# Earth's rotation

• 105 Replies
• 17079 Views

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2012, 07:20:35 AM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

Do a search for star trails of the celestial equator:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html

You can clearly see that the stars diverge, in contradiction to what should happen if the earth were round according to Trig and co.

Rotation of the Sky at the Equator
The stars move parallel to each other, and the Celestial Equator. Since the Poles are on the Horizon, the Equator rises vertically at the East point, and sets vertically at the West point. All stars rise vertically in the East, and set vertically in the West (see the Equatorial view of the sky in Kenya, below). All the paths of the stars are cut in half by the horizon, so all stars are up half the time, and down half the time, regardless of their position. No star is circumpolar, no matter how close it is to the Celestial Pole.

A panoramic view of stars setting on the western horizon, as seen at the Equator, in Kenya. On the left, stars circle clockwise around the South Celestial Pole, rising on the left (which is east, when facing south) and setting on the right (which is west, when facing south). On the right, stars circle counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, rising on the right (which is east, when facing north) and setting on the left (which is west, when facing north). Everywhere, the stars set at right angles to the horizon (the horizontal white line), as they all move parallel to the Celestial Equator, which crosses the Horizon at right angles at the Equator.

This is all correct. This shows that there is not divergence. The stars are not moving different directions, or moving at weird angles, or any of this. The appear to be moving the opposite direction from the other pole because you are facing the other way. It's like watching a clock in the mirror.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2012, 11:17:50 AM »
I think you are butchering the semantics. These are clearly not straight lines.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #62 on: September 04, 2012, 11:29:21 AM »
It has also been explained that this is an art form. That image is obviously taken from a different location and angle than the one previously posted in this thread. These images are taken to look cool. That's it.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #63 on: September 04, 2012, 11:30:45 AM »
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### The Knowledge

• 2391
• FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #64 on: September 04, 2012, 11:53:33 AM »
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator?

Are you claiming that my statement that the angular distance between stars does not vary is untrue? In which case, present evidence of variable angular distance between any two stars of your choice, and explain how Ichi's Magic Telescope works to track celestial objects. If not, then you admit that stars are not converging or diverging.
Either will do me fine.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #65 on: September 04, 2012, 11:56:45 AM »
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator?

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #66 on: September 04, 2012, 12:32:13 PM »
Are you claiming that my statement that the angular distance between stars does not vary is untrue? In which case, present evidence of variable angular distance between any two stars of your choice, and explain how Ichi's Magic Telescope works to track celestial objects. If not, then you admit that stars are not converging or diverging.
Either will do me fine.

Is Ichi viewing stars at the equator and measuring the distance between two stars about different poles? If not, I'm not sure how this question is at all pertinent.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #67 on: September 04, 2012, 12:33:20 PM »
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator?

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.

The picture is a fake then?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #68 on: September 04, 2012, 01:20:21 PM »
No one said it was fake. It's an art form. Pictures can be distorted or modified to fit the artist's style.

Also, if pictures of the Earth from Space are all fake and/or edited, then why cannot someone say the same about photo evidence the FE presents?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #69 on: September 04, 2012, 01:47:35 PM »
I'm just trying to figure out why the "artists" would distort pictures as such, and then only do it at the equator. Especially when all similar pictures looking toward the celestial poles seem to depict the exact same thing.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #70 on: September 04, 2012, 01:51:36 PM »
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator?

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.

The picture is a fake then?
It is a fake if the author explicitly declares that there is no distortion in the paths of the stars that are being shown. It is not a fake if, as I am sure is the case, he used an extreme wide angle lens to get a nice effect, and did not hide it.

The real way to see if the stars are diverging or not is to use a telescope with equatorial mount and follow any star. You will see that, if you correct slightly (less than 0.5 degrees in altitude) for stars close to the horizon, there is no divergence between the stars. Every one stays at the same declination and right ascension all night long.

But Tom Bishop should know this by heart. He owns two computer controlled, state of the art astronomical telescopes. He is talking about photographs but he could be measuring the divergence of the stars with better than one arc minute of error. Why does he waste his time and ours with artistic photos?

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #71 on: September 04, 2012, 02:10:03 PM »
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #72 on: September 04, 2012, 02:49:13 PM »
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?

The FES argues against common sense. If you guys were really Zetetic, you would seek the truth and see it for yourselves. The stars rise in the east, set in the west. So are you saying that at the equator half rises in the west and sets in the east? How is that even possible? What a joke.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #73 on: September 04, 2012, 03:07:33 PM »
Who said that?     And what does that have to do with the picture which clearly shows the stars diverging from eachother at the equator?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #74 on: September 04, 2012, 03:17:29 PM »
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?
Again and again, it is not the fact that it is a time exposure, it is the extreme wide angle that some photographers use, just because circular star trails are boring. And in some cases the way in which the camera is moved to compose neat effects.

If you find that a telescope with a correctly set equatorial mount cannot stay pointed towards one star, to within less than half a degree of error, then you are in the fast track towards a Nobel Prize.

Otherwise you can continue playing the game of pretending surprise at the distortions on photos you did not take or check how they were done.

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #75 on: September 04, 2012, 06:00:14 PM »
Who said that?     And what does that have to do with the picture which clearly shows the stars diverging from eachother at the equator?

So what if they look like they are diverging. Fact is they rise in the east and set in the west. Any wide angle lense will gaive you that look on diverging. The stars are equal distace from each other from starrise to startset, period.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #76 on: September 04, 2012, 06:51:25 PM »
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #77 on: September 04, 2012, 08:07:40 PM »
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation. Secondly have have been diverted from the celestial gears discussion which has been my focus. My explanations have blown any thought of celestial gears away. Reading this Tom, Thork, Rushy?

Yes the wide angle flattens out but it's still curved and the stars still do what they do so........

If the earth were truly flat, most of us would see most of the same stars every night regardless of north/ south "hemisplane" it's just the angle of perception will differ. We all know this doesn't happen so........the earth must be a shere.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #78 on: September 04, 2012, 08:14:51 PM »
I don't think you're having the same conversation trig and I are having.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #79 on: September 05, 2012, 02:40:27 AM »
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.
Don't you know that there is positive and negative barrel distortion? And, anyhow, you are trying to bury the real demonstration of divergence or no divergence of the stars. The telescope with Equatorial Mount has been in use for centuries and our astronomers know really how much the stars diverge. And you can find out for yourself, for a meager 200 dollars or so. Even less if you look for a second hand telescope. Or ask Tom Bishop for a night of exploration with his two state of the art Celestron and Orion telescopes.

PS. Don't you think that in a photo without significant distortion the buildings would look, actually, vertical? If there is a distortion that changes a building to a wedge, why are you even claiming to know what tricks the photographer used?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 02:45:20 AM by trig »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17814
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #80 on: September 05, 2012, 07:48:32 AM »
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #81 on: September 05, 2012, 07:55:42 AM »
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Which has me wondering, why do people still talk to you?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2012, 09:40:17 AM »
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Which has me wondering, why do people still talk to you?
Because he is wise. And famous.

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2012, 10:08:29 AM »
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Which has me wondering, why do people still talk to you?
Because he is wise. And famous.

He's so famous that I'd never heard the name "Tom Bishop" until I entered this website.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #84 on: September 05, 2012, 11:01:17 AM »
You also thought that the earth was round. Shows what you know.

Tom is an internet celebrity. You can google him and everything. He even has tribute sites named after him.
http://tinyurl.com/cpd5q35

Quote from: http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/why-do-creationists-distance-themselves.html
For example, consider "Tom Bishop," over at the Flat Earth forums.  Just check out this post.

They talk about him on other forums
This is f*cking hysterical. Make sure to read Tom Bishop's response.

They discuss him besting round Earthers
The issue of ships sinking into the so-called "horizon" is less easily dismissed.  In Flat Earth Theory, a ship disappears beyond a finite

vanishing point from the bottom up, and the hull can be "restored" through a telescope.  Flat Earth Proponent Tom Bishop cites the

chapter "Disappearance of ships at sea" from Thomas Winship's 'Zetetic Cosmogony' (1899).  Round Earther General Disarray counters

by claiming to "have personally verified with my own telescope that things which sink below the horizon cannot be restored

with magnification." It's a killer response but, fool that he is, the General has tried to recreate the experiment with the sun, not a ship.

Of course it won't work!  At this point I rather lost interest.

Just a few examples. He's up there with the best of them as far as internet legends go ... and we are lucky that he calls here home.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #85 on: September 05, 2012, 11:08:45 AM »
Lol. It seems I'm mentioned on the same page.

Thork wants to know "how the round-earthers explain the manufacture of industrial flat glass,

using the float process?" Dammit, I'm a Round Earther, and I can't answer that.  He's helpfully

provided a handy link as a reminder for those of you who might be rusty on industrial glass

manfacturing processes.  As you can plainly see, this method is impossible on a globe, and he's got the maths to prove it.  Bazinger,

he's got me already.  Other sceptics aren't so easily swayed, and the argument continues for a further 29 pages.
Me and my famous glass thread. trig will be furious when he sees this.

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #86 on: September 05, 2012, 11:17:14 AM »
You also thought that the earth was round. Shows what you know.

Tom is an internet celebrity. You can google him and everything. He even has tribute sites named after him.
http://tinyurl.com/cpd5q35

Quote from: http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/why-do-creationists-distance-themselves.html
For example, consider "Tom Bishop," over at the Flat Earth forums.  Just check out this post.

Ah, yes, the website where they talk about he's defending an outdated view of a flat earth, they mention him because of a certain description he gave.

They talk about him on other forums
This is f*cking hysterical. Make sure to read Tom Bishop's response.

The forum where they make fun of him, call him the idiot king, or something of that colorful nature.

They discuss him besting round Earthers
The issue of ships sinking into the so-called "horizon" is less easily dismissed.  In Flat Earth Theory, a ship disappears beyond a finite

vanishing point from the bottom up, and the hull can be "restored" through a telescope.  Flat Earth Proponent Tom Bishop cites the

chapter "Disappearance of ships at sea" from Thomas Winship's 'Zetetic Cosmogony' (1899).  Round Earther General Disarray counters

by claiming to "have personally verified with my own telescope that things which sink below the horizon cannot be restored

with magnification." It's a killer response but, fool that he is, the General has tried to recreate the experiment with the sun, not a ship.

Of course it won't work!  At this point I rather lost interest.

Just a few examples. He's up there with the best of them as far as internet legends go ... and we are lucky that he calls here home.
[/quote]

Satirical news website. Says so right up top.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

#### BoatswainsMate

• 675
• You just been Tom Bishop'ed
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #87 on: September 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM »
So in other words, yes, Tom is famous. Now there are different kinds of fame.

We have a guy on our ship who is just down right dumb, cant do anything right. He makes us laugh with his stupidity and frustrated also. Everyone knows him, but no one likes him. He makes snarky remarks and has an authority problem. In times of stress he panics. He views himself smart, yet cannot grasp simple instructions.

That is Toms fame. He is the guy that we all laugh at, we know him, but we don't like him. He makes such dumb posts and has some very strange thoughts to the point where we comment because it makes us laugh.

So Thork, that is Toms fame. The known local idiot.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #88 on: September 05, 2012, 11:41:31 AM »
Everyone knows him, but no one likes him.
This seems incredibly cruel. There is most likely a reason he has social problems and everyone around him 'hating' him will only lead to further paranoia and strange behaviour.

Tom will always be thought of as stark raving mad and ridiculed on the internet, because he preaches an unpopular message. No one wants to be told they've been fooled. They'd rather believe Tom was a nutjob.

But the fact is people do know of and exchange opinions on Tom all over the internet. And as Oscar Wilde said “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”. His message is out there even if people choose not to heed his sensible reasoning.

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #89 on: September 05, 2012, 11:53:59 AM »
Lol. It seems I'm mentioned on the same page.

Thork wants to know "how the round-earthers explain the manufacture of industrial flat glass,

using the float process?" Dammit, I'm a Round Earther, and I can't answer that.  He's helpfully

provided a handy link as a reminder for those of you who might be rusty on industrial glass

manfacturing processes.  As you can plainly see, this method is impossible on a globe, and he's got the maths to prove it.  Bazinger,

he's got me already.  Other sceptics aren't so easily swayed, and the argument continues for a further 29 pages.
Me and my famous glass thread. trig will be furious when he sees this.

Having trouble recognizing real reporting from satire, lately, Thork?

Following his own link (curiously named "hobbies_loadfive") the very first thing I see is:
Quote
Home Defence UK is a satirical news website.  That's pretty obvious.  The real news wouldn't ask me for
pictures of:

- A UK student demonstrator immolating themself.
- A naughty, saucy Carry On-style policeman
- Dave out of Chas N' Dave painting a gypsy caravan

So, Thork's claim to fame is by being the butt of a satire. Figure how furious I am.