in mind the Sun's position and the starry sky. In fact, the surface cannot be visualized without having another reference point. That is why I am not sure the Earth is as big as they say it is. It is at least hypothetically possible that it is much, much bigger, but they have let us live and explore only a certain portion of it. We're stuck here due to our inability to navigate the rest of it. You can't draw a map without a reference point. That is why they needed the poles too. Pole are helpful when you draw maps, then you can have your latitudes and longitudes and you can have your globe, but that is just a model based on the assumption that the sky, the Sun and everything else up there constitutes what the surface is like. The person who posted the video suggests the Earth is a square, well, I am not sure it should be necessarily a square, but indeed the so-called equator might be a straight line and not a circle. Please note the above is mostly speculations.
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 12, 2015 11:55:53 GMT
@lit Haven't gotten to many of the videos yet so maybe the answer to what I'm about to ask is in them.
You said you don't see evidence for geographical poles. But I do see a northern magnetic pole that my compass points to. Is that explained in the vids? I will check them out. Did the powers that be put the magnet there?
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 12, 2015 12:10:12 GMT
jayjayThat was regarding the video posted by Lion. I don't see evidence for geographical poles, because it is just an abstraction based on the idea that there are latitudes and longitudes on a sphere. You can't have geographical poles on a flat disc. They calculate the location of the geographical poles based on their Sun path calculations, the stars and the idea that the Earth is a sphere. The magnetic poles have nothing to do with the geographical poles as they move all the time. People are often confused when they talk about the poles and they mention the word compass when in reality it has nothing to do with the geographical poles.
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 12, 2015 13:15:43 GMT
Ok, we're obviously on 2 different pages then. I won't jump back in till I can take the time to analyze the info.
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 12, 2015 18:43:24 GMT
New video about this... I'm gonna watch it know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 18:55:49 GMT
Yes, he talks quite a bit about "shills" in the last 3 minutes. I wonder who he is talking about. Given that we also have been called "shills".
|
|
|
Post by Heathen on Apr 12, 2015 19:16:34 GMT
Glad to find this topic here, I'll take a look at it later. This is the topic I made my first post on the other board, and where I was originally banned. All I wanted to do was move the discussion past some people accusing others of being shills. This is the biggest problem I have with the flat earth theory at this point so glad to find a discussion on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 19:25:33 GMT
Yeah, heathen, we know your experience: we had the same exact problem at IFERS, and got expelled for being "shills". Welcome to this free speech forum and thanks for joining us.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 12, 2015 20:36:43 GMT
Actually, I think starsandsouls doesn't understand the topic and is clearly unprepared. I am not trying to undermine his research, but that research amounts to reading a couple of wikipedia articles and making free interpretations. He might know his graphic design tools etc, but his conclusions are premature. Just because some people make youtube videos doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Any astronomer would laugh at his conclusions. Not because astronomers are shills, but because the guy is ignorant on the subject he is trying to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 12, 2015 20:37:14 GMT
Alright. Watched the coriolis video and found it interesting, but still trying to get a good model in my head about where the equator is in relation to the star movement, the land masses and the supposed edge of this square. They jumped from star movements to square pretty quickly without me grasping the idea. And I see what you are saying about the longitude latitude in relation to where a compass actually points. At about 5:20 in this video, it gives a bit of a clearer equator and stars image. Not a real one but easier to imagine than in the real time lapse from coriolis video. The video also suggests the pyramids are based on the shape of the Earth and we are seeing the stars reflect off the inside walls....I Think. Still digging and thinking on this possibility. Wouldn't be surprised if pyramid did have something to do with Earth shape. The controllers loves them some pyramids.
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 13, 2015 15:31:30 GMT
Alright. Watched the coriolis video and found it interesting, but still trying to get a good model in my head about where the equator is in relation to the star movement, the land masses and the supposed edge of this square. They jumped from star movements to square pretty quickly without me grasping the idea. And I see what you are saying about the longitude latitude in relation to where a compass actually points. At about 5:20 in this video, it gives a bit of a clearer equator and stars image. Not a real one but easier to imagine than in the real time lapse from coriolis video. The video also suggests the pyramids are based on the shape of the Earth and we are seeing the stars reflect off the inside walls....I Think. Still digging and thinking on this possibility. Wouldn't be surprised if pyramid did have something to do with Earth shape. The controllers loves them some pyramids. Well the pyramids only to their having 4 sides and a square bottom. And yeah, good video
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 16, 2015 0:53:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 16, 2015 6:51:29 GMT
He fails about one minute in by saying stars never set.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 16, 2015 8:00:34 GMT
He fails about one minute in by saying stars never set. I know...his video is so inaccurate and so packed with error it's hard to know where to begin. Needless to say, he doesn't even adress the actual pole star conundrum (which doesn't depend on the existence of two, bright pole stars, but rather concerns the two clear points around which the circumpolar stars move in concentric circles) Not a useful video in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 16, 2015 14:54:33 GMT
He fails about one minute in by saying stars never set. Wrong
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 16, 2015 14:55:04 GMT
He fails about one minute in by saying stars never set. I know...his video is so inaccurate and so packed with error it's hard to know where to begin. Needless to say, he doesn't even adress the actual pole star conundrum (which doesn't depend on the existence of two, bright pole stars, but rather concerns the two clear points around which the circumpolar stars move in concentric circles) Not a useful video in any way. Not useful to you in your globalist theory, but plenty useful to everyone else
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 16, 2015 15:02:23 GMT
I know...his video is so inaccurate and so packed with error it's hard to know where to begin. Needless to say, he doesn't even adress the actual pole star conundrum (which doesn't depend on the existence of two, bright pole stars, but rather concerns the two clear points around which the circumpolar stars move in concentric circles) Not a useful video in any way. Not useful to you in your globalist theory, but plenty useful to everyone else Well actually, I am agnostic on the shape of the Earth. I see evidence on both sides. But his video is useless because it's full of falsehood. And yet again a spokesman for the Flat Earth Theory manages to dodge what I consider to the be hardest challenge to the theory, the southern circumpolar stellar system.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixthezetete on Apr 16, 2015 15:05:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 16, 2015 15:06:43 GMT
phoenixthezeteteActually, it doesn't matter how the celestial phenomena work if we can prove somehow that the surface is flat. There is no need for any other proof really. Proving the surface of the oceans is flat would prove the Earth is flat, regardless of what we observe in the skies. It is irrelevant, if the surface is flat.
|
|