circumpolar stars

  • 237 Replies
  • 26094 Views
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #30 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.

*

macrohard

  • 139
  • IQ over 180
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #31 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.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #32 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.

*

macrohard

  • 139
  • IQ over 180
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #33 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.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #34 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.    :)

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #35 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.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #36 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.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #37 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.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #38 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.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #39 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.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2015, 11:08:33 AM »
So, are stars actually airplanes or not?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #41 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.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #42 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.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #43 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
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #44 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.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #45 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.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #46 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?
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #47 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
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #48 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.

*

macrohard

  • 139
  • IQ over 180
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #49 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?

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #50 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

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

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

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 !!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #51 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
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 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

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/

Yep, sceptimatic is so right when he praises cikljamas' "work." At least he goes through the effort of underlining, coloring, and bolding text.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #52 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.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #53 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...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #54 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.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #55 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

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
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.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #56 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.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #57 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.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28274
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #58 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.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #59 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.