The South Celestial Pole

I. The Facts
II. Round Earth Explanation
III. Flat Earth Explanation

I. The Facts

1. Facing North, stars circle around a single point in the sky. This is called the North Celestial Pole.
2. Facing South, stars circle a different point in the sky. This is called the South Celestial Pole.
3. In the Northern Hemisphere, the North Celestial Pole is above the horizon, and the South Celestial Pole is an equal distance below* the horizon.
4. In the Southern Hemisphere, the South Celestial Pole is above the horizon, and the North Celestial Pole is an equal distance below* the horizon.
5. The North Celestial Pole is due north. The South Celestial Pole is due south. They are in exactly opposite directions from one another.



Here are both celestial poles in one image. North Celestial Pole is on the left above the horizon. South Celestial Pole is on the right, below the horizon. Forgive the distortion, it's a panoramic image:



* Obviously we can't actually see the celestial pole that is below the horizon. However, we can approximate it's position by extrapolating the paths of the stars.

II. Round Earth Explanation

The earth is a rotating sphere. From our perspective, the stars appear to be rotating around us. The elevation of each celestial pole depends on your location on the earth.

At 30 degrees north of the equator, the North Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees above the horizon and the South Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees below the horizon. Likewise, at 30 degrees south of the equator, the South Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees above the horizon and the North Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees below the horizon.



You can confirm for yourself that the elevation of each celestial pole corresponds exactly with your own latitude.

III. Flat Earth Explanation

Obviously, the visibility of the South Celestial Pole presents a problem for the flat earth model. If the stars are all rotating around a vertical axis, then the South Celestial Pole should be below the earth. In order to see it, one would have to peek over the edge. "Celestial Gears" are the most common solution to this problem that I have seen. I have never seen a particularly detailed explanation of how they work, but I assume it is something like this:



However, this still presents some problems.

1. There has never been a report of anyone seeing an intersection between the various South Celestial Poles. Considering that mankind has been navigating the oceans by the stars for several hundred years, this seems unlikely.
2. The South Celestial Pole is always exactly due South. It is always 180 degrees in the opposite direction of North. In the "Celestial Gears" model, moving east or west would cause the South Celestial Pole to no longer be due South. There would be a non 180 degree angle between the North Celestial Pole and South Celestial Pole.



In conclusion, the visibility of the South Celestial Pole is in direct contradiction with the flat earth model. The earth isn't flat.

You know, a few sketches do not prove anything!
I watch out of my window and see perfectly flat earth. What could convince better than your own senses, vision and intuition?

In a sane debate, this line of reasoning would be devastating to anyone whol thinks the world is flat.

You present proof that literally everyone in the globe can check for themselves.

There are no other explanations for the observed phenomenon than to draw the conclusion that the world is round.

This, however, is not a sane debate.

I for one am very curious how the FE crowd will try to get out of this.

You know, a few sketches do not prove anything!
I watch out of my window and see perfectly flat earth. What could convince better than your own senses, vision and intuition?

He is showing you a picture that is reproducible. That is the same as looking out the window, only better: he can share his view.

I fear this is (another) check-mate for FE. Experimental evidence that anyone with a long exposure camera can reproduce.

 

Well, I have never been in southern hemisphere. You?

Well, I have never been in southern hemisphere. You?

I have, frequently, and I can confirm that the stars revolve around the Southern Celestial pole there.

Seriously, who has nothing better to do than stare up at the sky for hours upon hours at night in order to observe that they are rotating around a certain point.  Don't roundies have girlfriends? 

Seriously, who has nothing better to do than stare up at the sky for hours upon hours at night in order to observe that they are rotating around a certain point.  Don't roundies have girlfriends?

Jroa, no one doubts your skill at derailing threads with clear well presented evidence for a round earth. But I fear this one is beyond you.

You need to call in the big guns. You need initkam.

Seriously, who has nothing better to do than stare up at the sky for hours upon hours at night in order to observe that they are rotating around a certain point.  Don't roundies have girlfriends?

You pitiful wretch have never gazed into the wonders of a night sky far from town, lying on the beach with a hot Asian student of astronomy.

Seriously, who has nothing better to do than stare up at the sky for hours upon hours at night in order to observe that they are rotating around a certain point.  Don't roundies have girlfriends?

Ah yes. Classic internet debate technique. When you don't have a counter argument, accuse the opponent of not having a girlfriend. A+

First of all, star gazing is an amazing past time for a couple. Second of all, you don't have to stare up at the sky for hours if you don't want to. Just set your camera to take a timelapse, then go inside and watch a movie or something.

This has been brought up many times.  I still post this explanation because I have yet to see it refuted

This has been brought up many times.  I still post this explanation because I have yet to see it refuted

That video does not give an adequate explanation for the appearance of the South Celestial Pole. Since only the first two sections attempt to give an explanation of the South Celestial Pole, I'll deal with those two sections.

Section A (0:00 - 5:00)

It acknowledges the South Celestial Pole exists, but it doesn't actually give an explanation for it. It gives a slightly plausible explanation for the appearance of the South Celestial Pole from the Northern Hemisphere. The explanation starts around 4:10. Notice that in this explanation, the Northern Celestial Pole is still above the horizon and the South Celestial Pole is still below the horizon. As soon as you go far enough south for the South Celestial Pole to rise above the horizon and the North Celestial Pole to drop below the horizon, this explanation becomes invalid. Anyone that has been to the southern hemisphere can verify that the South Celestial Pole does in fact rise above the horizon facing south.

There are also quite a few factual errors:

0:38 - "You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth all the way to the Southern Tropic of Capricorn" -- this is blatantly false. Polaris can't be seen very far south of the equator. Ask anyone who has been to the Southern Hemisphere.

0:47 - "Sigma Octanis, the Southern Crux... can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point in the Southern Hemisphere the way Polaris can from every point in the North." -- That's because they aren't located exactly at the South Celestial Pole. If you are close to the equator, they will occasionally dip below the horizon. However, the exact same thing can be said for Northern constellations that aren't exactly at the North Celestial Pole. They also occasionally dip below the horizon for people near the equator.

0:56 - "Nor do the Southern constellations circle around it West to East as claimed by modern astronomy." -- What??? "Modern astronomy" does not and has never claimed anything of the sort. The fact that he makes this claim should highlight what an idiot this guy is.

Section B, demo with Stellarium (5:00 - 9:50)

First of all, props for breaking out Stellarium. Awesome piece of software.

He actually does try to give an explanation for the SCP in this section. However, he stumbles and mumbles around the explanation quite a bit so it is really hard to figure out exactly what he is trying to say. I'll give it my best shot though:

1. He notices that the stars circle a point to the South when you are in New Zealand. -- Correct.
2. "When you are looking South in New Zealand, you are looking North from a UK person's perspective" -- I'm not entirely sure what argument he is trying to make here. Is he saying that we are actually seeing the North Celestial pole when we think we are looking south in New Zealand?

This explanation raises two more problems:
1. Why are the stars rotating clockwise around the celestial pole from New Zealand instead of counterclockwise (as admitted in Section A of the movie)?
2. Why are there completely different stars and constellations circling this celestial pole from New Zealand, if we are really seeing the North Celestial Pole?

Section C (9:50 - end)

He provides no explanation for the existence of the South Celestial Pole in this section. He does make quite a few arguments against the globe based on the path and position of the stars. Most of these arguments are based on absolutely horrible spatial reasoning. If you want me to address these arguments, I can, but they aren't really relevant to this thread.

In conclusion, the video absolutely does NOT provide an explanation for the existence of the South Celestial Pole. Sorry.

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 06:35:17 PM

This has been brought up many times.  I still post this explanation because I have yet to see it refuted

That video does not give an adequate explanation for the appearance of the South Celestial Pole. Since only the first two sections attempt to give an explanation of the South Celestial Pole, I'll deal with those two sections.

Section A (0:00 - 5:00)

It acknowledges the South Celestial Pole exists, but it doesn't actually give an explanation for it. It gives a slightly plausible explanation for the appearance of the South Celestial Pole from the Northern Hemisphere. The explanation starts around 4:10. Notice that in this explanation, the Northern Celestial Pole is still above the horizon and the South Celestial Pole is still below the horizon. As soon as you go far enough south for the South Celestial Pole to rise above the horizon and the North Celestial Pole to drop below the horizon, this explanation becomes invalid. Anyone that has been to the southern hemisphere can verify that the South Celestial Pole does in fact rise above the horizon facing south.

There are also quite a few factual errors:

0:38 - "You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth all the way to the Southern Tropic of Capricorn" -- this is blatantly false. Polaris can't be seen very far south of the equator. Ask anyone who has been to the Southern Hemisphere.

0:47 - "Sigma Octanis, the Southern Crux... can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point in the Southern Hemisphere the way Polaris can from every point in the North." -- That's because they aren't located exactly at the South Celestial Pole. If you are close to the equator, they will occasionally dip below the horizon. However, the exact same thing can be said for Northern constellations that aren't exactly at the North Celestial Pole. They also occasionally dip below the horizon for people near the equator.

0:56 - "Nor do the Southern constellations circle around it West to East as claimed by modern astronomy." -- What??? "Modern astronomy" does not and has never claimed anything of the sort. The fact that he makes this claim should highlight what an idiot this guy is.

Section B, demo with Stellarium (5:00 - 9:50)

First of all, props for breaking out Stellarium. Awesome piece of software.

He actually does try to give an explanation for the SCP in this section. However, he stumbles and mumbles around the explanation quite a bit so it is really hard to figure out exactly what he is trying to say. I'll give it my best shot though:

1. He notices that the stars circle a point to the South when you are in New Zealand. -- Correct.
2. "When you are looking South in New Zealand, you are looking North from a UK person's perspective" -- I'm not entirely sure what argument he is trying to make here. Is he saying that we are actually seeing the North Celestial pole when we think we are looking south in New Zealand?

This explanation raises two more problems:
1. Why are the stars rotating clockwise around the celestial pole from New Zealand instead of counterclockwise (as admitted in Section A of the movie)?
2. Why are there completely different stars and constellations circling this celestial pole from New Zealand, if we are really seeing the North Celestial Pole?

Section C (9:50 - end)

He provides no explanation for the existence of the South Celestial Pole in this section. He does make quite a few arguments against the globe based on the path and position of the stars. Most of these arguments are based on absolutely horrible spatial reasoning. If you want me to address these arguments, I can, but they aren't really relevant to this thread.

In conclusion, the video absolutely does NOT provide an explanation for the existence of the South Celestial Pole. Sorry.

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

He actually makes a solid point when breaking out the Stellarium software.  Actually this is a clip from another individual, so I will need to dig up the full video so it will be clearer.

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

Look at all his diagrams (4:15, 4:22, 4:52). They all show the Celestial Pole (the small concentric circles) in the north. Look specifically at the diagram at 4:52. It shows star trails making small concentric circles above the horizon in the north, and larger curved paths in the south. However, in the southern hemisphere, the small concentric circles appear above the horizon in the south. Not the north.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

In fact, the star trails in the north and south appear as mirror images of one another. Everything is symmetric (see the diagrams in my original post). This makes since on a globe, because everything is symmetric across the equator. In the flat earth model, the paths of the stars are definitely not symmetric across the equator.

He actually makes a solid point when breaking out the Stellarium software.  Actually this is a clip from another individual, so I will need to dig up the full video so it will be clearer.

And what point is that? I admit that I might be interpreting his explanation wrong. It's hard to tell what he is trying to say.

I appreciate your serious answer.

Seriously, who has nothing better to do than stare up at the sky for hours upon hours at night in order to observe that they are rotating around a certain point.  Don't roundies have girlfriends?

I had nothing better to do than observe the sky for hours upon hours. I observed that they are rotating around a certain point. I do have a girlfriend and she was observing the exact same phenomenon.

Now that we have that out of the way:

These observations prove a round Earth. Or do you have another explanation?

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 PM

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

Quote

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 22, 2016, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 PM

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

Quote

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

A much simpler explanation would be that you are standing on a rotating sphere and that you can see the stars seemingly rotate because of your frame of reference.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 22, 2016, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 PM

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

Quote

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

I watched the summer olympics but this is the most impressive gymnastics I've seen in a while.

How many times do we have to go through something like this?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65330.msg1743837#msg1743837


http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Picture2

Here is the latest and most extraordinary research done on star trails to date, including this stunning picture which completely confirms the FE model I have been proposing here all along, two poles, northern and southern circumpolar star paths and regular star orbits:




http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-PE-half-1200-cp9.jpg

Note also the divergent path of the stars at the equator (angular distance between stars varies; this could not happen on a spherical earth).


This thread is over.

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 22, 2016, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 PM

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

Quote

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

I watched the summer olympics but this is the most impressive gymnastics I've seen in a while.

hahaha, I've watched some magic shows before but you globalists really outclass anything I've ever seen.

Quote from: crutonius on August 23, 2016, 09:12:47 AM

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 22, 2016, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 PM

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

Quote

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

I watched the summer olympics but this is the most impressive gymnastics I've seen in a while.

hahaha, I've watched some magic shows before but you globalists really outclass anything I've ever seen.

That's an unusually straight forward statement from you.  Are you sure you wouldn't like to reframe it with some kind of tortured analogy involving slinkies?

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 10:15:25 AM

Quote from: crutonius on August 23, 2016, 09:12:47 AM

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 22, 2016, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 PM

The incorrect fact you mention at :56 I think is a misunderstanding of his choice of words. 

What exactly did he mean then?

Quote

"this explanation becomes invalid"

4:32-4:42 The meat of this video is in reference to the SCP - it gives a visual showing how the sky could be expansive and create a perspective warp for observers in the southern latitudes to see the appearance of a second pole with different stars, which is what I believe is happening.  The including of a dome may or may not be necessary.

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

I watched the summer olympics but this is the most impressive gymnastics I've seen in a while.

hahaha, I've watched some magic shows before but you globalists really outclass anything I've ever seen.

That's an unusually straight forward statement from you.  Are you sure you wouldn't like to reframe it with some kind of tortured analogy involving slinkies?

Funny.  I wouldn't imagine that from someone who parrots everything from a text book.

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.

Fair enough.

As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.

Let's call this slinky a "skybox", as it seems to behave like one.
1. Are you suggesting that the skybox actually rotates around a pivot point when you walk south?
2. If yes, then how would other people perceive it?

So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.

Ok.

What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction.

Yes, but some things are not considered:
1. In this sort of situation, as you traveled further south the rings that rise from below the horizon would appear larger and larger, as that is how a cone works. In reality, the rings eventually grow smaller as they reach the SCP.
2. Before the apex sinks below the horizon, an infinite amount of ever larger rings would all rise up from the southern horizon (assuming the skybox is infinite. If not, just all the rings the skybox holds). because of the geometry of cones, what we'd see on the sky is that the rings that are further to the south starts to overlap and merge, eventually forming a thick band of overlapping rings. Even further south, It'd appear as if there is a hole in the sky - after all, the bottom of cones are holes. This has never been observed.

Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles.

So many what? If rings, see my statement above. Else, specify.

I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

Well, whilst it explained the visual effect (although not without holes - no pun intended) I'd love to get a better understanding of the system at work - after all, I don't think the debate is on how we see the stars behave, but why we see them behave as they do.

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.

Let's call this slinky a "skybox", as it seems to behave like one.
1. Are you suggesting that the skybox actually rotates around a pivot point when you walk south?
2. If yes, then how would other people perceive it?

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.

Ok.

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction.

Yes, but some things are not considered:
1. In this sort of situation, as you traveled further south the rings that rise from below the horizon would appear larger and larger, as that is how a cone works. In reality, the rings eventually grow smaller as they reach the SCP.
2. Before the apex sinks below the horizon, an infinite amount of ever larger rings would all rise up from the southern horizon (assuming the skybox is infinite. If not, just all the rings the skybox holds). because of the geometry of cones, what we'd see on the sky is that the rings that are further to the south starts to overlap and merge, eventually forming a thick band of overlapping rings. Even further south, It'd appear as if there is a hole in the sky - after all, the bottom of cones are holes. This has never been observed.

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles.

So many what? If rings, see my statement above. Else, specify.

Quote from: Silicon on August 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM

I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

Well, whilst it explained the visual effect (although not without holes - no pun intended) I'd love to get a better understanding of the system at work - after all, I don't think the debate is on how we see the stars behave, but why we see them behave as they do.

You brought up good points, things I've thought about but that bleeds into the infinite plane, UA, and all kinds of other things.  Sandokhan, on the other hand has a pretty good case here, and in fact has shown an interesting FE map...

You brought up good points, things I've thought about but that bleeds into the infinite plane, UA, and all kinds of other things.  Sandokhan, on the other hand has a pretty good case here, and in fact has shown an interesting FE map...

It's an interesting map, but it does not adress a couple of issues:
1. For a person living on the west coast of Alaska, the SCP would actually be located north of them.
2. For a person in south america on the equator, the NCP and the SCP would not be on perfectly opposite sides of each other (the angle between them would be less than 180°).

Small interjection here:

On what basis is the map of the round Earth rejected by FE? All current maps match up perfectly with our perceptions. Perfectly.

The only reason to reject our current maps would be if they do not help us navigate accurately.

The fact that our current maps function perfectly means that they are an accurate representation of our world. Why would you need another map if the one we have is absolutely demonstratively perfect?

How many times do we have to go through something like this?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65330.msg1743837#msg1743837


http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Picture2

Here is the latest and most extraordinary research done on star trails to date, including this stunning picture which completely confirms the FE model I have been proposing here all along, two poles, northern and southern circumpolar star paths and regular star orbits:




http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-PE-half-1200-cp9.jpg

Note also the divergent path of the stars at the equator (angular distance between stars varies; this could not happen on a spherical earth).


This thread is over.

How many times do we need to tell you the photo is intentionally distorted?

You have been banned recently for trolling, yet here you are at it again.

There is no distortion in the image.

Here is another well known photograph showing the same thing:



The stars are moving in circles around the north and the south poles: that is why there will be divergence at the equator, something which cannot occur in the RE scenario.


Other photographs showing the same thing:

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

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

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 22, 2016, 10:10:21 PM

I can see how he might think that perspective can cause the curved paths of the stars to the south as seen from the Northern Hemisphere. But as soon as you go south of the equator, his explanation falls apart. How can perspective warp the paths of the stars so much that they start going in small concentric circles on the opposite horizon?

Here is the way I have interpreted it and the best way I can describe it. I maybe completely alone in this view who knows, but to me its plausible. Have you ever seen a slinky? Imagine a cone shaped one, where the rings are star trails, and the apex of the cone is polaris. Now imagine this slinky covering a snow globe where the base is a flat circle. You are inside the the snow globe at the center looking straight up you see polaris directly overhead.  As you trot southward in any direction imagine bending polaris down in the opposite direction.  So if you traveled southward across your flat base long enough the tip of the cone would drop down to the opposite horizon.  What happens to the rest of the slinky towards the edge when it's bent this way?  The star trails or rings start to rise (rotate) vertically the closer you get to the edge in any direction. Since there are so many, filling every inch of the sky, it would give the appearance of small concentric circles. I'm not saying this is what the stars actually do, I'm saying this is a lame example of how our perspective operates in relation to the stars.

I honestly can't picture how the concentric circles arise in the south in your analogy. Why would getting closer to the outer rings cause them to appear to form circles? Is the base of the slinky rising off the floor and turning sideways? Perhaps draw a diagram? The diagram in the video certainly does not show any concentric circles forming in the south.

How many times do we have to go through something like this?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65330.msg1743837#msg1743837

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Picture2

Here is the latest and most extraordinary research done on star trails to date, including this stunning picture which completely confirms the FE model I have been proposing here all along, two poles, northern and southern circumpolar star paths and regular star orbits:

That is a fantastic picture of both celestial poles. Kudos. However, as Master_Evar pointed out, the bipolar model suffers from the same problem as the celestial gears model: the SCP and NCP are not 180 degrees apart from each other at many places on your map. This directly contradicts observation.

Note also the divergent path of the stars at the equator (angular distance between stars varies; this could not happen on a spherical earth).

This is due to it being a panoramic picture. The angular distance between stars does NOT vary over the course of a night in real life. This is easy for anyone to verify. Choose 2 stars that are relatively close together. Take several pictures of them throughout the night. Frame each picture such that:

1. The point halfway between the stars is in the exact middle of the photograph.
2. The line connecting the two stars is exactly horizontal in the photograph.
3. The line connecting the two stars is centered vertically in the photograph.

This should prevent barrel distortion from ruining your measurements. Good luck.

There is no distortion in the image.

The stars are moving in circles around the north and the south poles: that is why there will be divergence at the equator, something which cannot occur in the RE scenario.

Other photographs showing the same thing:

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

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

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg

The distortion in all of those images is due to the wide angle nature of the photos. Every photo has some amount of distortion to it. It's just the nature of trying to project a 3D environment on a 2D piece of paper.

See my above post on how to prove that the angular distance remains the same.