The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: herewegoround on February 15, 2015, 03:46:37 AM

Title: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 15, 2015, 03:46:37 AM
There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South at any given location. There is no flat Earth model that can account for that, any that obey all the known laws of geometry that is. The only flat Earth believer that even responded to this point just denied that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. That is dishonesty on an epic scale.

Can any flat Earth proponent explain the circumpolar stars?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 15, 2015, 06:01:50 AM
They have been asked this many times (including by me) and in more than two years I've never seen any of them be able to answer that.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 15, 2015, 09:53:31 AM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book? 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 15, 2015, 09:58:28 AM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book?

Oh yeah, it's not like there are milions of people (like me) who regularly rely on RE predictions when looking at space with telescopes and stuff.  If a reliable astronomy site on the Internet told me that the sky would look completely different then it actually did then I would get suspicious, but that has never happened to me and I am sure that even with just observations from people on this forum we could prove that circumpolar stars are a real thing.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 15, 2015, 01:13:59 PM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book?

I've seen it. I have observed stars rotation in both hemispheres and furthermore I have witnessed the operation of "go to" telescopes, which prove the angular distance between stars remains the same at all times of night.
Your attempt to slow down the thread by taking a dump on the floor has failed.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mainframes on February 15, 2015, 01:16:16 PM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book?

I am a keen astronomer so yes this has been seen.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 15, 2015, 02:20:44 PM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book?

I've seen it in both hemispheres. So is it valid now?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 15, 2015, 02:35:12 PM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book?
So the Conspiracy's publicizing readily falsifiable and trivially testable information now?

May we assume from your answer that you think that if the existence of these stars may be verified, the Earth is round?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 16, 2015, 03:56:50 AM
Did you actually see this, or is it just something that you read out of a book?

Personally I have never seen it with my own eyes. I have never seen the Statue of Liberty with my own eyes either but I don't doubt its existence. Do you seriously think that a lie of that proportion could be maintained? That nobody living in the Southern Hemisphere would ever notice? That all the professional astronomers in the world are either too stupid to notice or are colluding in a conspiracy? Is that what you are suggesting?

As someone else pointed out, can we assume that you accept that the Earth must be round if there are circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere? Or do you have a flat Earth model that could explain it? I can answer that, you don't. It's geometrically impossible.

So, please clarify your position.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: charles bloomington on February 16, 2015, 04:35:57 AM
There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South at any given location. There is no flat Earth model that can account for that, any that obey all the known laws of geometry that is. The only flat Earth believer that even responded to this point just denied that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. That is dishonesty on an epic scale.

Can any flat Earth proponent explain the circumpolar stars?
stars planets & moons are all reflected pogections. There's no out of space , there's only earth
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mainframes on February 16, 2015, 04:53:51 AM
There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South at any given location. There is no flat Earth model that can account for that, any that obey all the known laws of geometry that is. The only flat Earth believer that even responded to this point just denied that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. That is dishonesty on an epic scale.

Can any flat Earth proponent explain the circumpolar stars?
stars planets & moons are all reflected pogections. There's no out of space , there's only earth

What are they reflections of? What is doing the reflecting?

And where is your evidence?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: cikljamas on February 16, 2015, 05:27:16 AM
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. Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; 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. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.

MM. Von Spix and Karl Von Martius, in their account of -their scientific travels in Brazil, in 1817-1820, relate that "on the 15th of June, in latitude 14° S, we beheld, for the first time, that glorious constellation of the southern heavens, the Cross, which is to navigators a token of peace, and, according to its position, indicates the hours of the night. We had long wished for this constellation as a guide to the other hemisphere; we therefore felt inexpressible pleasure when we perceived it in the resplendent firmament."


The great traveller Humboldt says:--

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. More especially ought it to be at all times visible when the nearest star belonging to it is considerably nearer to the so-called "pole star of the south" than is the nearest of the stars in the "Great Bear" to the pole star of the north. Humboldt did not see the Southern Cross until he was in the 16th latitude south, and then it was "strongly inclined," showing that it was rising in the east, and sharing in the general sweep of the stars from east to west, in common with the whole firmament of stars moving round the pole star of the northern region.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it.

The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm)

Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: charles bloomington on February 16, 2015, 05:43:51 AM
There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South at any given location. There is no flat Earth model that can account for that, any that obey all the known laws of geometry that is. The only flat Earth believer that even responded to this point just denied that there are circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. That is dishonesty on an epic scale.

Can any flat Earth proponent explain the circumpolar stars?
stars planets & moons are all reflected pogections. There's no out of space , there's only earth


What are they reflections of? What is doing the reflecting?

And where is your evidence?
There reflection & projections of greater earth / charged electro static plasma  particals in a vacuum environment. Clonation photon reaction enhancement adding to clarity.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 16, 2015, 07:13:43 AM
These videos show the circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. They are rotating clockwise as expected.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Are you going to suggest that all the people who posted these videos are part of a conspiracy?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 16, 2015, 07:17:54 AM
These videos show the circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. They are rotating clockwise as expected.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Are you going to suggest that all the people who posted these videos are part of a conspiracy?

I only watched the first one, but it looks like they used a fish eye lens to me. 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 16, 2015, 07:25:59 AM
These videos show the circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. They are rotating clockwise as expected.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Are you going to suggest that all the people who posted these videos are part of a conspiracy?

I only watched the first one, but it looks like they used a fish eye lens to me.

How would a fish eye lens make the stars look like they are rotating? Are you seriously suggesting that there are no circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 16, 2015, 07:29:54 AM
These videos show the circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. They are rotating clockwise as expected.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Are you going to suggest that all the people who posted these videos are part of a conspiracy?

I only watched the first one, but it looks like they used a fish eye lens to me.

How would a fish eye lens make the stars look like they are rotating? Are you seriously suggesting that there are no circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere?

Why would they distort the video by using a fish eye lens unless they were trying to hide something? 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 16, 2015, 07:32:04 AM
These videos show the circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. They are rotating clockwise as expected.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Are you going to suggest that all the people who posted these videos are part of a conspiracy?

I only watched the first one, but it looks like they used a fish eye lens to me.
Pretty sure that excuse only works for seeing curvature. Unless you're saying that the lens now makes things rotate.
Look up fisheye lenses: they're used for wide-angle views. And it still doesn't explain the rotation. Please answer the questions posed to you.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 16, 2015, 07:35:17 AM
These videos show the circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere. They are rotating clockwise as expected.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Are you going to suggest that all the people who posted these videos are part of a conspiracy?

I only watched the first one, but it looks like they used a fish eye lens to me.

How would a fish eye lens make the stars look like they are rotating? Are you seriously suggesting that there are no circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere?

Why would they distort the video by using a fish eye lens unless they were trying to hide something?

What? Are you serious? You are suggesting that the people who made this video are part of a global conspiracy? They used a fish eye lens to create a certain effect. A fish eye lens would not make stars that are moving across the sky look like they are rotating. The other videos don't have a fish eye lens, not that it makes any difference.

Do you believe that there aren't circumpolar stars in the Southern Hemisphere? It's a simple question. Please clarify your position.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 16, 2015, 07:51:30 AM
It just seems a little odd to me that you would post a video that clearly shows a concave horizon and try to pass it off as evidence of a globular Earth.  Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?  I don't know. 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 16, 2015, 07:56:32 AM
It just seems a little odd to me that you would post a video that clearly shows a concave horizon and try to pass it off as evidence of a globular Earth.  Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?  I don't know.
Who cares about the horizon? The question is about the movement of the stars. That isn't going to change thanks to a lens.
Can you answer what you've been asked? Or are you falling back on the ever-growing conspiracy?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 16, 2015, 08:43:21 AM
Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?
Maybe it is, but that would only be because you don't know what irony is.

Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
Why would they distort the video by using a fish eye lens unless they were trying to hide something?
Perhaps they were trying to show more of the sky than would be visible with a normal lens.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 16, 2015, 09:23:51 AM

<long post parroting Rowbotham>

Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm)

Have you actually checked any of this yourself? Instead of just believing what Mr. Rowbotham tells you, you might want to see if he's right. Isn't that the Zetetic way?

This assertion you highlighted:

Quote
If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator.

clearly shows the author has no clue what he's talking about. On the equator there are no circumpolar constellations.

The full Southern Cross asterism is circumpolar only when you are south of 33° South latitude since the declination of Gacrux is -57.2°.

The full Big Dipper asterism, part of the Great Bear constellation, is circumpolar only if you are north of 40° North latitude since Alkaid, its southernmost star, at the tip of the "handle" of the dipper, is at declination +49.25°. In fact, part of the "hind leg" of the bear drops below the horizon at Zagreb's latitude. Don't take my word for it; this is commonly seen, and you can see this for yourself if you actually look. Ursa Major is lowest in the sky just before sunrise in early August, in the evenings in early December, and during daylight in the early part of the year. In the meantime you can get familiar with the fainter stars in "the Great Bear", like his hind leg, so you can recognize them when its favorable to watch them set.

We've discussed this before. Nothing has changed; your source is still wrong.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 16, 2015, 11:12:46 AM
It just seems a little odd to me that you would post a video that clearly shows a concave horizon and try to pass it off as evidence of a globular Earth.  Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?  I don't know.

This dummy clearly doesn't understand that the rotation of the stars can be observed without photography and was known about hundreds of years ago, before photography was even invented. So your attempt to slow down the argument by filling the thread with distracting noxious farts has also failed. Whether or not you believe the photographic evidence, the rotation is demonstrable.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 17, 2015, 12:36:53 AM
It just seems a little odd to me that you would post a video that clearly shows a concave horizon and try to pass it off as evidence of a globular Earth.  Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?  I don't know.

I'm thinking of a word as well, it's not irony.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: tappet on February 17, 2015, 01:01:43 AM
 :P :P
It just seems a little odd to me that you would post a video that clearly shows a concave horizon and try to pass it off as evidence of a globular Earth.  Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?  I don't know.
That is a weird video, It does show concave earth.
Is it distorted?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 17, 2015, 04:49:56 AM
It just seems a little odd to me that you would post a video that clearly shows a concave horizon and try to pass it off as evidence of a globular Earth.  Maybe the word I am thinking of is "irony"?  I don't know.

Can you please clarify what your position is. Do you or do you not believe that there are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 17, 2015, 06:10:54 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 17, 2015, 07:13:03 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 17, 2015, 07:21:29 AM
Supposing there are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, what flat Earth model could you propose that could account for that? Bare in mind that their centre of rotation is always either due North or due South at any given location.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: macrohard on February 17, 2015, 07:38:20 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 17, 2015, 08:14:12 AM
Why would they distort the video by using a fish eye lens unless they were trying to hide something?

They're not using a fish-eye lens to "distort" the video.  You really need to get over this fish-eye lens paranoia of yours jroa, and/or read up about photography and lens focal lengths and fields of view.  You seem to bring this thing up every time we post any round earth image or video as though it completely demolishes the evidence we're providing in one fell swoop.  It doesn't.  Sorry.

The focal length of the lens has nothing at all to do with what the video is meant to illustrate.  End of story.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: macrohard on February 17, 2015, 09:23:31 AM
Geoff,

You wouldn't happen to have a Go Pro would you?  If so, there is a setting for it to take an image every few seconds, thereby condensing several hours into mere minutes.

Normally it's used to show off something like an extended off road or skiing trip, but I think it would be a great way to demonstrate the motion of the stars.

Set up a tripod and aim it south and wham bam.  The reason I ask you is that you're one of the few on this site living down under.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 17, 2015, 09:31:39 AM
Geoff,

You wouldn't happen to have a Go Pro would you? 

No, I don't mate.  Believe it or no, I'm still a 35mm man LOL.  I've only got a crappy Sony H100 Cybershot for any quickies.    :)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 17, 2015, 10:31:19 AM
aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

I think this is truly one of the most ludicrous theories I've ever heard. I'd like to know how they made this work before the invention of aircraft.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 17, 2015, 10:35:48 AM
aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

I think this is truly one of the most ludicrous theories I've ever heard. I'd like to know how they made this work before the invention of aircraft.
Not to mention the fact that there would have to be thousands of planes flying in perfect unison throughout the entire night AND day. And considering that there could be not smooth transition between northern hemisphere stars and southern- this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 17, 2015, 10:38:36 AM
aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

I think this is truly one of the most ludicrous theories I've ever heard. I'd like to know how they made this work before the invention of aircraft.
Not to mention the fact that there would have to be thousands of planes flying in perfect unison throughout the entire night AND day. And considering that there could be not smooth transition between northern hemisphere stars and southern- this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

That's true - even if it was the case that all the stars were airplanes, it still couldn't work on a flat earth.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 17, 2015, 11:02:33 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 17, 2015, 11:07:05 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 11:08:33 AM
So, are stars actually airplanes or not?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 17, 2015, 11:09:43 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.
No, every single star in the southern hemisphere would have to be faked- or else the entire southern starscape would be completely fucked up.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 17, 2015, 11:15:54 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.
No, every single star in the southern hemisphere would have to be faked- or else the entire southern starscape would be completely fucked up.
you keep telling yourself that. just because nasa says so does not mean you have to believe them.
the same stars are visible, but some are too far to be seen. it is easy to fake them.
think for yourself. stars merely go around the circumference.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: robintex on February 17, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

I think this is truly one of the most ludicrous theories I've ever heard. I'd like to know how they made this work before the invention of aircraft.
Not to mention the fact that there would have to be thousands of planes flying in perfect unison throughout the entire night AND day. And considering that there could be not smooth transition between northern hemisphere stars and southern- this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Sometimes you think that you have seen the most stupidest thing from a flat earther.
Then you come back the next day and find that you're wrong .
You  haven't seen the most stupidest thing  that you will ever see from a flat earther. There will always be more of them the next day. ;D
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 17, 2015, 11:23:10 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.
No, every single star in the southern hemisphere would have to be faked- or else the entire southern starscape would be completely fucked up.
you keep telling yourself that. just because nasa says so does not mean you have to believe them.
the same stars are visible, but some are too far to be seen. it is easy to fake them.
think for yourself. stars merely go around the circumference.

So what you're saying is you don't have an explanation for the question posed in the OP. Noted.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 11:23:31 AM
aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

I think this is truly one of the most ludicrous theories I've ever heard. I'd like to know how they made this work before the invention of aircraft.
Not to mention the fact that there would have to be thousands of planes flying in perfect unison throughout the entire night AND day. And considering that there could be not smooth transition between northern hemisphere stars and southern- this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Sometimes you think that you have seen the most stupidest thing from a flat earther.

Yeah, I've read some stupid shit here, but JRoweSkeptic  seems to be trying to win some kind of award.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 17, 2015, 11:24:31 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.
No, every single star in the southern hemisphere would have to be faked- or else the entire southern starscape would be completely fucked up.
you keep telling yourself that. just because nasa says so does not mean you have to believe them.
the same stars are visible, but some are too far to be seen. it is easy to fake them.
think for yourself. stars merely go around the circumference.
What are you even talking about? What does NASA have to do with looking outside at night?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: robintex on February 17, 2015, 11:27:25 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.
No, every single star in the southern hemisphere would have to be faked- or else the entire southern starscape would be completely fucked up.
you keep telling yourself that. just because nasa says so does not mean you have to believe them.
the same stars are visible, but some are too far to be seen. it is easy to fake them.
think for yourself. stars merely go around the circumference.

NASA isn't the only one who says so.

Check with any astronomical observatory and see what they say. They have been around (no pun intended) much longer than NASA. Do you mean you would have to believe them or not believe them ?

Of course FE is going to say they are all part of the vast Round Earth Conspiracy. ;D
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 17, 2015, 12:13:55 PM
So, are stars actually airplanes or not?
Sometimes I think this site is interesting.
Other times, people actually need to ask questions like this.
What happened in this thread. I'm seriously dreading looking back.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: macrohard on February 17, 2015, 12:41:14 PM
Planets can also be seen in the southern hemisphere.  When I look through a telescope at Jupiter it looks like Jupiter.  When I look at Saturn it is clearly Saturn.  They are most definitely not stars and not planes.

How is it that the same planet moves one direction when I'm in the United States, but in the opposite direction while I'm visiting Australia?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: cikljamas on February 17, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
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. Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; 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. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.

MM. Von Spix and Karl Von Martius, in their account of -their scientific travels in Brazil, in 1817-1820, relate that "on the 15th of June, in latitude 14° S, we beheld, for the first time, that glorious constellation of the southern heavens, the Cross, which is to navigators a token of peace, and, according to its position, indicates the hours of the night. We had long wished for this constellation as a guide to the other hemisphere; we therefore felt inexpressible pleasure when we perceived it in the resplendent firmament."


The great traveller Humboldt says:--

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. More especially ought it to be at all times visible when the nearest star belonging to it is considerably nearer to the so-called "pole star of the south" than is the nearest of the stars in the "Great Bear" to the pole star of the north. Humboldt did not see the Southern Cross until he was in the 16th latitude south, and then it was "strongly inclined," showing that it was rising in the east, and sharing in the general sweep of the stars from east to west, in common with the whole firmament of stars moving round the pole star of the northern region.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it.

The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm)

IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west.

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. 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.

Observational fact

The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.

So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

The sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (Zagreb-Croatia). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 17, 2015, 03:26:09 PM
IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west.

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. 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.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm)
Observational fact

The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.

So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

The sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (Zagreb-Croatia). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/)

Yep, sceptimatic is so right when he praises cikljamas' "work." At least he goes through the effort of underlining, coloring, and bolding text.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 17, 2015, 03:32:12 PM
So, are stars actually airplanes or not?
Sometimes I think this site is interesting.
Other times, people actually need to ask questions like this.
What happened in this thread. I'm seriously dreading looking back.

It's almost more beautiful to not know.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: cikljamas on February 17, 2015, 03:53:40 PM
Yep, sceptimatic is so right when he praises cikljamas' "work." At least he goes through the effort of underlining, coloring, and bolding text.

Plagiarism again, ha? Hahahah... Is this plagiarism also:

Quote
This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

The sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (Zagreb-Croatia). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparison with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!

Have you report (on this forum) the result of at least one single personal observation that you have done by yourself? At least one? Have you? So, what is it that gives you right to ridicule other members of this forum whose efforts and contribution are incomparable with your work which has yielded exactly ZERO-NOTHING at all?

Ridiculing, that's all you are capable for, sadly, but true...
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 17, 2015, 06:48:18 PM
Yep, sceptimatic is so right when he praises cikljamas' "work." At least he goes through the effort of underlining, coloring, and bolding text.

Plagiarism again, ha? Hahahah... Is this plagiarism also:

Quote
This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

The sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (Zagreb-Croatia). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparison with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!

Have you report (on this forum) the result of at least one single personal observation that you have done by yourself? At least one? Have you? So, what is it that gives you right to ridicule other members of this forum whose efforts and contribution are incomparable with your work which has yielded exactly ZERO-NOTHING at all?

Ridiculing, that's all you are capable for, sadly, but true...
Ridicule is perfectly justified when you bring up points completely irrelevant to this thread. It's funny because the only original part to your entire post (which was 1/5 of the post) has nothing to do with circumpolar stars.

It's also laughable how you claim yourself victorious when people point out your irrelevancy or your plagiarism instead of addressing your points. If we do address your points, it would derail the entire thread, as you have almost successfully done already.

Please go to a more relevant thread or forum to post your copy pastas. You're very annoying.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 17, 2015, 08:34:34 PM

<same ol' same ol', Take MCMXLVII> Why do you keep reposting this stuff? It's no more correct now than it was any of the times before.

IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star.

Those aren't stars the others rotate around. It's the South Celestial Pole (SCP) and North Celestial Pole (NCP) the stars appear to move around. Sigma Octanis is fairly close to the SCP but not on it. Polaris, much brighter, and a very useful guide to find north within a degree, is also close to, but not on, the NCP.

Quote
This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction.
Close, anyway, but carry on...

Quote
Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west;
It's really NNW where they set, not SSW, but this just looks like a typo given the generally correct (but long-winded) description that follows. Nobody's perfect.

Quote
still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity.
Of course they rise and set like they would when viewed from a rotating sphere, since that's exactly what they're doing, as we'll see later.

Quote
For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west.

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 [or a rotating sphere] such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position.
No, that's not undeniable. The only time this would happen is if the observer were on the equator. At Edinburgh, about 56° N latitude, Zenith stars would be circumpolar, and, thus, never rise or set at all. The author is either ignorant of the spherical model and how it works or is familiar with it and is being dishonest.

Quote
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,
In fact, each of the stars appearing to move in a plane is exactly what they do, but those planes do not include the observer unless the star is on the celestial equator. Each plane is parallel to the plane of the equator, and, since you're on the surface of a large sphere, the planes are tilted with respect to the local level by an amount equal to the complement of the observer's latitude. This is how equatorial telescope mounts work - you should study them sometime; they're a very elegant, simple, and effective way to track stars through the night.

Quote
but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre,
OK for the northern stars, but what about the southern ones? They circle the SCP, not the NCP, remember? How would that work if all the stars were actually circling the NCP?

Quote
the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.
Nope, sorry. Faulty "proof". Bloviate much?

Quote
Observational fact

The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)

Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.

So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South
Hold it! The Earth is rotating eastward; there's no southward component at all. "Rotating downwards" must mean, from context, "toward the plane of the orbit." Given that convention has the north pole "above" the ecliptic (plane of the orbit) and the south pole "below" it, OK, but the author is conflating "downward from above the plane" as "southward", which it is not since the latter is measured along the axis, which is not perpendicular to the ecliptic. Another example of incompetence or dishonesty.

Quote
until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight.
No, the observer continues to travel eastward but away from the Ecliptic. No "northward" component of rotation.

Quote
The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html)
Here's where the author is getting tripped up. Spherical trig is not trivial to visualize, but he's got it wrong. All the rays from the Sun are arriving parallel to the plane of the ecliptic, for practical purposes, because the Sun is so distant. At summer solstice sunrise, our mid-northern observer is seeing the Sun appear north of his latitude because his parallel of latitude is tilting "down" toward the ecliptic [in the extreme case, if we were above the arctic circle, we would see the Sun from "over the pole" at midnight - due north. As the day progresses, by noon, our observer is looking south "over the bulge" of the Earth. Later, at sunset, the Sun again appears to the north as it sets. This is a bit hard to describe, but can be easily seen using a globe and a bright light source some distance away, like several tens of times the globe's diameter, to simulate the Sun. Trying this with the "Sun" too close will give bad results.

Quote
As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!
Nor would we expect it to if we knew what we were doing.

Quote
This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

The sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (Zagreb-Croatia).
If this is what you think, you're wrong.

Quote
However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...
It should be close to symmetrical unless there's something else, like mountains, obscuring the true horizon in the west.

Quote
The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH,
No. You've confused yourself.

Quote
and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH...
Exactly as predicted by actual theory.

Quote
Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!
It's totally opposite the predictions of your incorrect understanding of HC theory. Your interpretation of HC theory is incorrect; it's a strawman, whether that's what you intended or not.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 18, 2015, 01:07:56 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 18, 2015, 02:57:21 AM
So, are stars actually airplanes or not?
Sometimes I think this site is interesting.
Other times, people actually need to ask questions like this.
What happened in this thread. I'm seriously dreading looking back.
Well, this is like starting with the punchline to a joke, and seeing if you can work out the set up.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 03:21:22 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 18, 2015, 04:02:32 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 06:20:12 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2015, 06:54:10 AM
He is totally implying that airplanes can be used to simulate circumpolar stars. He might not hold this belief as true, but he is saying it is a viable alternative. It isn't a viable alternative but that is what he was implying.

Scepti is reading into what was written which is not really correct; to try and assume one's intentions.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 18, 2015, 07:38:12 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

So nobody would notice that the southern hemisphere is 3 times as big as the northern hemisphere, that Austrailia is bigger then Russia, and that the quickest way to get from southern Austrailia to southern South America is by going on a route that takes you near the North Pole?  What kind of idiot... Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 18, 2015, 09:05:04 AM
aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Can you please clarify what you meant by this. It seems fairly obvious that you are implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying in circles. Sceptimatic doesn't seem to think so for reasons best known to himself.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 18, 2015, 09:10:30 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

Typical flat Earth tactic. Deflect the conversation away from the issue at hand because you don't have an answer for it.

Can you clarify your position on this? Do you or do you not believe that there are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres?

I'm quite happy to clarify my position. I think it's verging on insanity to even suggest that there aren't.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 09:11:04 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

So nobody would notice that the southern hemisphere is 3 times as big as the northern hemisphere, that Austrailia is bigger then Russia, and that the quickest way to get from southern Austrailia to southern South America is by going on a route that takes you near the North Pole?  What kind of idiot... Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
Just flip the mirror over so only the back shows to your face and you can hide that fact of who you were talking to.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 18, 2015, 09:11:27 AM
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.
i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.

Um, JRowe definitely seems to be saying that at least some stars are planes. At the very least, he's defending the notion. So... Take that as you will.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 09:14:14 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

Typical flat Earth tactic. Deflect the conversation away from the issue at hand because it you don't have an answer for it.

Can you clarify your position on this? Do you or do you not believe that there are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres?

I'm quite happy to clarify my position. I think it's verging on insanity to even suggest that there aren't.
How can there be? North and south are up and down on a circular Earth. There is one dome, so there is only reflective light that mirrors, which is why you see mirror images.
Quite simple when you think about it.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 18, 2015, 09:18:15 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

Typical flat Earth tactic. Deflect the conversation away from the issue at hand because it you don't have an answer for it.

Can you clarify your position on this? Do you or do you not believe that there are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres?

I'm quite happy to clarify my position. I think it's verging on insanity to even suggest that there aren't.
How can there be? North and south are up and down on a circular Earth. There is one dome, so there is only reflective light that mirrors, which is why you see mirror images.
Quite simple when you think about it.

So what is your explanation for the videos I've posted showing circumpolar stars in the Southern hemisphere? How do you account for the thousands of astronomers who spend their professional careers meticulously recording what they see in the sky? How do you account for the millions of people who live in the Southern Hemisphere and could easily notice for themselves if the there are circumpolar stars in the South?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 18, 2015, 09:30:27 AM
There is one dome, so there is only reflective light that mirrors, which is why you see mirror images.
Quite simple when you think about it.
Mirror images of what? The stars in the north are nothing like the stars in the south...
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 09:50:59 AM
There is one dome, so there is only reflective light that mirrors, which is why you see mirror images.
Quite simple when you think about it.
Mirror images of what? The stars in the north are nothing like the stars in the south...
Do you realise how many points of light there are in the sky?...I take it you do.
Do you also realise that both sides of the circle of Earth will show variations of reflected light to your eyes, depending on where you are.

Let me ask you a question.
On your supposed southern part. Is there anywhere where you see the same constellations of stars?
On your southern side, what does the moon look like compared to your northern side?

Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2015, 10:14:44 AM
don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

Empty flat Earth rhetoric. If you can't address the issue give a little pep talk about keeping an open mind. Stick to the issue, don't waste our time by diverting from the topic with an irrelevant comment.

We get it. You flat Earth believers "think outside the box". You think outside of reality.
i answered, now you pretend i haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong. any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect.

So your theory is that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round and round in circles. I think you should stop listening to the little airplanes flying round and round inside your head.
I think you need to learn to read. It seems to be a massive problem with you people. The attention span of a gnat.

Don't even attempt to patronise me. You haven't got the bus fair.

What he said was, "how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy". He then went on to claim, "any motion around the circumference of the earth will give the same effect". If he's not implying that circumpolar stars are airplanes flying round in circles then what is he implying? Come genius, enlighten us.
I'll tell you what he's on about Mr can't read, won't read.

He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

Typical flat Earth tactic. Deflect the conversation away from the issue at hand because it you don't have an answer for it.

Can you clarify your position on this? Do you or do you not believe that there are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres?

I'm quite happy to clarify my position. I think it's verging on insanity to even suggest that there aren't.
How can there be? North and south are up and down on a circular Earth. There is one dome, so there is only reflective light that mirrors, which is why you see mirror images.
Quite simple when you think about it.
Diagram please.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 18, 2015, 10:22:36 AM
On your supposed southern part. Is there anywhere where you see the same constellations of stars?
Nope.
On your southern side, what does the moon look like compared to the northern side?
The same, except the moon is only one place at a time.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 10:29:47 AM
On your supposed southern part. Is there anywhere where you see the same constellations of stars?
Nope.
On your southern side, what does the moon look like compared to the northern side?
The same, except the moon is only one place at a time.
Ok let,s make this a bit simpler for you.

North of your equator and south of your equator. Tell me what your star constellations appear like by comparing each side.
Also tell me about your moon in the same way.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 18, 2015, 10:41:07 AM
On your supposed southern part. Is there anywhere where you see the same constellations of stars?
Nope.
On your southern side, what does the moon look like compared to the northern side?
The same, except the moon is only one place at a time.
Ok let,s make this a bit simpler for you.

North of your equator and south of your equator. Tell me what your star constellations appear like by comparing each side.
Also tell me about your moon in the same way.
North:
(http://i.imgur.com/qjWauNS.png)

South:
(http://i.imgur.com/mbKuSqG.png)

The moon looks like same no matter where you are on Earth.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 18, 2015, 11:31:12 AM
He's talking about the globe verses a circular Earth and telling you that it's not difficult for a plane to fly around a circle Earth as much as your globe, meaning, how would anyone know what was really happening when you consider the size of the Earth.

Like I said before, start learning to read and absorb into your limited brain what's being said.

It's obvious from reading through sceptimatic's comments that he's unable to comprehend that an airplane can in fact circumnavigate the spherical planet without once changing direction either to the left or to the right, (or upwards or downwards) at cruising altitude.

Hypothetically, all the plane's ailerons and rudder, and elevators and tabs—in fact all the aircraft's flight control surfaces—could be locked at the start of the flight until its finish and never once moved.

On a purported flat earth—even hypothetically—that could not occur, as the airplane would have to be constantly "turning" either right or left in order to maintain a circular flight path using the ailerons, elevators and rudder etc.

(And as an a side, it would be nice for a change if sceptimatic could respond to others' comments without resorting to snide insults that are more appropriate for a grade-schooler's playground.)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: macrohard on February 18, 2015, 12:20:18 PM
The moon actually looks upside down in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 18, 2015, 12:43:51 PM
The moon actually looks upside down in the southern hemisphere.
Obviously. That doesn't matter though, considering that its seeming rotation changes slowly as you move down from the north. I don't think that's what sceptimatic is looking for.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mainframes on February 18, 2015, 01:04:14 PM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 18, 2015, 06:16:19 PM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.

FtSoC [For the Sake of Completeness]: The part in bold is not strictly true, the Magellanic Clouds are visible from low northern latitudes. As a practical matter, however, that's fairly close.

No quibbles with the rest of the post.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 18, 2015, 06:30:08 PM
The moon actually looks upside down in the southern hemisphere.

Uh... no it doesn't.  I live in Australia and the moon definitely doesn't look "upside down" to me.

Bear in mind too that as far as the cosmos is concerned, there is no "up" and no "down".  They're just man-made, abstract constructs.  And this is a concept that people such as sceptimatic just can't seem to get their heads around.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 18, 2015, 10:15:57 PM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.

It should also be noted that the magallenic clouds can be seen from anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere including both South America and Austrailia while they can not be seen from places like North America which is in between South America and Austrailia in the FE map.  If the Earth is flat then how would it be possible for the southern constellations to be visable from everywhere in the donut shaped Southern Hemisphere but not in the northern hemisphere?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 19, 2015, 03:35:19 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 19, 2015, 05:14:26 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.

You are caricaturing the known and well established facts concerning the movement of the Earth and the sun to support your absurd beliefs. The Earth is spinning on its axis. It is also moving in an ellipse around the sun in a fixed plane. The angle of the Earths axis of rotation to the plane of the ellipse is roughly 23°. The sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy once every 250 million years. The fact that we see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere is entirely consistent with this picture. As is the fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mainframes on February 19, 2015, 05:20:00 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.

Seeing the same constellations is a very simple and elegant result of how the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun. The premise is extremely simple and is modeled by every bit of astronomy software out there. Software that I incidentally use to navigate my telescope. If it was wrong then I wouldn't be able to point at various objects or indeed visually confirm the results with own eyes.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't get it seeing as you don't understand simple concepts such as the structure of matter and how pressure works....
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 19, 2015, 07:37:46 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.

You are caricaturing the known and well established facts concerning the movement of the Earth and the sun to support your absurd beliefs. The Earth is spinning on its axis. It is also moving in an ellipse around the sun in a fixed plane. The angle of the Earths axis of rotation to the plane of the ellipse is roughly 23°. The sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy once every 250 million years. The fact that we see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere is entirely consistent with this picture. As is the fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
very convenient for you that is all behaves the exact way you'd expect on a flat earth, isn't it? Lets you make all your excuses.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 19, 2015, 07:49:13 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.

You are caricaturing the known and well established facts concerning the movement of the Earth and the sun to support your absurd beliefs. The Earth is spinning on its axis. It is also moving in an ellipse around the sun in a fixed plane. The angle of the Earths axis of rotation to the plane of the ellipse is roughly 23°. The sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy once every 250 million years. The fact that we see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere is entirely consistent with this picture. As is the fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
very convenient for you that is all behaves the exact way you'd expect on a flat earth, isn't it? Lets you make all your excuses.

Please, you must be trolling. It all behaves the same way as it would on a flat Earth? How do you account for circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere on a flat Earth. How do you account for the fact the stars nearer the equator are only visible at certain times of year?

Can you please clarify what model of the flat Earth you adhere to. Do you believe that the Earth is a disc with the stars rotating above it around the North pole?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 19, 2015, 08:00:25 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.

You are caricaturing the known and well established facts concerning the movement of the Earth and the sun to support your absurd beliefs. The Earth is spinning on its axis. It is also moving in an ellipse around the sun in a fixed plane. The angle of the Earths axis of rotation to the plane of the ellipse is roughly 23°. The sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy once every 250 million years. The fact that we see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere is entirely consistent with this picture. As is the fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
very convenient for you that is all behaves the exact way you'd expect on a flat earth, isn't it? Lets you make all your excuses.

Please, you must be trolling. It all behaves the same way as it would on a flat Earth? How do you account for circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere on a flat Earth. How do you account for the fact the stars nearer the equator are only visible at certain times of year?

Can you please clarify what model of the flat Earth you adhere to. Do you believe that the Earth is a disc with the stars rotating above it around the North pole?
i believe the earth is a disk, the center is the North Pole, and Antartica is several islands dotted around the outer rim, which is a Wall of less-dense, self-replicating material pushed upwards further by acceleration, to contain the atmosphere.
the stars simply rotate, and you see those that are closest. planes sort out any oddities. it's really quite simple, unlike your round earther model where the earth spins on its axis, while spinning around something else, which is in turn spinning around yet another thing, and yet the stars stay visible in each hemisphere with some predictability. does that really sound right to you?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 19, 2015, 08:08:09 AM
If you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see things you won't see from the inside.
Uh... does this statement actually make any logical sense whatsoever?

Quote
The fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
The earth is not "twirling" or "whirling".  If you intend to take part in any serious science-based debate, the you need to use terminology that's not more applicable to a 4-year-old's birthday party.  I'm actually surprised that anybody living in the 21st century is not familiar at least with the relative rotations and orbits of the planets and of the sun and its ecliptic.  Did you not study high-school science perhaps?

Maybe this will help...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Earths_orbit_and_ecliptic.PNG/587px-Earths_orbit_and_ecliptic.PNG)


Quote
It's only the intervention of NASA and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.
Two comments:  You're obviously a seriously misguided conspiracy theorist.  You're also unaware that NASA is a relatively "young" organisation—I've been on the planet longer than they have (sadly LOL).

NASA is not the only major space agency in the world by any means; ESA, UKSA, ASRI, CNSA, ISRO,  and ROSCOSMOS are just a few that come to mind.  (I'll let you figure out this alphabet soup!)

Finally, I challenge you to provide any independent, empirical evidence that supports your claim that NASA is "covering anything up".  And by that I don't mean third-party hearsay from your fellow conspiracy theorists, or pointless home-made YouTube videos from whack-jobs wearing tin-foil hats.  I want credible facts and figures.  Go for it.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 19, 2015, 08:11:01 AM
The large and small magallenic clouds are only visible from the Southern Hemisphere..... Galaxies, nebulae, globular clusters, stars etc are all very carefully mapped across the entire celestial sphere. Sorry Scepti but you are just blowing hot air.
why does that surprise you? there are things that are only visible when you're closer to them. if you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see thing you won't see from the inside. the fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
that's absurd. those stars are quite clearly evidence that the earth is indeed flat. it's only the intervention of nasa and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.

You are caricaturing the known and well established facts concerning the movement of the Earth and the sun to support your absurd beliefs. The Earth is spinning on its axis. It is also moving in an ellipse around the sun in a fixed plane. The angle of the Earths axis of rotation to the plane of the ellipse is roughly 23°. The sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy once every 250 million years. The fact that we see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere is entirely consistent with this picture. As is the fact that there are circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
very convenient for you that is all behaves the exact way you'd expect on a flat earth, isn't it? Lets you make all your excuses.

Please, you must be trolling. It all behaves the same way as it would on a flat Earth? How do you account for circumpolar stars in the Northern and Southern hemisphere on a flat Earth. How do you account for the fact the stars nearer the equator are only visible at certain times of year?

Can you please clarify what model of the flat Earth you adhere to. Do you believe that the Earth is a disc with the stars rotating above it around the North pole?
i believe the earth is a disk, the center is the North Pole, and Antartica is several islands dotted around the outer rim, which is a Wall of less-dense, self-replicating material pushed upwards further by acceleration, to contain the atmosphere.
the stars simply rotate, and you see those that are closest. planes sort out any oddities. it's really quite simple, unlike your round earther model where the earth spins on its axis, while spinning around something else, which is in turn spinning around yet another thing, and yet the stars stay visible in each hemisphere with some predictability. does that really sound right to you?

What sounds right has got nothing to do with it. It's what's true that matters.

The stars near the Equator can only be visible at certain times of year because the Earth rotates around the Sun. These are stars close to the plane in which the Earth revolves around the sun. They are obscured by the Sun for part of the year due to the brightness of the sun.

The circumpolar stars are visible all year round because they lie directly above or below the plane that the Earth moves in around the sun. They all rotate around a point because they are close to the axis of rotation of the Earth. There are two centres of rotation. One above the North pole and one above the South pole.

How do you account for all this using a flat disc with the stars rotating above it, their centre of rotation being at the North pole. The only phenomenon this can account for is the circumpolar stars at the North pole.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 19, 2015, 08:15:50 AM
If you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see things you won't see from the inside.
Uh... does this statement actually make any logical sense whatsoever?

Quote
The fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
The earth is not "twirling" or "whirling".  If you intend to take part in any serious science-based debate, the you need to use terminology that's not more applicable to a 4-year-old's birthday party.  I'm actually surprised that anybody living in the 21st century is not familiar at least with the relative rotations and orbits of the planets and of the sun and its ecliptic.  Did you not study high-school science perhaps?

Maybe this will help...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Earths_orbit_and_ecliptic.PNG/587px-Earths_orbit_and_ecliptic.PNG)


Quote
It's only the intervention of NASA and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.
Two comments:  You're obviously a seriously misguided conspiracy theorist.  You're also unaware that NASA is a relatively "young" organisation—I've been on the planet longer than they have (sadly LOL).

NASA is not the only major space agency in the world by any means; ESA, UKSA, ASRI, CNSA, ISRO,  and ROSCOSMOS are just a few that come to mind.  (I'll let you figure out this alphabet soup!)

Finally, I challenge you to provide any independent, empirical evidence that supports your claim that NASA is "covering anything up".  And by that I don't mean third-party hearsay from your fellow conspiracy theorists, or pointless home-made YouTube videos from whack-jobs wearing tin-foil hats.  I want credible facts and figures.  Go for it.
you see what's closest to you, especially with spotlights. that seems rather obvious. are you going to keep denying that? if you are in the centre of the earth, you see the stars there. if you are to the outside, you see the stars there.

i'll use childish terms for a childish ideas. do you really think you'd get any kind of regularity with all that mad, tilted spinning?

nasa is its current form. people have wanted money since it was invented. if you honestly think they're honest, you're blind,
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 19, 2015, 08:20:49 AM
You get perfectly regularity. The spin isn't 'mad'. We spin almost exactly 23 hours and 56 minutes around the axis. We revolve around the sun almost exactly 365.25 days every year.

There are tons of simulations of our model, using everything you think is ridiculous, and they all work perfectly. Space Engine is an example, and it's free software.

You are not getting our point. Southern circumpolar stars would be impossible in a flat Earth. In reality, these stars circle around the south celestial pole. If we applied the flat Earth model, you would just see stars moving from east to west.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 19, 2015, 08:25:06 AM

you see what's closest to you, especially with spotlights. that seems rather obvious. are you going to keep denying that? if you are in the centre of the earth, you see the stars there. if you are to the outside, you see the stars there.

i'll use childish terms for a childish ideas. do you really think you'd get any kind of regularity with all that mad, tilted spinning?

nasa is its current form. people have wanted money since it was invented. if you honestly think they're honest, you're blind,

The only time you can't see a star is when it is directly obscured by the sun or when its angle of elevation drops to below 0° i.e. it drops below the horizon. When stars are visible the are visible at all angles of elevation and their brightness doesn't vary significantly. If their visibility was determined by their distance then their brightness would vary significantly and there would be no stars visible near the horizon.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 19, 2015, 08:26:40 AM
You get perfectly regularity. The spin isn't 'mad'. We spin almost exactly 23 hours and 56 minutes around the axis. We revolve around the sun almost exactly 365.25 days every year.

There are tons of simulations of our model, using everything you think is ridiculous, and they all work perfectly. Space Engine is an example, and it's free software.

You are not getting our point. Southern circumpolar stars would be impossible in a flat Earth. In reality, these stars circle around the south celestial pole. If we applied the flat Earth model, you would just see stars moving from east to west.
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 19, 2015, 08:37:57 AM
You get perfectly regularity. The spin isn't 'mad'. We spin almost exactly 23 hours and 56 minutes around the axis. We revolve around the sun almost exactly 365.25 days every year.

There are tons of simulations of our model, using everything you think is ridiculous, and they all work perfectly. Space Engine is an example, and it's free software.

You are not getting our point. Southern circumpolar stars would be impossible in a flat Earth. In reality, these stars circle around the south celestial pole. If we applied the flat Earth model, you would just see stars moving from east to west.
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?
The software is a three dimensional model of the Universe. There is no trickery involved.

The stars don't circle around the outer edge of the Earth- that's the thing. That's not what we see in reality. We see stars moving about in a circle near the southern celestial pole. Your model does not account for this.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 19, 2015, 08:38:09 AM
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 19, 2015, 09:32:34 AM
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

I note that you conveniently avoided addressing my earlier challenge...

Quote
I challenge you to provide any independent, empirical evidence that supports your claim that NASA is "covering anything up".  And by that I don't mean third-party hearsay from your fellow conspiracy theorists, or pointless home-made YouTube videos from whack-jobs wearing tin-foil hats.  I want credible facts and figures.

Are you now effectively admitting that you have not one shred of empirical evidence to support your absurd claim that NASA is a fraudulent organisation?

Unless you can provide at the very least some "evidence" that you claim is viable, then I think we can all write off your NASA conspiracy claims as just that and nothing more.  Sorry.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 19, 2015, 10:07:45 AM
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point. you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 19, 2015, 11:15:34 AM
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point.

Wild? A rather stately (and steady) one rotation in 24 hours is wild? You're trying to be funny, right?

Quote
you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

No need to pretend. It's like a clock accurate to one part in tens of millions. Why do you think the Earth's rotation would be varying?

Quote
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works.

In the case of the Moon, it's the side illuminated by the Sun.

Quote
if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The flat earth perspective is very difficult to understand because so many things don't work. This is another example. Are you suggesting that stars get brighter and dimmer as they traverse the sky because their phase changes like the Moon's does through the month? Do you have any evidence to support this? After innumerable nights under the stars, I can't say I've ever noticed anything like this. Have you ever gone outside and looked at the stars for more than a few minutes at a time?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 19, 2015, 01:13:26 PM
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

Oh deary me... what are we gonna do?

Now poor old JRoweSkeptic thinks that the moon is a star, or that stars are the same is the moon!  Hard to tell.

Anybody care to enlighten him... I've just cracked a rib.    ;D
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: kman on February 19, 2015, 07:43:51 PM
Jrowescepti- here is a vary large hole in your moon theory. You think the moon has one bright side, and one dark side, correct?

However, it is easily provable that the area of the moon that appears to glow changes, disproving the notion of of one dark and one light side
http://www.pampaskies.com/gallery3/var/albums/Moon/crescent-moon.JPG?m=1344027855 (http://www.pampaskies.com/gallery3/var/albums/Moon/crescent-moon.JPG?m=1344027855)
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg (http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg)
Edit : fixed
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 19, 2015, 08:03:17 PM
Jrowescepti- here is a vary large hole in your moon theory. You think the moon has one bright side, and one dark side, correct?

However, it is easily provable that the area of the moon that appears to glow changes, disproving the notion of of one dark and one light side.

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg (http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg)
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg (http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg)
Here's probably a better example, you posted the same image twice:
http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/0505-0604_12full_moon.jpg (http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/0505-0604_12full_moon.jpg)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 20, 2015, 01:09:19 AM
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The stars that aren't circumpolar can be observed rising and setting like the sun. At the equator there are stars that can be observed following a 180° arc from horizon to horizon. This isn't just at one point on the equator before you suggest the star is changing where it is shining. The same stars can be observed rising and setting at all points on the equator.

Explain again how stars are like spot lights.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 04:53:25 AM
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

Oh deary me... what are we gonna do?

Now poor old JRoweSkeptic thinks that the moon is a star, or that stars are the same is the moon!  Hard to tell.

Anybody care to enlighten him... I've just cracked a rib.    ;D
think for yourself. rock is not as bright as your magical moon. it has to be like a star or the sun.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 04:57:45 AM
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point.

Wild? A rather stately (and steady) one rotation in 24 hours is wild? You're trying to be funny, right?

Quote
you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

No need to pretend. It's like a clock accurate to one part in tens of millions. Why do you think the Earth's rotation would be varying?

Quote
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works.

In the case of the Moon, it's the side illuminated by the Sun.

Quote
if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The flat earth perspective is very difficult to understand because so many things don't work. This is another example. Are you suggesting that stars get brighter and dimmer as they traverse the sky because their phase changes like the Moon's does through the month? Do you have any evidence to support this? After innumerable nights under the stars, I can't say I've ever noticed anything like this. Have you ever gone outside and looked at the stars for more than a few minutes at a time?
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2015, 06:44:18 AM
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us.
What currents are you referring to?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 20, 2015, 07:56:35 AM
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 20, 2015, 09:18:17 AM
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point.

Wild? A rather stately (and steady) one rotation in 24 hours is wild? You're trying to be funny, right?

Quote
you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

No need to pretend. It's like a clock accurate to one part in tens of millions. Why do you think the Earth's rotation would be varying?

Quote
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works.

In the case of the Moon, it's the side illuminated by the Sun.

Quote
if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The flat earth perspective is very difficult to understand because so many things don't work. This is another example. Are you suggesting that stars get brighter and dimmer as they traverse the sky because their phase changes like the Moon's does through the month? Do you have any evidence to support this? After innumerable nights under the stars, I can't say I've ever noticed anything like this. Have you ever gone outside and looked at the stars for more than a few minutes at a time?
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.

Isn't this what you said:

it's really quite simple, unlike your round earther model where the earth spins on its axis, while spinning around something else, which is in turn spinning around yet another thing, and yet the stars stay visible in each hemisphere with some predictability. does that really sound right to you?

Yes, that really sounds right. It doesn't sound chaotic, either. It may blow your little mind that several things can happen at once all in an orderly fashion, but that doesn't affect reality at all.

Was there something else?

Quote
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
Some rocks, like, say, white Marble, are much brighter than the Moon when in bright sunlight because their albeido is higher; rocks with albeido similar to the Moon's surface will have similar brightness in bright sunlight. You can measure this yourself if you have a good camera. I dare you to try.

You seem to be confusing checking ideas against reality with "not thinking for yourself"; that's incorrect. Why don't you try it some time. There's no evidence here that you have done anything of the kind.

Quote
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

"Caught up in currents" ??? Sounds chaotic.

If the stars stay facing us why does it matter if they're spotlights?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 09:29:47 AM
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: herewegoround on February 20, 2015, 09:32:29 AM
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.

What evidence do you have for the existence for such a thing?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 09:45:12 AM
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.

What evidence do you have for the existence for such a thing?
einstein. spacetime. it is obvious space time needs to have some substance to it if it can be affected by speed, for example. it is also obvious that something must be behind the acceleration of the earth. that substance is aether. i suspect it has other names, but it is the one i favor, and have seen used on these forums.
the question is why are you asking? you're going to reject whatever i say on principle.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 09:49:33 AM
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.

What evidence do you have for the existence for such a thing?
einstein. spacetime. it is obvious space time needs to have some substance to it if it can be affected by speed, for example. it is also obvious that something must be behind the acceleration of the earth. that substance is aether. i suspect it has other names, but it is the one i favor, and have seen used on these forums.
the question is why are you asking? you're going to reject whatever i say on principle.

So no evidence, just what is "obvious" to you. Much like your idiocy over non-euclidean geometry. Gotcha.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 09:52:35 AM
Aether is a real energy that permeates all things. It pushes the Earth and keeps the Sun & Moon discs in rotation. Without aether this Earth would fall apart. That's how we know it exists.

I have a diagram that shows how aether works in tandem with the Earth, but I will spare you since I don't want to take away JRowe's thunder. Because he is on the right track here.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 09:58:47 AM
Aether is a real energy that permeates all things. It pushes the Earth and keeps the Sun & Moon discs in rotation. Without aether this Earth would fall apart. That's how we know it exists.

I have a diagram that shows how aether works in tandem with the Earth, but I will spare you since I don't want to take away JRowe's thunder. Because he is on the right track here.

I knew the mention of aether would bring you out.

Evidence por favor senor.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 10:07:09 AM
Evidence por favor senor.

I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

Is Einstein's own testimony not good enough for you? If the Earth conformed to YOUR model, we would all be magically stuck to a marble by invisible forces ('gravity') hurling in space. I don't see how your 'gravity' is any better of an explanation than aether. Actually, it sounds like the same damn thing.

1) You can't see gravity (you also cannot see aether)

2) famous scientists and mathemiticians (Both Plato and Aristotle) claim that aether exists (although some of them also seem to think that gravity exists, so it could be that both invisible forces are working together someway).  Sir Isaac Newton even wrote a paper on aether. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 10:15:09 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 10:18:35 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 20, 2015, 10:21:30 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

You do feel it. When it isn't present you get the sensation of falling.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 10:26:34 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

You do feel it. When it isn't present you get the sensation of falling.


You made me look.


But really, 'gravity' is always present on Earth. You have no way of backing this statement up. Please don't respond to questions you don't have the answers to. You might as well have just posted a slew of racial slurs, that would have been about as relevant.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 11:04:14 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 11:06:10 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.

That's UA.


You have no direct evidence of gravity.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 11:07:10 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.

That's UA.


You have no direct evidence of gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B)

Not only of gravity, but of General Relativity and Special Relativity. All rolled up in one.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 11:07:26 AM
That's UA.
(https://researchcentral.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/xkcd_wikipedian_protestor.png)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 11:09:28 AM
That's UA.
(https://researchcentral.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/xkcd_wikipedian_protestor.png)

Are you suggesting that it's gravity? If so:

(https://researchcentral.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/xkcd_wikipedian_protestor.png)


Like I've stated many times before. You have no direct evidence for gravity. Until there's direct evidence for gravity is it just a weak flimsy theory (just like UA). UA is just as valid as gravity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B)

Aw, you must be new here. That's cute.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 11:11:32 AM
Are you suggesting that it's gravity?
I'm not saying anything. You're the one insisting that, out of everything, it must be UA, not gravity. Please support your claims.

Quote
Like I've stated many times before. You have no direct evidence for gravity. Until there;s direct evidence for gravity is it just a weak flimsy theory.
You'll reject any evidence we give as UA, or celestial gravitation, or whatever else you want to come up with. That's no standard by which to talk.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 11:11:49 AM
I forgot, FErs dont accept direct measured evidence of gravity. Sorry.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 20, 2015, 11:12:25 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

You do feel it. When it isn't present you get the sensation of falling.


You made me look.


But really, 'gravity' is always present on Earth. You have no way of backing this statement up. Please don't respond to questions you don't have the answers to. You might as well have just posted a slew of racial slurs, that would have been about as relevant.

You believe that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, therefore any situation where you are not resisting acceleration is identical to being in a situation of no gravity. Thus, being in free fall in any situation tells you what it would feel like.
Made you look at this, too :P
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 11:16:26 AM
I'm not saying anything. You're the one insisting that, out of everything, it must be UA, not gravity. Please support your claims.

I don't have to support anything. Evidence for UA is compiled all over these forums. Maybe stop being lazy and do some damn research?

Regardless, it is the Round Earthers that made the claim that gravity does what UA is supposed to do. It's not my claim at all. Please support these claims with evidence. If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so. Stop dodging the question.

You'll reject any evidence we give as UA, or celestial gravitation, or whatever else you want to come up with. That's no standard by which to talk.

You'll reject any evidence of UA as gravity. I don't see how that is any different. Like I've claimed many times before on this site: you are a hypocrite. People never change. If you don't see the error of your ways then there's no hope for you.


I forgot, FErs dont accept direct measured evidence of gravity. Sorry.

Satellites, Lemmiwanks. It's satellites.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 11:35:05 AM
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.

That's UA.


You have no direct evidence of gravity.

I see the Moon orbiting the Earth and I have no reason to believe that space travel is a lie.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 11:38:38 AM
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 11:54:35 AM
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

I don't have any evidence that can't be explained away by a persistent flat eartger who insists that there is a masive conspiracy.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

I don't have any evidence that can't be explained away by a persistent flat eartger who insists that there is a masive conspiracy.


Direct evidence could not be explained by a conspiracy. The fact that you do not have direct evidence is the reason why it's easy to dismiss your claims. You do know what 'direct evidence' means, right?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 12:04:03 PM
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

I don't have any evidence that can't be explained away by a persistent flat eartger who insists that there is a masive conspiracy.


Direct evidence could not be explained by a conspiracy. The fact that you do not have direct evidence is the reason why it's easy to dismiss your claims. You do know what 'direct evidence' means, right?

Oh wait, I just realized that tides are proof of gravity.  I have seen them first hand and they cannot be explained by UA because there is a measurable gravitational strength difference when the moon is over head.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 12:17:58 PM
Tides? Working with your theory of gravity here, the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull. The stars also have a slight pull. This causes tides.

Tides are not direct evidence of gravity though. These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

I am asking for direct evidence of gravity. If you do not have direct evidence for gravity, please say so.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 12:20:39 PM
Tides? Working with your theory of gravity here, the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull. The stars also have a slight pull. This causes tides.
How exactly is the moon synchronized with tides, with no care given to the Sun and stars?

Quote
I am asking for direct evidence of gravity. If you do not have direct evidence for gravity, please say so.
By your standards, direct evidence of anything does not exist. Purposefully deciding that you'll never accept something means you can reject any evidence.
If you disagree, please give me just one thing, no matter what it is, that you think you have direct evidence of, and please share what that evidence is.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Please, BiJane. Stop making assumptions.

There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.

Direct evidence is not a hard concept to understand.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 12:27:20 PM
There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.
Prove it. I say it's all simply a hallucination you're having. Audio and visual hallucinations are well-known, and tactile hallucinations exist. Anyone who you think corroborates your story is either also a hallucination, or finds it hilarious that you think you have a cat. The latter group of people are also responsible for any physical actions Digit does.
Prove me wrong. They're just two competing hypotheses.

All we can observe, of anything, is consequences. Consequences can have many possible causes: direct evidence, as you define it, does not exist. It's just a matter of sorting out the most likely explanation.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 12:30:22 PM
There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.
Prove it. I say it's all simply a hallucination you're having. Audio and visual hallucinations are well-known, and tactile hallucinations exist. Anyone who you think corroborates your story is either also a hallucination, or finds it hilarious that you think you have a cat. The latter group of people are also responsible for any physical actions Digit does.
Prove me wrong. They're just two competing hypotheses.

All we can observe, of anything, is consequences. Consequences can have many possible causes: direct evidence, as you define it, does not exist. It's just a matter of sorting out the most likely explanation.

You're making a strawman argument here. If you really want me to prove it to you then PM me. I will give you my address and you can come over to my home and pet him yourself. It is easily provable provided you put in the effort. Gravity is not so easy to prove.

Please try to stay on topic. I am not claiming that anyone here is delusional. That is completely irrelevant. You are being disingenuous with your assertions, and it's unprofessional to say the least. You have no direct evidence of gravity so you are now resorting to "you're crazy your cat does not exist" as if that is comparable at all to gravity or what we are even talking about. I will not debate with you unless you stay on topic, BiJane.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 12:37:21 PM
There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.
Prove it. I say it's all simply a hallucination you're having. Audio and visual hallucinations are well-known, and tactile hallucinations exist. Anyone who you think corroborates your story is either also a hallucination, or finds it hilarious that you think you have a cat. The latter group of people are also responsible for any physical actions Digit does.
Prove me wrong. They're just two competing hypotheses.

All we can observe, of anything, is consequences. Consequences can have many possible causes: direct evidence, as you define it, does not exist. It's just a matter of sorting out the most likely explanation.

You're making a strawman argument here. If you really want me to prove it to you then PM me. I will give you my address and you can come over to my home and pet him yourself. It is easily provable provided you put in the effort. Gravity is not so easy to prove.

Please try to stay on topic. I am not claiming that anyone here is delusional. That is completely irrelevant. You are being disingenuous with your assertions, and it's unprofessional to say the least. You have no direct evidence of gravity so you are now resorting to "you're crazy your cat does not exist" as if that is comparable at all to gravity or what we are even talking about. I will not debate with you unless you stay on topic, BiJane.

Wait, your cat doesn't exist?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 12:40:34 PM
You're making a strawman argument here. If you really want me to prove it to you then PM me. I will give you my address and you can come over to my home and pet him yourself. It is easily provable provided you put in the effort. Gravity is not so easy to prove.
Prove it's your house I'll be going to, not some friend who actually has a cat, who you're paying to pretend to be you. Prove I'm not hallucinating.
Quote
Please try to stay on topic. I am not claiming that anyone here is delusional. That is completely irrelevant. You are being disingenuous with your assertions, and it's unprofessional to say the least. You have no direct evidence of gravity so you are now resorting to "you're crazy your cat does not exist" as if that is comparable at all to gravity or what we are even talking about. I will not debate with you unless you stay on topic, BiJane.
I'm simply proving that your concept of direct evidence is meaningless. I said as much in my message. There are always going to be alternative explanations: you just refer to an ever-increasing number to try and omit gravity, when gravity alone is a neater, simpler, and more justified response.
We know things exist by the effect they have on the world. That is the only way we know things exist: that is direct evidence. You can always choose alternative explanations, but are they really more likely? the onus is on you to show that.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
Tides? Working with your theory of gravity here, the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull. The stars also have a slight pull. This causes tides.

Tides are not direct evidence of gravity though. These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

I am asking for direct evidence of gravity. If you do not have direct evidence for gravity, please say so.

And you (falsely) accuse us for only taking gravity into account when it's convenient...  You call gravity fake but then the moment I bring up direct evidence of gravity you say that "the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull", which is basically saying "well that is an exception, gravity only exists when it's convenient for me".  Also, tides occur on opposite sides of the Earth, one high tide is when the Moon is over head and the other is when the Moon is over the opposite side of the Earth.  If the Earth were flat then just imagine where the high and low tides would be and tell me how that would be possible if it were caused by the Moon's gravity.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 12:49:26 PM
You haven't proven anything. I assure you that direct evidence is a thing, and it's not "meaningless". You have no direct evidence of gravity. Any "evidence" that you have is not "direct evidence". Your idea that the sun and moon are held in orbit because of gravity is a scientific fallacy if you're basing this simply on how the Sun and Moon look in the sky or tides. You have not proven that it is gravity that is responsbile for these things. UA could also be responsible, so could Invisible Crookeedon holding up the planets. How would you know the difference?

We know things exist by the effect they have on the world. That is the only way we know things exist: that is direct evidence. You can always choose alternative explanations, but are they really more likely? the onus is on you to show that.

I agree with this except for the fact that you say it's "direct evidence". Do you honestly think tides or seeing something in the sky proves an invisible force is responsible for it all? Really? Do you not see the huge leap in logic here? I'm sorry to have to do this to you, BiJane... but I'm going to have to use the roll eyes:  ::)


Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.


And you (falsely) accuse us for only taking gravity into account when it's convenient...  You call gravity fake but then the moment I bring up direct evidence of gravity you say that "the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull", which is basically saying "well that is an exception, gravity only exists when it's convenient for me".  Also, tides occur on opposite sides of the Earth, one high tide is when the Moon is over head and the other is when the Moon is over the opposite side of the Earth.  If the Earth were flat then just imagine where the high and low tides would be and tell me how that would be possible if it were caused by the Moon's gravity.

I also included this bit that you seemed to ignore:


These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

What this means it that while I did use gravity to explain the tides; I didn't say that it was direct evidence of gravity, and I certainly didn't say I was right. I simply made the statement that: this could be possible. I'm not going to jump from that to "IT'S CERTAINLY A FACT!" like you because there is no direct evidence. What is so hard to understand here??
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 12:55:33 PM
You haven't proven anything. I assure you that direct evidence is a thing, and it's not "meaningless". You have no direct evidence of gravity. Any "evidence" that you have is not "direct evidence". Your idea that the sun and moon are held in orbit because of gravity is a scientific fallacy if you're basing this simply on how the Sun and Moon look in the sky or tides. You have not proven that it is gravity that is responsbile for these things. UA could also be responsible, so could Invisible Crookeedon holding up the planets. How would you know the difference?
We know the difference because one is more likely than the other.
Quote
I agree with this except for the fact that you say it's "direct evidence". Do you honestly think tides or seeing something in the sky proves an invisible force is responsible for it all? Really? Do you not see the huge leap in logic here? I'm sorry to have to do this to you, BiJane... but I'm going to have to use the roll eyes:  ::)
Tides and the Sun and moon do prove something is responsible for them being there. Gravity explains all of them neatly and (along with the Cavendish experiment, which you don't accept, but you could likely perform yourself with enough evidence) is justified by yet more means. So why suppose numerous other explanations?

Quote
Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.
Sure: when you tell me how you are assured it isn't one great big hallucination or pretension. It's an illustration you've yet to acknowledge. You're saying that everything that's been given to you as proof of gravity isn't enough because it could be explained away by numerous other proposed concepts: but that's true of everything. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 12:58:58 PM
Tides and the Sun and moon do prove something is responsible for them being there.

You're right. But it doesn't prove beyond a doubt that gravity is responsible. That's where you're fumbling.


And BiJane, the invitation to come over to my home is always open. Digit will be waiting for you. I will have ID, my IP, and evidence that Vauxhall is my username when you come over. Until then, please drop the cat point. It is a strawman argument and it is very very bad form. It just makes you look desperate, like I've said.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 01:02:56 PM
And you (falsely) accuse us for only taking gravity into account when it's convenient...  You call gravity fake but then the moment I bring up direct evidence of gravity you say that "the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull", which is basically saying "well that is an exception, gravity only exists when it's convenient for me".  Also, tides occur on opposite sides of the Earth, one high tide is when the Moon is over head and the other is when the Moon is over the opposite side of the Earth.  If the Earth were flat then just imagine where the high and low tides would be and tell me how that would be possible if it were caused by the Moon's gravity.

I also included this bit that you seemed to ignore:


These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

What this means it that while I did use gravity to explain the tides; I didn't say that it was direct evidence of gravity, and I certainly didn't say I was right. I simply made the statement that: this could be possible. I'm not going to jump from that to "IT'S CERTAINLY A FACT!" like you because there is no direct evidence. What is so hard to understand here??

Yeah, and those theories perfectly explain and predict things, so even if there is not enough evidence to say that they are 100% correct they are the best theories we have.  FET can't even explain why the sun sets, why solar eclipses are not seen everywhere at the same time, why lunar eclipses happen, why tides happen, why boats disappear bottom first as they go away from you, how southern constellations can't be seen from the northern hemisphere, why the angular size between stars is constant, why the Moon has phases, why mountains have weaker gravity then at sea level, why mountains can cast shadows on clouds in the right conditions, why objects in the sky stay in the sky, why objects in the sky move the way they do, where the Sun gets it's energy, why clouds appear to meet the horizon, why I can't see mount Everest from here, and many more things about which I could go on about for a long time.  The point is, even if RET is wrong it's 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times better then FET
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 01:04:54 PM
FET explains all these points. You just don't accept the explanations. Just as we don't accept the RE explanations. We are not so different. And you still have no direct evidence of gravity.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 01:05:15 PM
You're right. But it doesn't prove beyond a doubt that gravity that is responsible. That's where you're fumbling.
Hence my point on your cat. As you did:  ::)
Any proof like you ask for, for gravity, is impossible. You can always come up with an alternative. Your job is still to show the alternative's more likely.

Quote
And BiJane, the invitation to come over to my home is always open. Digit will be waiting for you. I will have ID, my IP, and evidence that Vauxhall is my username when you come over. Until then, please drop the cat point. It is a strawman argument and it is very very bad form. It just makes you look desperate, like I've said.
It's not a straw man, it is exactly the point you're making. You can't prove your cat isn't being hallucinated by you, by me, by everyone: you can't prove you don't go on this forum at a friend's house... What kind of evidence are you going to bring up that you can unequivocally show is genuine and not hallucinated? You could give your friend a password easily: you could buy a cat (or what you think is a cat) for the express purpose of making a point. There is always going to be another explanation, no matter how ludicrous it is to hold. This is the point: this is your point. I'm simply showing it's not a good one. You seem to agree.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 01:10:55 PM
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.

And you still have no direct evidence for gravity, and you're still unwilling to admit that fact.

I will freely admit that UA could be completely wrong. Aether is not observable. I have no direct evidence for it. But I believe it's there and have come up with theories that attempt to explain it. You've done the same thing with gravity, but you come from a long line of RE scientists that have so much hubris that you now believe everything is scientific fact the moment you come up with a small explanation for something. You are leaving no room for error, which then turns into religious dogma at that point... not science. There is more in heaven and Earth than in your philosophy (unless you're a nihilist), and you need to be willing to admit that you are wrong.

There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 01:17:15 PM
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.
I know what it is. I'm not making one, I'm applying your standard.
Quote
There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
By your definition, I'm happy to admit it: because you make it so there is no direct evidence of anything. As I have said.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
FET explains all these points. You just don't accept the explanations. Just as we don't accept the RE explanations. We are not so different. And you still have no direct evidence of gravity.

OK, enlighten me.  How does the sun appear to go below the horizon in the west and then come back up in the east if it should have never left my line of sight according to your model?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 01:21:43 PM
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.
I know what it is. I'm not making one, I'm applying your standard.
Quote
There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
By your definition, I'm happy to admit it: because you make it so there is no direct evidence of anything. As I have said.


No I dont. I have said that there is no direct evidence of gravity... that's it. Do you think that putting words in my mouth is going to help your case?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 20, 2015, 01:24:33 PM
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

The Cavendish experiment is direct evidence for gravity. It is also admitted to be valid by FE'ers.
Made you look again! I love how Vauxhall can't respond to my posts because it would give away he's looking at them all. I can feel him burning with impotent rage.  ;D
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 01:30:10 PM
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.
I know what it is. I'm not making one, I'm applying your standard.
Quote
There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
By your definition, I'm happy to admit it: because you make it so there is no direct evidence of anything. As I have said.


No I dont. I have said that there is no direct evidence of gravity... that's it. Do you think that putting words in my mouth is going to help your case?

There is plenty of direct evidence for gravity (like tides), but by your standards you have to see it and poke it before you can believe it.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 01:30:33 PM
No I dont. I have said that there is no direct evidence of gravity... that's it. Do you think that putting words in my mouth is going to help your case?
Ignoring several posts worth of conversation doesn't help your case. Your standards for direct evidence of gravity are too high to be reached by anything: alternatives may always be thought of, no matter the topic. Do you disagree? And if so, how? 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 01:37:46 PM
BiJane, please stop. You know why I ignored your cat point. Dont even try to cite that as a failing on my part. Why are you so disingenuous? It's very alarming.

My criteria for direct evidence is the following: could it possibly have any other explanation? If it does, then it is not direct evidence. Seeing it firsthand is just a bonus.

I would believe CongaKogo King of Apes from Mars holding up the Earth with his magical extending staff before gravity. Thats how little direct evidence there is. If you want to dispute the definition of direct evidence then why dont you take it up with someone who fucking cares and/or is as dense as yourselves. I am frankly above it.

Twist and shape the meaning of words all you want, but in the end you're still wrong.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 01:40:14 PM
My criteria for direct evidence is the following: could it possibly have any other explanation?
Exactly the problem. Hallucination is always an alternative explanation for 90% of things. Maybe there is no moon or tides, maybe you imagined it: that's one explanation. Same for the cat. Same for any other example you care to mention.
Your criteria is meaningless. That's clear.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 01:46:05 PM
BiJane.... Strawma-


You know what, nevermind.

You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems. Please note that I have not mentioned anything about hallucinations. That is absolutely a product of your deceiving nature. You are a sociopath.

As it stands right now, there is simply not enough evidence and simply too many other explanations for me to accept the theory of gravity.

Modern science has pretty much boiled down to: "God did it". Except replace God with gravity.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sokarul on February 20, 2015, 01:51:10 PM
Gravitational lensing is evidence for gravity.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/gravitational-lens/2014/39/ (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/gravitational-lens/2014/39/)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 20, 2015, 02:01:36 PM
Since he's blocked me, would someone else like to tell him the Cavendish experiment is direct evidence for gravity and is admitted by FE'ers?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 02:05:40 PM
You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems.
Nope: this is your logic. You're the one saying that alternative explanations are enough to prevent something being direct evidence. This is your statement. I'm just saying alternative explanations exist for everything. Again, do you disagree?
If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 02:07:40 PM
You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems.
Nope: this is your logic. You're the one saying that alternative explanations are enough to prevent something being direct evidence. This is your statement. I'm just saying alternative explanations exist for everything. Again, do you disagree?
If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.

Please keep telling me what I believe and what I think. It really helps your case.  ::)


And please, BiJane. Don't use the word "fallacy". Everything you post is a fallacy, so you clearly do not understand what that word means. When your posts have some substance then I will reply without insulting your intelligence.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 02:09:47 PM
You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems.
Nope: this is your logic. You're the one saying that alternative explanations are enough to prevent something being direct evidence. This is your statement. I'm just saying alternative explanations exist for everything. Again, do you disagree?
If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.

Please keep telling me what I believe and what I think. It really helps your case.  ::)


And please, BiJane. Don't use the word "fallacy". Everything you post is a fallacy, so you clearly do not understand what that word means. When your posts have some substance then I will reply without insulting your intelligence.
I'm just using what you've already said. Again:

If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 02:13:28 PM
The collected research and science conducted involving the Flat Earth theory are my reasons for not believing that gravity is what holds the Sun/Moon/Earth in orbit etc. If you need a refresher course on these theories, please see the wiki.

I have explained this already??? There are other explanations. That's why it conflicts with my definition of direct evidence. Also, given my idea of direct evidence, I also do not believe there is any direct evidence of aether or UA. But I've explained all this before.


Why are you making me type this again?    :'(
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 02:15:48 PM
The collected research and science conducted involving the Flat Earth theory are my reasons for not believing that gravity is what holds the Sun/Moon/Earth in orbit etc. If you need a refresher course on these theories, please see the wiki.

I have explained this already??? There are other explanations. That's why it conflicts with my definition of direct evidence. Also, given my idea of direct evidence, I also do not believe there is any direct evidence of aether or UA. But I've explained all this before.


Why are you making me type this again?    :'(
why are you engaging in a straw man? I'm saying your definition of direct evidence is meaningless, because there will always be an alternative explanation for anything.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 02:18:09 PM
there will always be an alternative explanation for anything.

Within reason.

And there is no strawman in my post. What the hell are you talking about, BiJane? I simply answered your question?


The evidence for you being a sociopath is just piling on, huh?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 02:21:27 PM
there will always be an alternative explanation for anything.

Within reason.
See, this is what you needed to say: an actual response.
So now it's possible to talk. We have the Cavendish experiment, we have the fact you yourself appeal to gravity to explain tides, you just lessen it pointlessly.
Would you care to share your arguments against it, or will they remain ethereal?

Quote
And there is no strawman in my post. What the hell are you talking about, BiJane? I simply answered your question?
How did that remotely answer my question as to your definition of direct evidence? It didn't even touch the right subject.

Quote
The evidence for you being a sociopath is just piling on, huh?
And the evidence for you being a eight-year-old is doing likewise.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 02:31:37 PM
See, this is what you needed to say: an actual response.

No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.


So now it's possible to talk. We have the Cavendish experiment, we have the fact you yourself appeal to gravity to explain tides, you just lessen it pointlessly.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, hm? I gave gravity as an example for tides, yes, but I also added that it is not confirmed and could be wrong. My personal explanation for tides involves aetheric eddies caused by the overflow from the bottom of the Earth disc. But that's not relevant to what we are discussing.


Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 02:36:34 PM
No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.
If they were assumptions, the obvious thing to do is to actually say so rather than carry on a nonsensical debate. A scientific debate is not carried out by one party refusing to correct a mistake.


Quote
Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
...do you understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 02:51:59 PM
No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.
If they were assumptions, the obvious thing to do is to actually say so rather than carry on a nonsensical debate. A scientific debate is not carried out by one party refusing to correct a mistake.


Quote
Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
...do you understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion?

Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise? If your premise is flawed, your results are going to be flawed. That's basic stuff, BiJane.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sokarul on February 20, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.
If they were assumptions, the obvious thing to do is to actually say so rather than carry on a nonsensical debate. A scientific debate is not carried out by one party refusing to correct a mistake.


Quote
Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
...do you understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion?

Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise? If your premise is flawed, your results are going to be flawed. That's basic stuff, BiJane.
And gravitational lensing?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 02:54:37 PM
Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise? If your premise is flawed, your results are going to be flawed. That's basic stuff, BiJane.
If the premise is false, how could it get a value for said attraction? Do you have an alternative explanation for that? If so, please show that it is actually more likely than gravity.
We're all waiting.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 02:58:12 PM
We're all waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Because you're probably going to be waiting for a long time.

When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 20, 2015, 03:02:59 PM
We're all waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Because you're probably going to be waiting for a long time.

When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.

Do you ever actually read the posts people write, or do you just wait for a chance to jump in with pointless stories?
Once again:

If the premise is false, how could it get a value for said attraction? Do you have an alternative explanation for that? If so, please show that it is actually more likely than gravity.
We're all waiting.

Saying that there is no attraction between objects does not explain where the value comes from. Maths doesn't work like that. Where did the value come from?

Also, other people have pointed out various good points. I think the latest is gravitational lensing. Are you going to acknowledge them?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: sokarul on February 20, 2015, 03:06:15 PM
We're all waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Because you're probably going to be waiting for a long time.

When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.

Do you ever actually read the posts people write, or do you just wait for a chance to jump in with pointless stories?
Once again:

If the premise is false, how could it get a value for said attraction? Do you have an alternative explanation for that? If so, please show that it is actually more likely than gravity.
We're all waiting.

Saying that there is no attraction between objects does not explain where the value comes from. Maths doesn't work like that. Where did the value come from?

Also, other people have pointed out various good points. I think the latest is gravitational lensing. Are you going to acknowledge them?
He must have me blocked.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 20, 2015, 03:07:43 PM
I am going to acknowledge all the points in time. I am working while responding to you, so I am sorry if my answers are not necessarily satisfactory.


If it's ok, could you explain the Cavendish Experiment to me with your own words? How they did? What tools they used? I just want to make sure you have a full understanding about what you're debating before I take the time to respond.


He must have me blocked.

You're not blocked. I just haven't had much time to respond properly. I will get to it though.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 03:08:16 PM
When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.

If RE math is false then it can easily be disproved by making a prediction with it and watching something different happen, but from my experience RE math has been really accurate.  What is an example of RE math which you believe is false and can easily be disproved (or proven) with an experiment?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 20, 2015, 04:22:32 PM
Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise?

Vauxhall shows here that he doesn't understand that the purpose of an experiment is to test a theory, not to prove it. The experiment doesn't have an opinion one way or the other. If gravity did not exist, the Cavendish experiment would not work. It doesn't magically work if gravity is wrong but the person conducting the experiment believes in it hard enough.

But I'l leave the last word to our esteemed "moderator":

The Cavendish Experement proved that massive objects attract each other.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 21, 2015, 05:24:31 PM
Quote
Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.
Sure: when you tell me how you are assured it isn't one great big hallucination or pretension. It's an illustration you've yet to acknowledge. You're saying that everything that's been given to you as proof of gravity isn't enough because it could be explained away by numerous other proposed concepts: but that's true of everything. Do you disagree, and if so, why?


I've decided to entertain BiJane's massive strawman argument for laughs.

May I present.... Digit, my cat. He is angry that I made him do this, as you can tell.

(http://i.imgur.com/SV4uFed.jpg)

Satisfied now, BiJane? If you think it's shopped, please show proof of it being shopped. If you think it's a halucination, well... I'm sure everyone else can see the picture so that's not a valid excuse anymore. 

Now that your strawman has been utterly maimed: could you please present us with direct evidence for gravity? A picture of gravity would do nicely, I think.

I'll wait. :)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 21, 2015, 06:18:16 PM
A picture of gravity would do nicely, I think.

How do you think it would be possible to photograph a force (like gravity)?  Is it possible to photograph magnetism?  Does the inability to photograph magnetism mean that magnetism doesn't exist?  Does the lack of an explanation for magnetism mean that it doesn't exist?  It's also possible to take the flat earther approach and say that the aether is somehow responsible for magnetism, so by your standards magnetism is probably not real.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 07:31:06 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg)
Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 21, 2015, 08:53:54 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg)
Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me.  Or, are you saying this is a picture of a globe as well?

(http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 08:57:00 PM
http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg)
Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me.  Or, are you saying this is a picture of a globe as well?

http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg (http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg)
There are no remnants of a fish eye lens in the photograph. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Here:
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/0A2C232A-1E73-497D-BBC990D98F9AD53B.jpg)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 21, 2015, 09:03:56 PM
Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:07:17 PM
Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg)
Perfect rebuttal, you fell right into my trap.

I've decided to entertain BiJane's massive strawman argument for laughs.
May I present.... Digit, my cat. He is angry that I made him do this, as you can tell.

(http://i.imgur.com/SV4uFed.jpg)
Satisfied now, BiJane? If you think it's shopped, please show proof of it being shopped.   

(http://webneel.com/daily/sites/default/files/images/daily/02-2014/4-cat-drawing-flanagan.jpg)
Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 21, 2015, 09:10:34 PM
What does a cat have to do with Tatooine? 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:14:16 PM
What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?
Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 21, 2015, 09:16:16 PM
What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?
Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you? 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:17:43 PM
What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?
Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you?
Good, then this does not pertain to you. Vauxhall agrees that photographs can be used as evidence. You are really bad at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you?

What a perfect example from a mod.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 21, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?
Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you?
Good, then this does not pertain to you. Vauxhall agrees that photographs can be used as evidence. You are really bad at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you?

What a perfect example from a mod.

If you only want to address one person, then use the PM function.  This is a public forum, after all. 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:28:45 PM
What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?
Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you?
Good, then this does not pertain to you. Vauxhall agrees that photographs can be used as evidence. You are really bad at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you?

What a perfect example from a mod.

If you only want to address one person, then use the PM function.  This is a public forum, after all.
If you want to be a good mod, then don't use personal attacks. That is a rule you (rarely) enforce, after all.

Besides, whether or not I was addressing one person is completely irrelevant. Vauxhall presented an argument, and I was addressing it. If you don't agree with the warrant of that argument (that being that photographs can be used as evidence), that doesn't mean I have to privately message him, that just means you don't have to agree.

Thanks for more insight into the level of competence of the mods.

EDIT: Dawww, who's the bad debater now?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Agnotology on February 21, 2015, 09:56:57 PM
Stars are planes? even a few of them? lets build on that for a second. 
Say they are in low earth orbit. no, that wouldn't work, they would be moving too fast
anything below 15k feet and you can hear them.... especially at night, when its quieter..... still too fast
Hmm, so cruising altitude is too slow, and low is too loud....
and planes move rather quickly across the night sky compared to the stars.....

Ballons..... not enough mass to accurately track the path in the presence of the higher altitude winds.
flying spaghetti monster!!!!!! we are onto something here...... kidding kidding.

however, wouldn't that drastically change their position if relative to two observers or any person who enjoys astronomy enough to look at the stars once a week with just your eyes? Someone just 500 miles away would be seeing the same constellation at a vastly different angle, changing not only their appearance but distance between them.

edit: typo
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 01:06:58 AM
Jet Fission. I know you think you're being clever right now, but you're really just being wrong. Photographic evidence from space is still absolutely bogus. It's completely different.

My example was not intended to be the basis of even more strawman aruguements. Please do not fall into the BiJane loop.

And you're seriously making a grave error if you think I am the cornerstone on which all other flat earthers base their opinions. I am not that smart and I dont want all that responsibility. So please treat other FE'ers like individuals from now on. You are extremely offensive.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 01:40:02 AM
Jet Fission. I know you think you're being clever right now, but you're really just being wrong. Photographic evidence from space is still absolutely bogus. It's completely different.

My example was not intended to be the basis of even more strawman aruguements. Please do not fall into the BiJane loop.

And you're seriously making a grave error if you think I am the cornerstone on which all other flat earthers base their opinions. I am not that smart and I dont want all that responsibility. So please treat other FE'ers like individuals from now on. You are extremely offensive.
You're the one making a claim it's not a hallucination.
Please provide proof Jet Fission's photos are fakes, if you hold that they are. if you do not, then I may happily reject your photos of your so-called cat for exactly the same reasons that you fail to supply.
It's not actually that different. After all, I don't think you have a cat, so any photos showing otherwise must be faked. I mean, you even have a motive to do the faking: you're trying to score points in an argument, and regain credibility.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 02:13:52 AM
You challenged me to produce evidence of my cat. I've done that and now you're... doing what exactly? Prove that an unrelated photo is faked? I dont understand. Please try to keep your requests on topic.

Almost all photos from space have the same errors in some of the pixels. There is demonstratable proof. Please point out these proofs in my picture of Digit. I have never used the hallucination card in any arguement, so I don't understand how you think that was my contention to begin with. What is it with RE'ers and false premises?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 02:22:47 AM
Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg)
Why should it not be real?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 02:36:25 AM
You challenged me to produce evidence of my cat. I've done that and now you're... doing what exactly? Prove that an unrelated photo is faked? I dont understand. Please try to keep your requests on topic.

Almost all photos from space have the same errors in some of the pixels. There is demonstratable proof. Please point out these proofs in my picture of Digit. I have never used the hallucination card in any arguement, so I don't understand how you think that was my contention to begin with. What is it with RE'ers and false premises?
You seem to misunderstand how arguments works.

Please point out those proofs in the photos provided to you. If you cannot do that, and still reject them as fake, then it stands to reason I should be allowed to do the same, and reject your photo as fake.
It doesn't matter how the topic came up. You have motive (proving me wrong) and opportunity (hours to find an obscure photo and photoshop). As it took you so long to send a photo, when it should have taken minutes at most, I can only conclude it took you that long to fake.
Besides, that paper isn't as ruffled as it should be, and the lights and shadows are all wrong. Darkness at the back, while the immediate area is all bright. And I don't see a reflection in the cat's eyes of you holding the camera. Actually, you seem to have shopped out the cat's eyes. Spotted the flaw, did you?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 04:19:30 AM
Would anyone like to return to the OP and address the issue of stars rotating around two points? Or would jroa like to post more screenshots from Star Wars that prove nothing?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 07:51:34 AM
Would anyone like to return to the OP and address the issue of stars rotating around two points? Or would jroa like to post more screenshots from Star Wars that prove nothing?
I wouldn't get your hopes up, the only response so far comes worryingly close to "That's no star, it's a space station!"
Well, airplane, but still.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 22, 2015, 09:57:39 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg)
Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me. 


Nope jroa... you weren't asked what it "looks like" to you:  You were asked for evidence that it was faked.  A dolphin "looks like" a fish, but it isn't.  Something that just looks like something else can't be classified as evidence.

Your comment also further indicates that you just don't understand how a camera's lenses work.  There is zero curvilinear distortion in the earth image, but the second image is almost totally distorted—apart from along its major optical axes.  Any competent photographer will tell you that the image of the planet could/can be taken with a long focal length lens, and the second has been taken with a lens of a far, far shorter focal length.  Possibly in the order of 8mm.


The black area surrounding this image is not the equivalent of the black sky in the earth image—which is an actual part of the image.


(http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg)

The black on this image defines the "image circle" on the camera's sensor, and is not a part of the image as such;  it's just where no light has fallen on the sensor.  Totally different thing to the earth image.  Sorry.





EDIT:  I'm getting really, really sick of repeatedly fixing the [img] coding on this site!
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 12:21:56 PM
BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 12:25:56 PM
BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.
Have you forgotten why the subject was brought up?
It was your insistence that there be direct evidence, such that there can be no other explanation, for gravity. My intent is to show your definition is meaningless. My illustration was that there is always an alternate explanation. The only reason there's a loop is because you refuse to acknowledge what I'm writing.
Evading something by referring to it as off topic, when it is clearly relevant to the matter of credibility at hand, is transparent, and futile.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 22, 2015, 12:26:21 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg)
Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me. 


Nope jroa... you weren't asked what it "looks like" to you:  You were asked for evidence that it was faked.  A dolphin "looks like" a fish, but it isn't.  Something that just looks like something else can't be classified as evidence.

Your comment also further indicates that you just don't understand how a camera's lenses work.  There is zero curvilinear distortion in the earth image, but the second image is almost totally distorted—apart from along its major optical axes.  Any competent photographer will tell you that the image of the planet could/can be taken with a long focal length lens, and the second has been taken with a lens of a far, far shorter focal length.  Possibly in the order of 8mm.


The black area surrounding this image is not the equivalent of the black sky in the earth image—which is an actual part of the image.


(http://[url=http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg]http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg[/url])

The black on this image defines the "image circle" on the camera's sensor, and is not a part of the image as such;  it's just where no light has fallen on the sensor.  Totally different thing to the earth image.  Sorry.

How would you know what the original scene looked like in order to determine that there is no distortion in the photo?  Sounds like you are just making things up again and trying to pass it off as facts. 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 12:28:46 PM
BiJane, please try to stay on topic. I will not respond to you if you continue to move the goal post.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
BiJane, please try to stay on topic. I will not respond to you if you continue to move the goal post.
Vauxhall, please try to stay on topic. I will not respond to you if you continue to evade.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 22, 2015, 12:33:12 PM
BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.
It looks like you're having a bit of trouble with comprehension.

Since the beginning, BiJane has been trying to make a point about your standards of evidence by mocking you. We are claiming that your standards of evidence are ridiculous, and we are proving it by flipping the scenario onto you. You claim that you have a cat? Okay, prove it. You take a picture? Nope, that's fake.

You used a picture of your cat to prove its existence. This means that you agree that photographs can be used as evidence. Therefore, the Earth is round unless you prove that photographs and videos of a clearly round Earth are shopped in any way, as you said. Do you honestly think we'd be seriously arguing about the existence of your cat without a purpose?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 22, 2015, 12:40:01 PM
How would you know what the original scene looked like in order to determine that there is no distortion in the photo?

Are you now claiming that the earth image shows distortions?  Can you please indicate exactly where those alleged distortions are occurring?  I'm unable to see any.  Unless you have any contradictory evidence, I'm prepared to accept the NASA image as legitimate.

Quote
Sounds like you are just making things up again and trying to pass it off as facts.

Sound like?  What does that mean exactly?  Are you accusing me of "making things up" or not?  Do you have any viable evidence to support this claim? 

And if you disagree with the "facts" I've posted about lenses and image distortion, then by all means post your own interpretations of the facts.  I've been in the photography game a long time, so your facts better be pretty convincing jroa.

Bring 'em on!
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Son of Orospu on February 22, 2015, 12:45:30 PM
How would you know what the original scene looked like in order to determine that there is no distortion in the photo?

Are you now claiming that the earth image shows distortions?  Can you please indicate exactly where those alleged distortions are occurring?  I'm unable to see any.  Unless you have any contradictory evidence, I'm prepared to accept the NASA image as legitimate.

Quote
Sounds like you are just making things up again and trying to pass it off as facts.

Sound like?  What does that mean exactly?  Are you accusing me of "making things up" or not?  Do you have any viable evidence to support this claim? 

And if you disagree with the "facts" I've posted about lenses and image distortion, then by all means post your own interpretations of the facts.  I've been in the photography game a long time, so your facts better be pretty convincing jroa.

Bring 'em on!

What I am accusing you of is saying, "I don't see any distortion so it must be true."  Even though you do not have a reference to tell that the picture is not distorted.  I know this probably goes over your head, but, please, try to keep up. 
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 12:46:02 PM
BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.
It looks like you're having a bit of trouble with comprehension.

Since the beginning, BiJane has been trying to make a point about your standards of evidence by mocking you. We are claiming that your standards of evidence are ridiculous, and we are proving it by flipping the scenario onto you. You claim that you have a cat? Okay, prove it. You take a picture? Nope, that's fake.

You used a picture of your cat to prove its existence. This means that you agree that photographs can be used as evidence. Therefore, the Earth is round unless you prove that photographs and videos of a clearly round Earth are shopped in any way, as you said. Do you honestly think we'd be seriously arguing about the existence of your cat without a purpose?

No. You just moved the goal post. If you don't see how then please remove yourself from this thread.

BiJane asked for evidence of my cat's existence. I provided some evidence. If you can prove that my picture of Digit is faked, like BiJane seems to think, then I will respond to your points about photos of the Earth.

Next time read the thread before jumping in with your asinine interjections.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 12:48:48 PM
No. You just moved the goal post. If you don't see how then please remove yourself from this thread.

BiJane asked for evidence of my cat's existence. I provided some evidence. If you can prove that my picture of Digit is faked, like BiJane seems to think, then I will respond to your points about photos of the Earth.
How do you define proof? Must it be based on yet more badly defined 'direct evidence,' which is the very thing under question? Or could it simply be examples of problems, which is all you have to offer on the photos of the Earth (prove me wrong), and which I have given should you choose to scroll up.

Quote
Next time read the thread before jumping in with your asinine interjections.
They've clearly read it more than you.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 12:53:01 PM
I still see nothing about my cat in your post. I'm skipping over all your off-topic points until you address Digit properly.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 22, 2015, 12:56:58 PM
I still see nothing about my cat in your post. I'm skipping over all your off-topic points until you address Digit properly.
I have already given you some flaws with your photo:
You have motive (proving me wrong) and opportunity (hours to find an obscure photo and photoshop). As it took you so long to send a photo, when it should have taken minutes at most, I can only conclude it took you that long to fake.
Besides, that paper isn't as ruffled as it should be, and the lights and shadows are all wrong. Darkness at the back, while the immediate area is all bright. And I don't see a reflection in the cat's eyes of you holding the camera. Actually, you seem to have shopped out the cat's eyes. Spotted the flaw, did you?
Do us the same courtesy and provide the floors you have with the photos from the Earth. If you object to what I have said, please provide direct evidence of your claims rather than mere assertion with many other explanations.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Jet Fission on February 22, 2015, 12:59:46 PM
No. You just moved the goal post. If you don't see how then please remove yourself from this thread.

BiJane asked for evidence of my cat's existence. I provided some evidence. If you can prove that my picture of Digit is faked, like BiJane seems to think, then I will respond to your points about photos of the Earth.

Next time read the thread before jumping in with your asinine interjections.


We didn't move shit. How about you go back and read?


You're right. But it doesn't prove beyond a doubt that gravity that is responsible. That's where you're fumbling.
Hence my point on your cat. As you did:  ::)
Any proof like you ask for, for gravity, is impossible. You can always come up with an alternative. Your job is still to show the alternative's more likely.

Quote
And BiJane, the invitation to come over to my home is always open. Digit will be waiting for you. I will have ID, my IP, and evidence that Vauxhall is my username when you come over. Until then, please drop the cat point. It is a strawman argument and it is very very bad form. It just makes you look desperate, like I've said.
It's not a straw man, it is exactly the point you're making. You can't prove your cat isn't being hallucinated by you, by me, by everyone: you can't prove you don't go on this forum at a friend's house... What kind of evidence are you going to bring up that you can unequivocally show is genuine and not hallucinated? You could give your friend a password easily: you could buy a cat (or what you think is a cat) for the express purpose of making a point. There is always going to be another explanation, no matter how ludicrous it is to hold. This is the point: this is your point. I'm simply showing it's not a good one. You seem to agree.

Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.
Sure: when you tell me how you are assured it isn't one great big hallucination or pretension. It's an illustration you've yet to acknowledge. You're saying that everything that's been given to you as proof of gravity isn't enough because it could be explained away by numerous other proposed concepts: but that's true of everything. Do you disagree, and if so, why?


So. You're claiming that photographs can be used as evidence. Therefore, the Earth is round, and this discussion is over. Unless of course, you have evidence that the photographs and video is false.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 22, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
What I am accusing you of is saying, "I don't see any distortion so it must be true."

Fair enough.  I've seen literally hundreds of similar images taken by a couple of other space agencies working in conjunction with NASA (The Australian Space Research Institute being one of them) and they all look remarkably similar when taken from the same or similar aspect—other than the varying cloud cover of course.  Can I ask you if you personally ever accept any photographic images—that you haven't personally taken—to be legitimate and/or not digitally manipulated?  Many flat earthers have posted third-party images in order to prove some particular point or other;  did you or do you accept those images as being legitimate for the purposes of their argument?  Or do you also harbour some doubts about the flat earthers' images as well?  Finally, could you please post one photographic image that you consider to be 100% legitimate and unmanipulated for me to have a look at?

Quote
Even though you do not have a reference to tell that the picture is not distorted.
 
Are you saying that in order to prove the authenticity of a particular photographic image, one must have another similar—but previously proved to be authentic—image to compare it with prior to deciding its authenticity one way or the other?  And if that's the case, then how do you explain a "photo-finish" image possibly worth tens of millions of dollars at a race track being accepted as authentic?  It'll only ever happen the once, and it's never happened before.  So no image comparison is possible.

Quote
I know this probably goes over your head, but, please, try to keep up.

Would you mind keeping these snide little asides to yourself jroa.  They do nothing to strengthen your argument, and just make you look petty.  Thanks.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 02:29:13 PM
What I am accusing you of is saying, "I don't see any distortion so it must be true."

Fair enough.  I've seen literally hundreds of similar images taken by a couple of other space agencies working in conjunction with NASA (The Australian Space Research Institute being one of them) and they all look remarkably similar when taken from the same or similar aspect—other than the varying cloud cover of course.  Can I ask you if you personally ever accept any photographic images—that you haven't personally taken—to be legitimate and/or not digitally manipulated?  Many flat earthers have posted third-party images in order to prove some particular point or other;  did you or do you accept those images as being legitimate for the purposes of their argument?  Or do you also harbour some doubts about the flat earthers' images as well?  Finally, could you please post one photographic image that you consider to be 100% legitimate and unmanipulated for me to have a look at?


Let's start just saying "Fake. Photoshopped," every time jroa posts one of his mountain ranges disappearing into haze. See how he likes it to have a taste of his own arguments.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: ausGeoff on February 22, 2015, 02:32:35 PM
Let's start just saying "Fake. Photoshopped," every time jroa posts one of his mountain ranges disappearing into haze. See how he likes it to have a taste of his own arguments.

This is gonna be good.  What say you jroa?

    ;D
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 22, 2015, 06:04:08 PM
He didn't like it.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 23, 2015, 10:55:37 AM
He didn't like it.

Of course he didn't like it. If other people do exactly what he does, then he can't take action against them without proving his hypocrisy, so he has to suck it up, or else face accusations of being drunk with mod power.
Having said that, I'm expecting to be banned any moment for goading him. I'll get my alts ready to log in.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 10:34:55 AM
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, but obviously I haven't missed much.  ::)

You have motive (proving me wrong) and opportunity (hours to find an obscure photo and photoshop). As it took you so long to send a photo, when it should have taken minutes at most, I can only conclude it took you that long to fake.
Besides, that paper isn't as ruffled as it should be, and the lights and shadows are all wrong. Darkness at the back, while the immediate area is all bright. And I don't see a reflection in the cat's eyes of you holding the camera. Actually, you seem to have shopped out the cat's eyes. Spotted the flaw, did you?

Good theories, now please provide your evidence of these claims.


Do us the same courtesy and provide the floors you have with the photos from the Earth. If you object to what I have said, please provide direct evidence of your claims rather than mere assertion with many other explanations.

No. You provided no evidence for your claims of falsehood. It's great that you think it's faked, and it's great that you've told me what parts you think are fake. But you've provided no evidence, just opinions and suspicions (and no, your lack of photography experience does not count as evidence, sorry). Please provide some supporting evidence to back up these claims of falsehood, and remember: I said "within reason". Your reason is just a comical satire on normal FE'er responses. I thought you held yourself to a higher standard? Please stop wasting my time. Can you prove the picture is fake or not?  Please try to hold yourself to a higher standard when answering this question.

You are failing this social experiment miserably.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 10:55:27 AM
Good theories, now please provide your evidence of these claims.
No. I'll do as you do. I'll provide evidence when you do.


Quote
No. You provided no evidence for your claims of falsehood. It's great that you think it's faked, and it's great that you've told me what parts you think are fake. But you've provided no evidence, just opinions and suspicions (and no, your lack of photography experience does not count as evidence, sorry).
Still more than you've supplied. I won't go any further until you do.

Quote
Please provide some supporting evidence to back up these claims of falsehood, and remember: I said "within reason". Your reason is just a comical satire on normal FE'er responses.
My reason is satire of yours and your unreachable standard of direct evidence. Have some of your own words:

Direct evidence could not be explained by a conspiracy. The fact that you do not have direct evidence is the reason why it's easy to dismiss your claims.
I propose that there is a conspiracy to make everyone believe you have a cat, with photoshopping, hallucinogens, and possibly a few robots. The fact I can explain away your evidence with this means you do not have direct evidence, by your own admission.

As for your within reason:
I would believe CongaKogo King of Apes from Mars holding up the Earth with his magical extending staff before gravity.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:03:53 AM
Are you confused? This is about my cat, BiJane. My cat. Can you prove the photo is faked?


And you haven't explained anything. You've made baseless claims. Good job.


I would believe CongaKogo King of Apes from Mars holding up the Earth with his magical extending staff before gravity.


Please continue to cherry pick my comical responses to your childish posts and cite them as my legitimate line of reasoning. Once again, you are being disingenuous. As always. I shouldn't be surprised.

Until you can provide solid proof that my photo of Digit has been altered or manipulated (not fan theory, do you know the difference?), I will not answer any of your questions.

Please stop changing the topic.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:06:53 AM

Until you can provide solid proof that my photo of Digit has been altered or manipulated (not fan theory, do you know the difference?), I will not answer any of your questions.


Please stop changing the topic. We are talking about your definition of direct evidence: which, by your own admission, cannot be explained away by a conspiracy. I have explained away your supposed evidence with a conspiracy: hence, it was not direct evidence.
Try and stay on topic Vauxy.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:17:33 AM
So we're not discussing my photo of Digit? Wth is going on here? I'm not the one changing the topic.

Ill skip the BiJane loop and get to the point. I heavily edited my photo of Digit. But you couldn't find one correct example of manipulation. The purpose of this experiment was to see if you could. The fact that you could not just goes to show that: photographic "evidence" is not reliable.

Thank you for your time.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:22:16 AM
So we're not discussing my photo of Digit? Wth is going on here? I'm not the one changing the topic.
We are and always were discussing your ridiculous concept of direct evidence. Digit was one example. Try to stay on topic Vauxhall.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:24:37 AM
So we're not discussing my photo of Digit? Wth is going on here? I'm not the one changing the topic.
We are and always were discussing your ridiculous concept of direct evidence. Digit was one example. Try to stay on topic Vauxhall.

I am on topic. Why do you insist on posting things that are pretty much spam?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:25:45 AM
I am on topic. Why do you insist on posting things that are pretty much spam?
Asking you to stay on topic and respond to what's actually been said is spam? Well then.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
I am on topic. Why do you insist on posting things that are pretty much spam?
Asking you to stay on topic and respond to what's actually been said is spam? Well then.

It is when I have been on topic this whole time? ???

Is this how you make yourself feel better for looking like an idiot?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:28:07 AM
It is when I have been on topic this whole time? ???
Really?
Then please, point me to your answer of my explicit, on-topic question of how your photo of a cat qualifies as direct evidence when it could be explained by a conspiracy, which you have said direct evidence could not be?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:31:45 AM
It is when I have been on topic this whole time? ???
Really?
Then please, point me to your answer of my explicit, on-topic question of how your photo of a cat qualifies as direct evidence when it could be explained by a conspiracy, which you have said direct evidence could not be?

My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...  ::)
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...  ::)
Because it was irrelevant: I wasn't particularly interested in examining a photo. My interest, since the start, has been in pointing out how your definition of direct evidence is meaningless. try and stay on topic.
As Digit was your only example, and you've admitted you do not actually have direct evidence of it, may I take that as your agreement?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:42:29 AM
My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...  ::)
Because it was irrelevant: I wasn't particularly interested in examining a photo. My interest, since the start, has been in pointing out how your definition of direct evidence is meaningless. try and stay on topic.
As Digit was your only example, and you've admitted you do not actually have direct evidence of it, may I take that as your agreement?

Is it true that you deem things irrelevant when you don't want to look like a moron?

I still have direct evidence of Digit, though. You are welcome to come to my home. I know you've rejected this offer in the past, but really if that's the only way to make you shut up about your pseudo-intellectual points then I am willing to make it happen. I will even pay for your travel. The fact here is: you could not tell the difference between a shopped cat and a real picture of a cat, so you are not at all qualified to even be discussing this. You cannot determine if a photograph is faked or genuine, that much is clear, so photographic evidence is always unsatisfactory. The fact that you "didn't want to examine" the photo just goes to show that you're making strawmen for the sake of post count and/or to look smarter than you actually are, and you are being disingenuous. Please do not bring up the "hallucination" or "conspiracy" points, because they are text-book strawman arguments. I have never mentioned anything about hallucinations or conspiracies, so please try to stay on topic with your next post.


If you knew anything about the zetetic method, or did any research at all before gracing this forum with your insufferable presence, then you would know what we consider to be direct evidence. The answer has been under your nose this whole time. Which is why with each post you are looking more and more desperate. You should really know the source material before you try to debate points. That's debating 101.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:45:53 AM
I still have direct evidence of Digit, though. You are welcome to come to my home. I know you've rejected this offer in the past, but really if that's the only way to make you shut up about your pseudo-intellectual points then I am willing to make it happen. I will even pay for your travel.
And a conspiracy could easily buy a new cat, find a new house, or drug me with hallucinogens or something to make me suggestible meaning my testimony was unreliable. So, by your definition, a conspiracy explains it, so it's not direct evidence.

Quote
The fact here is: you could not tell the difference between a shopped cat and a real picture of a cat, so you are not at all qualified to even be discussing this. You cannot determine if a photograpj is faked or genuine, that much is clear, so photographic evidence is always unsatisfactory. The fact that you "didn't want to examine" the photo just goes to show that you're making strawmen for the sake of post count and/or to look smarter than you actually are, and you are being disingenuous.
Given I didn't try, that we have only your word at the moment for the fakes, that there are people more qualified than me to examine photos, and there's a difference between making minor alterations and constructing an entire photo... you'd be amazed how little that says.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 11:47:50 AM
You done, BiJane?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Slemon on February 24, 2015, 11:48:29 AM
You done, BiJane?
Have you stopped being deliberately obtuse?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mikey T. on February 25, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
Dang it
I should have been visiting this thread more often, we went from circumpolar stars to cat pictures and a while lot of arguing.  Now I know what Im reading through at work tonight.
yep low content post here.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 25, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Dang it
I should have been visiting this thread more often, we went from circumpolar stars to cat pictures and a while lot of arguing.  Now I know what Im reading through at work tonight.
yep low content post here.

Can you find the discrepancies in my photo of Digit?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mikey T. on February 25, 2015, 12:52:20 PM
So I express amusement at the fact of how far this thread strayed from the OP and what, you thought that was an attack on your argument?
I haven't even looked at your cat picture yet.
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Vauxhall on February 25, 2015, 12:56:03 PM
So I express amusement at the fact of how far this thread strayed from the OP and what, you thought that was an attack on your argument?
I haven't even looked at your cat picture yet.

I didn't assume you were attacking my argument. I was just asking a question?
Title: Re: circumpolar stars
Post by: Mikey T. on February 25, 2015, 06:03:35 PM
ok then since Ive now looked at the photo, I can't see any doctoring of it.  That doesn't mean this isn't, but I don't see anything other than some brown stuff behind the cats face on the blinds or wall, perhaps a little spray tool, or it could just be crud on the wall.  I personally never said photo evidence is proof.  Proof is a lot of evidence that can be tested and verified independently.