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