Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.

  • 31 Replies
  • 6979 Views
*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« on: September 23, 2010, 05:27:04 PM »
Okay this is my first actual post, I have responded a few times.
This subject has been posted - I did searches for it, but the problem is that the posts quickly devolved into name calling and theory flinging. 

I think one reason is that the scope of the discussion increases and I want to try and keep the scope down to this Post

The question is - the rotation of the stars as viewed from different places on the HemiRegions.  This is not about the Sun, Moon, etc.

Now for the FlatEarth the sky revolves around the FlatEarth.  The point it revolves around is the Pole.  As seen from the ground at a Northern point above the Equator you can watch the stars revolve around Polaris in a CounterClockwise direction.

For a RoundEarth the earth spins instead of the sky - but the visual effect will be the same as for a persons point of reference they are stationary.

My question is what happens in the South HemiRegion?  With the Flat Earth model, being somewhat close to the Circumferential limit, lets say Punta Arenas Chile what would be seen in a Flat Earth?

The RoundEarth the view is almost the same as in the Northern HemiRegion, except that it revolves around a different star - HIP 104328.  Facing south the stars rotate Counterclockwise.

As far as I can tell - since in the FlatEarth, the sky is fixed at an altitute and rotates around Polaris, the sky should be rotating Counterclockwise facing north - towards the Pole at any point on the earth.

But every Solarium program I downloaded shows the sky rotating around a fixed point facing South when in the SouthernHemiRegion. 

On a FlatEarth, facing south there should be no fixed star - they should all continue to move.

Now I made a few assumptions.
A>  Flat Earth sky is indeed fixed at an altitute - the stars do not float around at differing speeds.  This ensures that all the constallations remain in the positions that they should be.

B>  The software programs were not provided by conspirators.  I make this assumption becuase 1) solarium programs run off data that is freely available found in navigation charts 2) navigation charts are correct for the simple reason that people can use them.
The preferred software I found was an OpenGL program found at
http://www.stellarium.org/

C>  Although I did not "study" the sky when I was in Punta Arenas, it behaved no differently than in other places I have been.

Berny
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2010, 06:27:45 PM »
Congratulations, you have discovered one of the many inconsistencies in FET!

Flat Earthers will attempt to explain this by stating that 3 similar "gears" contain the stars in the southern "hemiplane", and each rotates in the manner we can see. However, no one has ever seen the boundaries between these "gears" in which the stars would appear to move past each other in opposite directions.

Observations of the stars match up perfectly with RE predictions, but FE has yet to come up with a model which comes close to fitting reality. The same is true of many other aspects of FET.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2010, 03:13:19 PM »
Well I was hoping for something at least.

I decided to start with something simple so as not to get mired to deeply in conjecture.  I chose this to start because it requires no indepth research or technology - just direct observation.

Berny

To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2010, 05:51:33 PM »
Well I was hoping for something at least.

I decided to start with something simple so as not to get mired to deeply in conjecture.  I chose this to start because it requires no indepth research or technology - just direct observation.

Berny


The software is your problem and solution?  Your current software coaxes a response favorable to RET. It has probably been overly copied and propagated over and over on the net.

Correct software, in your example, would most likely have the sky fixed at an altitude and would rotate around Polaris. The sky, with the new software, would then actually be rotating counterclockwise facing north towards the pole at any point on the earth.

A study of star containment gears and hemiplanes will also serve us both well.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2010, 05:55:49 PM »
Well I was hoping for something at least.
I decided to start with something simple so as not to get mired to deeply in conjecture.  I chose this to start because it requires no indepth research or technology - just direct observation.
Berny
The software is your problem and solution?  Your current software coaxes a response favorable to RET. It has probably been overly copied and propagated over and over on the net.

Correct software, in your example, would most likely have the sky fixed at an altitude and would rotate around Polaris. The sky, with the new software, would then actually be rotating counterclockwise facing north towards the pole at any point on the earth.

A study of star containment gears and hemiplanes will also serve us both well.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Do you even have evidence that these gears exist?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2010, 06:01:56 PM »
Well I was hoping for something at least.
I decided to start with something simple so as not to get mired to deeply in conjecture.  I chose this to start because it requires no indepth research or technology - just direct observation.
Berny
The software is your problem and solution?  Your current software coaxes a response favorable to RET. It has probably been overly copied and propagated over and over on the net.

Correct software, in your example, would most likely have the sky fixed at an altitude and would rotate around Polaris. The sky, with the new software, would then actually be rotating counterclockwise facing north towards the pole at any point on the earth.

A study of star containment gears and hemiplanes will also serve us both well.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Do you even have evidence that these gears exist?
Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2010, 06:11:39 PM »
The software is your problem and solution?  Your current software coaxes a response favorable to RET. It has probably been overly copied and propagated over and over on the net.

Correct software, in your example, would most likely have the sky fixed at an altitude and would rotate around Polaris. The sky, with the new software, would then actually be rotating counterclockwise facing north towards the pole at any point on the earth.

A study of star containment gears and hemiplanes will also serve us both well.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Do you even have evidence that these gears exist?
Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding.
I wonder if you undertand that the correct order is find the evidence then make conclusion. You might try it.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2010, 06:28:05 PM »
The software is your problem and solution?  Your current software coaxes a response favorable to RET. It has probably been overly copied and propagated over and over on the net.

Correct software, in your example, would most likely have the sky fixed at an altitude and would rotate around Polaris. The sky, with the new software, would then actually be rotating counterclockwise facing north towards the pole at any point on the earth.

A study of star containment gears and hemiplanes will also serve us both well.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Do you even have evidence that these gears exist?
Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding.
I wonder if you undertand that the correct order is find the evidence then make conclusion. You might try it.
In fact, that's the Zetetic way.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2010, 06:28:14 PM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2010, 06:33:45 PM »
Well I was hoping for something at least.

I decided to start with something simple so as not to get mired to deeply in conjecture.  I chose this to start because it requires no indepth research or technology - just direct observation.

Berny


The software is your problem and solution?  Your current software coaxes a response favorable to RET. It has probably been overly copied and propagated over and over on the net.

Correct software, in your example, would most likely have the sky fixed at an altitude and would rotate around Polaris. The sky, with the new software, would then actually be rotating counterclockwise facing north towards the pole at any point on the earth.

A study of star containment gears and hemiplanes will also serve us both well.


Well the software was part of my solution.  I did not just use one program but a few freeware programs.  I listed the one in the OP because it was the easiest to use and OpenSource.

My question is not so much staring at Polaris and watching the stars revolve around it.  This works perfectly on a Flat Earth as well as a Round Earth.

It is when I stare south when below the equator.

Now I realize in your statement that the program is gimmicked to show an incorrect view - but what I am saying is that the program (and similar ones) use the same information that a navigator would use through his Almanacs.  In fact they can be used to help you find a constellation as an aid.

I also pointed out the programs for people who have not travelled to - or those who live in the SoutherHemiregion.  I am certain these programs would produce outcry from users if it did not match their skies they live below.

The other point I was making is that I have been south of the equator, and spent a few nights starring at the sky.  It rotates in much the same way as if I was in the Northern Hemiregion.

This has been in other posts as I stated in OP but fell quickly to trolling and etc.

What I would like is an explanation.  Not demanding one, interested in reading one - or more.

Someone mentioned a three ring theory - but I cannot visualize it working without having odd phenomena in the sky.

Berny


To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2010, 06:39:13 PM »
Someone mentioned a three ring theory - but I cannot visualize it working without having odd phenomena in the sky.
Bernie, you're doing a great job. Keep it up!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2010, 10:45:11 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2010, 11:06:11 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."
So you're saying that you have to serch for that data of someone's research to be able to take advantage of that research, right?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2010, 11:19:14 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."
So you're saying that you have to serch for that data of someone's research to be able to take advantage of that research, right?
No, I am saying that for this circumstance data is out there if you take the time and effort to look for it.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2010, 11:27:44 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."
So you're saying that you have to serch for that data of someone's research to be able to take advantage of that research, right?
No, I am saying that for this circumstance data is out there if you take the time and effort to look for it.
Please define what you mean by "circumstance data"
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2010, 11:30:24 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."
So you're saying that you have to serch for that data of someone's research to be able to take advantage of that research, right?
No, I am saying that for this circumstance data is out there if you take the time and effort to look for it.
Please define what you mean by "circumstance data"
I did think of separating that with a comma but thought the logic would flow without it.  Let's make it "circumstance, data" instead.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2010, 11:33:12 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."
So you're saying that you have to serch for that data of someone's research to be able to take advantage of that research, right?
No, I am saying that for this circumstance data is out there if you take the time and effort to look for it.
Please define what you mean by "circumstance data"
I did think of separating that with a comma but thought the logic would flow without it.  Let's make it "circumstance, data" instead.

Then where for this circumstance, are these data?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2010, 11:35:55 AM »
"Evidence, of course. For the moment, I defer and send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding."

This is like a scientist saying: "I have figured out the cure aids! But you must do your own research to show that I am right!"

Wtf mate?
Incorrect.  What I was saying is like a scientist saying "in my research I have discovered a cure for aids has been found. If you simply search for the data yourself you will see this to be correct."
So you're saying that you have to serch for that data of someone's research to be able to take advantage of that research, right?
No, I am saying that for this circumstance data is out there if you take the time and effort to look for it.
Please define what you mean by "circumstance data"
I did think of separating that with a comma but thought the logic would flow without it.  Let's make it "circumstance, data" instead.

Then where for this circumstance, are these data?
I send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2010, 11:39:19 AM »
I send you on your own search. You will find this most rewarding.
So again, you have no such data. Typical of an FEer. It's really sad that you don't have any evidence to support your claims. Remember it's 1) find evidence, then 2) make conclusion. If you can't provide the data, then you must not have found it. I suggest that you should do the search and provide the results before you make your claims.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2010, 11:44:55 AM »

No, I am saying that for this circumstance data is out there if you take the time and effort to look for it.

Okay can you point me there then?

I have attempted to visualized how the stars would traverse the sky in both models.
I used my personal experiences of being to both HemiRegions and spending many nights outside.
As I said earlier I used software to produce the night sky both north and south of the equator.
I assumed this software would be generally correct by.....
a)  They matched each other when viewed.
b)  Since at least one piece of software was Open Source the creators of it where not out to conspire against us.
c)  Information to produce these night skies is readily available in the form of Almanacs that aid in celestial navigation.

The conclusion I can only come to, using Occam's razer, is that the earth is a sphere.
Now my conclusion could be incorrect.  I am not saying it is the only conclusion  What I am saying is that within the scope of available resources this is the only conclusion I could draw.

Now I did peruse this sight and the FAQ, but for this specific topic there is either, very little information, or multitudes of posts that have nothing do to with Stars.

If there is other information I would like to be pointed in that direction that I could use to draw an alternate solution please point me in that direction.

Berny
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2010, 01:45:17 PM »
You could try the search function, but it won't get you anywhere as it is to all intents and purposes broken. It farts out results in no particular relevancy or order. The celestial gears theory is horribly flawed, and any prolonged period of observation should disprove it. Or even two days of research with one person in Indonesia and the other in SA should do it.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 02:48:39 PM by Hazbollah »
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2010, 02:05:58 PM »
You could try the search function, but it woin't get you anywhere as it is, to all intents and purposes, broken. It farts out results in no particular relevancy or order. The celestial gears theory is horribly flawed, and any prolonged period of observation should disprove it. Or even two days of research with one person in Indonesia and the other in SA should do it.

Yes the search function has been of little use so I browse a lot.  I haven't found the celestial gear theory yet - but a quick looks shows there are many threads in each forum and often nothing is really explained.  It would be helpfull if a new FAQ would be created that includes more indepth explanations.

I also have seen a few complaints about the search function in the suggestion board.
Since I am not technically inclined I am not one to comment on the boards functionality.

Berny

Editing

Search function now worked and found an old interesting post
Roundy the Truthinessist Roundy the Truthinessist

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17816.msg332885#msg332885

Berny

« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 04:39:21 PM by berny_74 »
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2010, 11:37:44 AM »
I have two points to say here, Berny:

Where I live in the Northernhemisphere stars are rotated Clockwise, not Counterclockwise. Same do Sun and Moon. They begin to ascend at the northeast and than if to stand facing east objects will go to the right from east to south from you and then glide to west beyond you. So Clockwise, I guess?

Another one is about Occam's razor you guessing is so only in sense of the computer simulated software. I've read the topic, but can't understand due to direction of stars counterclockwise section, what you've meant. So, I have used the same kind of program program (http://orbits.parallelgraphics.com/) and it was correct for me. But what does this program? Just shows us what we see with our eyes but at the scale of Universe and the RET. What's wrong with that? Programs like these can't prove Earth flat or round.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 11:39:47 AM by dim »

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2010, 11:50:41 AM »
I have two points to say here, Berny:

Where I live in the Northernhemisphere stars are rotated Clockwise, not Counterclockwise. Same do Sun and Moon.
Sorry, you need to look again. If you face south, you'll see that the stars, Sun, and Moon rotate counterclockwise. If you face south, you'll see that the stars, Sun, and Moon rotate clockwise. The difference is only because you turned around. The RE turns to the east making the sky appear to rotate to the west.

By the way, the Sun in your location at this time of year does not rise in the the northeast, but rather slightly south of east.

I really think you need to check yourself before posting. Maybe you forgot to open your mind?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2010, 11:55:18 AM »
I have two points to say here, Berny:

Where I live in the Northernhemisphere stars are rotated Clockwise, not Counterclockwise. Same do Sun and Moon.
Sorry, you need to look again. If you face south, you'll see that the stars, Sun, and Moon rotate counterclockwise. If you face south, you'll see that the stars, Sun, and Moon rotate clockwise. The difference is only because you turned around. The RE turns to the east making the sky appear to rotate to the west.

By the way, the Sun in your location at this time of year does not rise in the the northeast, but rather slightly south of east.

I really think you need to check yourself before posting. Maybe you forgot to open your mind?

Maybe really I forgot open my mind.
But what you wrote? If I face South then Sun and Moon and stars go to the right. So, clockwise? Same if I look to the 12/h mark. From left to right - clockwise.

About where the sun rises, yes, this time of the year it rises more to east perfect accordingly FET theory.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2010, 12:18:17 PM »
I have two points to say here, Berny:

Where I live in the Northernhemisphere stars are rotated Clockwise, not Counterclockwise. Same do Sun and Moon. They begin to ascend at the northeast and than if to stand facing east objects will go to the right from east to south from you and then glide to west beyond you. So Clockwise, I guess?

Another one is about Occam's razor you guessing is so only in sense of the computer simulated software. I've read the topic, but can't understand due to direction of stars counterclockwise section, what you've meant. So, I have used the same kind of program program (http://orbits.parallelgraphics.com/) and it was correct for me. But what does this program? Just shows us what we see with our eyes but at the scale of Universe and the RET. What's wrong with that? Programs like these can't prove Earth flat or round.

Well Clocktower Ninja'd me on this post but....

If you are facing north in the Northern HemiRegion the stars travel around a fixed point Polaris, east to west, and facing north it would be counter-clockwise.  This works for both in the FE and RE for differing reasons.  In the Flat Earth - the stars rotate in a fixed pattern around Polaris (or a point near Polaris).

Now if you were to be in the Southern HemiRegion facing south, the stars rotate around a fixed point facing south.  Now with the current Flat Earth theory since the sky spins on a central axis at the north pole, Polaris, if you were in the Southern HemiRegion and facing south the stars would travel in a near straight line from east to west.  In fact you probably would not see any rotation since the distance those stars are travelling around the circumference.

The problem is - that they do rotate around a central point facing south in a clockwise direction.
This points out a flaw on how the star model is on the FE theory.

Now I pointed out software programs more because many people have not travelled below the equator so they can use these to better see how things would look.  I pointed out freeones, but you can use any of them and you will get the same results since they are based on the celestial movements of the stars.  Which are used for navigation.
Of course you can say it is a whole conspiracy - but I am trying to point out that this is something you can see if you travel.

Berny


To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2010, 01:50:56 PM »
I have two points to say here, Berny:

Where I live in the Northernhemisphere stars are rotated Clockwise, not Counterclockwise. Same do Sun and Moon.
Sorry, you need to look again. If you face south, you'll see that the stars, Sun, and Moon rotate counterclockwise. If you face south, you'll see that the stars, Sun, and Moon rotate clockwise. The difference is only because you turned around. The RE turns to the east making the sky appear to rotate to the west.

By the way, the Sun in your location at this time of year does not rise in the the northeast, but rather slightly south of east.

I really think you need to check yourself before posting. Maybe you forgot to open your mind?

Maybe really I forgot open my mind.
But what you wrote? If I face South then Sun and Moon and stars go to the right. So, clockwise? Same if I look to the 12/h mark. From left to right - clockwise.

About where the sun rises, yes, this time of the year it rises more to east perfect accordingly FET theory.
Please put "if I look to the 12/h mark" into English for us. Again, I claim that if you face North, everything in the astronomical sky moves left to right or counterclockwise. This is contrary to your previous claim.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2010, 06:26:24 AM »
Well, I really can't understand, may be due to my english or what?

When I look East, let's say sun rises perfectly from here. After that it will begin it's path to the right from the point where it firsly appeared. Arrows on the clock also go to the right if you look on 12/0 hours mark.

About rotation of stars in the Southern Hemisphere? Why you're saying that stars rotate around some point in the sky? What is that point? Even Sigma Octanta of Southern Cross constellation is not fixed in the same place all the time, like Polar Star is. Sigma Octanta rises and falls, but it can't be like this, because above South Pole should be a place or a star that will always be in one place and not changing its position according to RE, as far as i know, there is no such star above South Pole.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2010, 06:55:44 AM »
Well, I really can't understand, may be due to my english or what?

When I look East, let's say sun rises perfectly from here. After that it will begin it's path to the right from the point where it firsly appeared. Arrows on the clock also go to the right if you look on 12/0 hours mark.

Uhm if you are facing north - the sun rises from the East - that will be on your right.  It will rise and set on in the West, that is on your left.  That is counter clockwise.  If you are facing North.
Quote from: dim
About rotation of stars in the Southern Hemisphere? Why you're saying that stars rotate around some point in the sky? What is that point? Even Sigma Octanta of Southern Cross constellation is not fixed in the same place all the time, like Polar Star is. Sigma Octanta rises and falls, but it can't be like this, because above South Pole should be a place or a star that will always be in one place and not changing its position according to RE, as far as i know, there is no such star above South Pole.

There is no named star, but they do rotate around a single point - there is no star there that is readily visible.  That point directly is the opposite of North (Polaris) and can be found using an astrocompass or using your non-digital watch as a compass.

Berny
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained.
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2010, 07:22:28 AM »
If clock goes from left to right - it is clockwise....

What is that single point around which stars rotate and it is opposite of North Pole(and Polar Star)? We all know RET, but does it match with reality?