The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Anorthosite on August 29, 2010, 06:12:51 AM
-
How do the stars rotate around both the north and south pole on a flat earth? This is easily tested by taking photographs in the northern & southern hemispheres of the night sky.
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
This argument is a perfect example of why FE is in the fail bin ;)
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
This argument is a perfect example of why FE is in the fail bin ;)
This not an argument, it's a stated fact.
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
This argument is a perfect example of why FE is in the fail bin ;)
This not an argument, it's a stated fact.
What is a stated fact? Everything in your reply is absolute bullshit and the TS's is not.
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
This argument is a perfect example of why FE is in the fail bin ;)
This not an argument, it's a stated fact.
What is a stated fact? Everything in your reply is absolute bullshit and the TS's is not.
It's a stated fact that what FEer believes is absolute bullshit. Can't you people read? I said what FEers believe nothing more. I made no attempt to justify it and, if you read, I gave the impression that what they believe is completely arbitrary and worthless.
-
My bad. Noted, should read properly and not skim next time.
-
My bad. Noted, should read properly and not skim next time.
Good point. I find that spending proper time reading through the site reviewing relevant data to any OP concern proposed or followup response makes good sense.
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
This argument is a perfect example of why FE is in the fail bin ;)
This not an argument, it's a stated fact.
Beliefs are not facts. And I wasn't referring to your reply within the context you have posted. I was referring to arguments FE'rs use :)
-
FET has not come to a conclusion on the subject but basically, whatever you want. Some kind of unknown force moves the stars around and since stars aren't giant balls of gas burning billions of miles away, it's easy.
Two popular ideas are the sky mirror and celestial gears. In both cases the sky of each hemisphere is only visible when you're in that hemisphere and they both rotate around separate points.
Nothing can or ever will be proven mind you but that's why it's a popular theory for FEers: You can't disprove it without resorting to using NASA and that's not acceptable to Flat Earthers.
This argument is a perfect example of why FE is in the fail bin ;)
This not an argument, it's a stated fact.
Beliefs are not facts. And I wasn't referring to your reply within the context you have posted. I was referring to arguments FE'rs use :)
Ahhh ok. I misunderstood.
-
So how about an explanation from a FEer?
-
So how about an explanation from a FEer?
I'm still waiting! ;D
-
So how about an explanation from a FEer?
I'm still waiting! ;D
You won't get one. Many threads like this end up with no comment from FEs despite many bumpings. Given that their primary axiom is that the earth is flat, anything unexplained just boils down to 'we don't know yet' instead of 'perhaps RE is true instead as it explains this phenomena'
-
I don't know what happened to the Sky Gears, or Celestial gears, you know, the ones rotating the skies...?
Were they dismissed or what?
-
I don't know what happened to the Sky Gears, or Celestial gears, you know, the ones rotating the skies...?
Were they dismissed or what?
I think, because it cannot be answered in the FE realm, it will be conveniently ignored.
Berny
Do Celestial Gears need Grease?
-
all gears eventually need to be lubricated,
and due to the harshness of absolute zero, i would think they would need it often.
-
all gears eventually need to be lubricated,
and due to the harshness of absolute zero, i would think they would need it often.
Where is it absolute zero?
-
I see no reason why they wouldn't rotate like that. Care to clarify the question?
-
I see no reason why they wouldn't rotate like that. Care to clarify the question?
Because at some point the stars would be rotating around in a different direction. Nowhere has this been observed.
It is without question that the stars rotate around 2 fixed points - one in the Celestial North, one in the Celestial South. The current viewpoint FET has proposed is that the stars rotate around a single fixed point - the Celestial North, or more accurately The Central Hub.
Berny
Pointed this out many times
-
I don't know what happened to the Sky Gears, or Celestial gears, you know, the ones rotating the skies...?
Were they dismissed or what?
They were disproved due to continuity of observation from different points on the earths surface.
-
So is that a gap in FET?
-
So is that a gap in FET?
Seems like it, I cant find any explanation for it
-
Anyone gonna take a shot at this ???
-
Anyone gonna take a shot at this ???
The only Victories RE gets is when FE is unable to explain something and then leave it be.
So this is
Victory for REish in the celestial night sky.
I placed ish in there because it does not prove that the earth is round so much as the sky as explained in Rowbothan's, and the general FE explanations do not fit with what actually occurs.
Berny
We are still waiting.
-
Anyone gonna take a shot at this ???
The only Victories RE gets is when FE is unable to explain something and then leave it be.
So this is
Victory for REish in the celestial night sky.
I placed ish in there because it does not prove that the earth is round so much as the sky as explained in Rowbothan's, and the general FE explanations do not fit with what actually occurs.
Berny
We are still waiting.
Another angle would be that while it is a reason in waiting it is also a pending FE Victory.
-
Anyone gonna take a shot at this ???
The only Victories RE gets is when FE is unable to explain something and then leave it be.
So this is
Victory for REish in the celestial night sky.
I placed ish in there because it does not prove that the earth is round so much as the sky as explained in Rowbothan's, and the general FE explanations do not fit with what actually occurs.
Berny
We are still waiting.
Another angle would be that while it is a reason in waiting it is also a pending FE Victory.
Nope - if FE cannot explain it - and RE can, then it is obviously an RE victory.
Berny
Was there not an answer?
-
Dr. Bishop has an explanation. Perhaps he will notice the thread and respond. Perhaps not. In any event, the earth is still flat.
-
Dr. Bishop has an explanation. Perhaps he will notice the thread and respond.
Mr. Bishop's explanation includes side effects which have never been observed.
-
Dr. Bishop has an explanation. Perhaps he will notice the thread and respond. Perhaps not. In any event, the earth is still flat.
Ski sent me a very rough explanation. I think someone who can doodle and make images should get hold of him because what I got needed a very graphic diagram.
And right - what I have stated so far with the stars etc is that they do not follow the current FE theories of the night skies. As I stated in another post - It is not up to FE to provide the facts, they won't - its up to RE to find the fallacies and pounce on them.
Berny
Pounced.
-
How do the stars rotate around both the north and south pole on a flat earth? This is easily tested by taking photographs in the northern & southern hemispheres of the night sky.
Well, from what I can gather with this FET, there must be two sets of star charts held up by invisible ropes and hidden from each other by an imaginary dark wall. One in the northern hemisphere, the centre of their flat world. The other in the southern hemisphere...No, that just wouldn't work. More proof that the real believers of flat earth have lost their brollies...
-
Still waiting on some sort of logical explanation. As Berny said it seems a diagram would be very helpful here
-
While I support the UN map as far as explaining basic travel and circumnavigation, I believe that, in truth, the earth may be laid out in a manner similar to a dual Azimuthal Projection, this map:
(http://i41.tinypic.com/1zyzfxf.png)
On this model Antarctica exists as a continent. While there is still an Ice Wall, it is not Antarctica.
There are two celestial poles. One set of stars is rotating above the North Pole, and another set of stars is rotating above the South Pole.
-
And we get to the same old problem, if those sets of stars are circular, there would be zones where they overlap, or fuse, or something, making stars disappear into the dark, or ones crossing with the others. Also, we could find dark patches with no stars in the places those circles bend down.
I don't know if i'm making my point XD
-
Even if the Earth where flat - I do consider that Antarctica exists as a discrete continent. I also think that there is no conclusive evidence of an "icewall" - and I am fairly sure there are some FE'ers who believe that as well.
The dual azimuthal projection problem with two sets of celestial stars I think is also false. The only explanation that ever came close to coming up with something credible was from Ski. As I said earlier I will wait for him to present it if he wishes.
Berny
You know - I never had a snow day from school - and now they happen all the time.
-
And we get to the same old problem, if those sets of stars are circular, there would be zones where they overlap, or fuse, or something, making stars disappear into the dark, or ones crossing with the others. Also, we could find dark patches with no stars in the places those circles bend down.
I don't know if i'm making my point XD
Dont worry you made your point clear and you actually beat me to it. There would be constant blank areas using this map if the star sets are circles.
-
Anything to help explain this?
-
Anything to help explain this?
No, this is one of the holes in FE theory that has so far proved unsolvable, whereas the very simple RE explanation fits observations perfectly. And there's a reason for that. ;)