Change of rotation of the firmament

I have a question that I have never seen answered in any FE forum.

The thing is, if you film the sky during the night, you will see that it rotates in one direction, and that direction depends on what hemisphere you are standing on.
This is because, in theory, in a "globe" earth the earth spins in one direction and so if you are upwards or downwards you will see the sky bodies turning in one direction or another.

The problem is that no current FE model can work this out.

I know that this is hard to picture, so I have created these gifs from a video.

When in the northen hemisphere:



When in the southern hemisphere:



I can not find an explanation. I am interested in hearing your ideas. What do you think?

When you face North the stars travel one direction.
When you face South the stars travel the other direction.

This happens no matter where you stand.

Yes, that's the problem, that this can only be explained in a round earth, not a flat one.
Unless there is some sort of light refraction that modifies the light rays, like a black hole or something like that.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on May 15, 2018, 02:46:30 PM

When you face North the stars travel one direction.
When you face South the stars travel the other direction.

This happens no matter where you stand.

Yes, that's the problem, that this can only be explained in a round earth, not a flat one.
Unless there is some sort of light refraction that modifies the light rays, like a black hole or something like that.

There are some flat earth models that appear to address address that particular problem, as long as you don't look at them too closely.

One is the "bipolar" flat-earth model with "celestial gears".



In that model, there are two sets of stars that rotate in opposite directions about two poles, "meshing" at one point on equator. Away from that point, however, stars in the north and south "hemiplanes" would have to diverge, which obviously doesn't happen. Also, in that model, like the more common "unipolar" model, the circumference is a single point. In the bipolar model it's in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, in the conventional unipolar model it's the south pole. If either were true, what happens if you occupied that particular spot might be "interesting".

Another is the "dual-earth" model promoted by JRoweSkeptic that has the surface of the earth on both sides of a pancake (instead of just the "top" of the pancake). It also somewhat answers this complaint and has the advantage that the worst distortion of distances isn't quite as bad, but, again, has really serious problems at the equator.

Both of these answer the immediate problem you pose. Unfortunately, they introduce other intractable problems in an effort to address that one. Maybe someone will come up with a flat-earth model that works as well explaining common observations as the globe-earth model already does. I'm not holding my breath, but you never know...

Indeed, the celestial gears explaination fails because it is at odds with the constant angular separation of the stars as the earth rotates.

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

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

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

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

The stars do not maintain the same separation at all times.

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

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

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

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

There is not constant angular separation of stars.

C'mon, Tom.  You know pictures found on the internet are all CGI, especially the ones from NASA, right?

These pictures are not showing stars that are being rotated in opposite directions.  If you were standing there (directly on the equator and looking in the same direction as the rotation of the globe), you would see all of the stars moving in the same "general" direction towards you and then "curving" off either to the right (south), or left (north).

Also, as usual, your post does nothing to address the actual point of the OP.  There is no rational FE explanation for why the stars appear to rotate in different directions depending on the hemisphere you are observing them from as accurately mapped by RE fact.

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

No, no divergence appears there, instead they appear as if they circling 2 points, always 180 degrees apart.
Impossible on a FE.

There is not constant angular separation of stars.

All the evidence indicates it only changes at very long time scales.

I have a question that I have never seen answered in any FE forum.

The thing is, if you film the sky during the night, you will see that it rotates in one direction, and that direction depends on what hemisphere you are standing on.
This is because, in theory, in a "globe" earth the earth spins in one direction and so if you are upwards or downwards you will see the sky bodies turning in one direction or another.

The problem is that no current FE model can work this out.

I know that this is hard to picture, so I have created these gifs from a video.

When in the northen hemisphere:



When in the southern hemisphere:



I can not find an explanation. I am interested in hearing your ideas. What do you think?

Mate... you can recreate this with a tennis ball if you have the ability to visualise the North and South points of reference.  Just look at the images you presented and they will work as well.  For some reason, an FE cannot understand this concept or, they simply don't believe it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

No, no divergence appears there, instead they appear as if they circling 2 points, always 180 degrees apart.
Impossible on a FE.

Some of the stars are spreading apart. The stars on the left side and the stars on the right side are spreading apart from each other. This is impossible on a Round Earth model. The stars are light years away from the earth. They can't spread apart from each other, else they would be moving many light years through space over the course of the night.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 31, 2018, 06:50:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

No, no divergence appears there, instead they appear as if they circling 2 points, always 180 degrees apart.
Impossible on a FE.

Some of the stars are spreading apart. The stars on the left side and the stars on the right side are spreading apart from each other. This is impossible on a Round Earth model. The stars are light years away from the earth. They can't spread apart from each other, else they would be moving many light years through space over the course of the night.

You fail to take into consideration the vast distances involved here.  In 10 lifetimes, you probably would not be able to detect any movement at all.  So, you are correct when you mention "light years" because 1 light year is an incredible distance in relation to the earth.  However, on the scale of the universe, it's barely a whisper.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 31, 2018, 06:50:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

No, no divergence appears there, instead they appear as if they circling 2 points, always 180 degrees apart.
Impossible on a FE.

Some of the stars are spreading apart. The stars on the left side and the stars on the right side are spreading apart from each other. This is impossible on a Round Earth model. The stars are light years away from the earth. They can't spread apart from each other, else they would be moving many light years through space over the course of the night.

This is what happens when a 3D field of view is projected onto a 2D image.

FEers are usually very keen to use wide angle lenses as explanations.  Surprised you didn’t think of the go to answer for most photographic evidence. In this case it would be correct.

Some of the stars are spreading apart. The stars on the left side and the stars on the right side are spreading apart from each other.

You mean where the camera suffers from distortion?

Take pictures of the stars in various locations with the field of stars in the centre of the image, showing a constellation and how they diverge, or a video tracking the stars. See if they diverge then.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

No, no divergence appears there, instead they appear as if they circling 2 points, always 180 degrees apart.
Impossible on a FE.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

There is not constant angular separation of stars.

All the evidence indicates it only changes at very long time scales.

The issue of constant angular distance as a disproof of almost every FE model has been brought up many times, and the only response from FE'ers is to deny it, as Tom Bishop does here. Although most of the time they just don't engage with it, because denying it is so patently stupid it's like denying the moon has phases.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 31, 2018, 06:50:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

Look at star trails from the equator. The stars do diverge:

No, no divergence appears there, instead they appear as if they circling 2 points, always 180 degrees apart.
Impossible on a FE.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2018, 05:02:42 PM

There is not constant angular separation of stars.

All the evidence indicates it only changes at very long time scales.

The issue of constant angular distance as a disproof of almost every FE model has been brought up many times, and the only response from FE'ers is to deny it, as Tom Bishop does here. Although most of the time they just don't engage with it, because denying it is so patently stupid it's like denying the moon has phases.

We have numerous photographs of stars diverging. Look up star trails at the equator images. You are the denier.

We have numerous photographs of stars diverging. Look up star trails at the equator images. You are the denier.

The only images showing divergence are those which are the result of lens distortion, like this one:


This is because they are trying to take an inherently non-flat surface and map it to a flat surface.

You can easily change where the divergence occurs by aiming at different locations in the sky and using different methods to map it to a flat surface.

You can produce the same results by taking photos from inside a sphere of lines traced around the sphere, with no divergence.

If instead you take pictures of constellations at various altitudes, with the constellation in the centre of the image you find no divergence.
So no, I'm not the one denying.

The only images showing divergence are those which are the result of lens distortion, like this one

- All of the startrail images at the equator show divergence. Not some.

- The type of lens distortion that would be necessary to turn straight lines into the lines we see them diverging into would be the opposite of a Fish-Eye lens or a Wide-Angle lens.

Fish-eye lens warping:



Fish-eye scene example:




Diverging stars images:

- All of the startrail images at the equator show divergence. Not some.

Nope. Only some.
Photos taken of constellations at the equator with the constellation at the centre do not show distortion.

- The type of lens distortion that would be necessary to turn straight lines

Who cares about straight lines?
We are talking about circles.

And yet the stars diverge... What a puzzle for globularism.

And yet the stars diverge... What a puzzle for globularism.

The only puzzle is why you and Tom are so bad at visualizing 3D geometry.

The stars are from our perspective tracing big circles in the sky, with us in the middle.

Project that motion onto a 2D plane (ie a photo) and you get the pattern on the images above.

Note: That is not barrel distortion, as per Tom’s examples. Barrel distortion is an artifact of the lens, not fundamental to the geometry. Although there is also some barrel distortion in at least one of those images as well.

I also see neither of you have attempted to explain why stars would cause this effect on a flat earth. “Celestial gears” wouldn’t look like that, if they are anything remotely like normal gears.  All you are doing is pointing at things you think look odd.

And yet the stars diverge... What a puzzle for globularism.

The stars only appear to diverge in photos taken of them which suffer from lens distortion.
They do not diverge in reality.
This is a massive problem for FEers, not for RET.

Even in the photos, they don't diverge to the extent required for FE, and they don't diverge in the correct location.
For FE models, the stars should appear furthest apart when directly overhead and then appear to get crushed together as they approach the horizon Similar to how a circle will appear as a circle when viewed from directly below, but then a shashed circle (or oval) when viewed from near side on.
Yet that is the exact opposite of what the photos depict.
So that would make a very big problem for FE.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 06, 2018, 02:34:51 PM

The only images showing divergence are those which are the result of lens distortion, like this one

- All of the startrail images at the equator show divergence. Not some.

- The type of lens distortion that would be necessary to turn straight lines into the lines we see them diverging into would be the opposite of a Fish-Eye lens or a Wide-Angle lens.

Fish-eye lens warping:



Fish-eye scene example:




Diverging stars images:

You are comparing vertical lines on a fish-eye lens with those of concentric circles of star trails. Not a very good comparison.

The stars are not a problem on the globe earth, and let me try to explain it using something you can easily try at home.

• Take a basketball or any hollow spherical object.
• Cut the ball in half into a dome.
• Draw perfectly vertical lines inside the ball.
• Place your eye or a camera where the center of the ball would be.

You will now see diverging lines, as we see with star trails.

And yet the stars diverge... What a puzzle for globularism.

As explained above, it is not a problem.
We can explain it and we can easily simulate it. The fact that you simply can't comprehend it is not our fault.
Meanwhile, the stars are impossible to simulate using a flat earth.

Okay, I have finally gotten around to making some images in pov ray.
Firstly, the setup, I have rings to represent the star trails, in positions along the surface of a sphere.
I also have a grid which touches the sphere.
When viewed from very far away, we get an image like this:


But when viewed from the centre (effectively what it would be for Earth, the tiny distance of the radius of the Earth, even with a modest FOV of 120 degrees, we get this:


Notice how the grid is still fine (or pretty close to it), but the star trails appear to diverge?

This is due to mapping a sphere onto a flat surface.

Your vision is intrinsically spherical, based upon angles, but the images are presented flat. It is impossible to do this mapping without distortion.
This mapping is typically done by the sensor in the camera which typically is a flat surface.

You can try this yourself by getting a clear ball with lines drawn on it (or one with just a wire frame) and placing a light inside it and looking at the shadows on a flat surface.

While going to a fish eye lense and getting that extreme distortion helps, it still doesn't fix it as you are still mapping it to a flat surface, just in another way.

So these pictures allegedly showing star trails diverging don't actually show it.
Instead, to measure the divergence, you should take pictures of constellations with them centred in the FOV.
Or if you do want a long exposure, take it such that the camera rotates in the equatorial plane to follow the stars.
Then as long as it is shielded from exposure from Earth, there should be minimal motion of any of the stars and divergence would appear as lines.

Note: album with more images:
https://imgur.com/a/RLgS7VD

I think that just putting a camera and making some kind of photo is easier than troubling yourself with research. That's why discussing any ordinary photos will always lead us to a dead end! Yes, you yourself all know perfectly well that you need to do all the observations on the progress of anti-aircraft stars. And they are just moving in one direction with circles around the polar star and this is happening all over the planet regardless where you are at its center or edge, which has long been documented. At the center of the earth you can see how they are circling around the polar star, and at its edge go along an arc - with the center - the polar star.
All the discussions that are going on here are based on not correctly made photos, I do not know why those who realize that the earth is flat trying to play for the rules of heliocentrists ... Having forgotten absolutely all the knowledge that our ancestors left us ... But they were wiser than we, they had technology and understanding of our world so advanced that we are children in comparison with them, and maybe us specially done by those who propagandize space?

I think that just putting a camera and making some kind of photo is easier than troubling yourself with research. That's why discussing any ordinary photos will always lead us to a dead end! Yes, you yourself all know perfectly well that you need to do all the observations on the progress of anti-aircraft stars. And they are just moving in one direction with circles around the polar star and this is happening all over the planet regardless where you are at its center or edge, which has long been documented. At the center of the earth you can see how they are circling around the polar star, and at its edge go along an arc - with the center - the polar star.
All the discussions that are going on here are based on not correctly made photos, I do not know why those who realize that the earth is flat trying to play for the rules of heliocentrists ... Having forgotten absolutely all the knowledge that our ancestors left us ... But they were wiser than we, they had technology and understanding of our world so advanced that we are children in comparison with them, and maybe us specially done by those who propagandize space?

Hey just to clarify here... (let's ignore the use of the word hemisphere... I hope you understand my meaning)
Are you stating that the stars in the southern hemisphere do NOT appear to rotate around the southern celestial pole?
And are you stating that you can see the northern celestial pole from the southern hemisphere?

I think that just putting a camera and making some kind of photo is easier than troubling yourself with research. That's why discussing any ordinary photos will always lead us to a dead end! Yes, you yourself all know perfectly well that you need to do all the observations on the progress of anti-aircraft stars.

What one earth are these imaginary "anti-aircraft stars"?

And they are just moving in one direction with circles around the polar star and this is happening all over the planet regardless where you are at its center or edge, which has long been documented. At the center of the earth you can see how they are circling around the polar star, and at its edge go along an arc - with the center - the polar star.

Incorrect.
I do not need any photographs to prove that stars south of the equator rotate clockwise around a point due south of here and about 27° above the horizon.
I know that because I can see it with my own eyes by simply stepping out my back door and looking south.
Stars to the south and more than 27° above the horizon appear to move left to right (ie east to west) and
stars to the south and less than 27° above the horizon appear to move right to left (ie west to east).
And this is in complete agreement with these South Queensland star trails:And there are plenty more from other locations around Australia and South Africa.

I also know with 100% certainty that east-west distances here in Australia on the usual FE map are grossly too large.

I can't understand how flat-earthers think they can say with such certainty these things south of the equator when they have never been here.

What one earth are these imaginary "anti-aircraft stars"?

Nefarious NASA space weapon.  Like a mini Death Star, but only powerful enough to blow up a plane.

Alternatively, and much more boringly, bad autocorrect for antipodean? 

That would be a super bad autocorrect though, so I’m going with option 1.

I have a few questions for those who believe this is only possible, on a globe? How do the Stars move at the equator? Why is it we see stars make perfect circles around the Pole stars, yet were swirling to space orbiting around the sun at a tilt? It doesn't make any logical sense for them to make PERFECT circles. No matter which model you believe you cannot see the entirety of a hemispheres sky. ( as mainstream science tells us. We are but an ant in comparison to the size of the earth.) Similarly we only can see a small section of the sky. Ever watched as a plane takes off or travels. They move very fast and as such we see them for a short time. I live in a field with a clear view 360 degrees with few trees. I can only see a plane for roughly 140 seconds on average. keeping the math simple if it travels at 500 miles an hour. I can see virtually 19.45 miles in any direction. (literally less than 1 thousandth of the sky). please explain this. These numbers were done with simple math.

I have a few questions for those who believe this is only possible, on a globe? How do the Stars move at the equator? Why is it we see stars make perfect circles around the Pole stars, yet were swirling to space orbiting around the sun at a tilt? It doesn't make any logical sense for them to make PERFECT circles. No matter which model you believe you cannot see the entirety of a hemispheres sky. ( as mainstream science tells us. We are but an ant in comparison to the size of the earth.) Similarly we only can see a small section of the sky. Ever watched as a plane takes off or travels. They move very fast and as such we see them for a short time. I live in a field with a clear view 360 degrees with few trees. I can only see a plane for roughly 140 seconds on average. keeping the math simple if it travels at 500 miles an hour. I can see virtually 19.45 miles in any direction. (literally less than 1 thousandth of the sky). please explain this. These numbers were done with simple math.

Assuming you're serious... here goes:
At the equator, the stars directly overhead make streaks directly over the sky from east to west.
Our orbit around the sun makes a very slight change in the angles to the stars. We call this effect "parallax". We use this to measure the distances to the closest stars.
The rest I'm having trouble following you... Let me try some basics. You can see from horizon to horizon. Like say you look East, tilt your head up 90 degrees and now keep going to the West 90 degrees more... that's 180 degrees across the sky. Horizontally, you can see 360 degrees. Together, that's half a sphere. 360 degrees around the horizontal and 180 degrees over the top. Half-a-sphere is a "hemisphere".
As far as the planes, I think you're saying you can't see things that get too far away. The brighter the object, the farther away you can see the light from it. A star is very very bright.

I think that just putting a camera and making some kind of photo is easier than troubling yourself with research.

Which is why we don't just use photos.
Instead we use logical arguments.

Everywhere on Earth, except at extreme latitudes, you can take a timelapse picture of the night sky, pointing due north and due south (with the angle of elevation adjusted for latitude), and observe 2 celestial poles. 2 points the stars appear to circle.
This observation alone makes no sense of the standard FE model.
Then take more over the world, or have those you trust do this, and you notice that you have 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart.
Also, have them note the time various stars (which can include the sun) appear near the horizon and directly due north or south.

All of this is impossible on a FE.

And they are just moving in one direction with circles around the polar star and this is happening all over the planet regardless where you are at its center or edge, which has long been documented.

Wrong.
They all travel in circles around the axis, which is Earth's axis. This is not simply the north polar star. It applies to the southern pole star as well.

at its edge go along an arc - with the center - the polar star.

Nope. At the "edge" (by which I assume you mean the southern regions) you clearly see them circle a point due south, not tracing wide arcs.

All the discussions that are going on here are based on not correctly made photos

Then go to the southern hemisphere and make a correct photo.

I have a few questions for those who believe this is only possible, on a globe

Not necessarily a globe, a round object.
This is because you have 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart. This requires 2 lines following the surface of the planet (so not curving on the surface) to intersect twice after some finite distance. This is impossible on a flat surface. In order for this to occur you need a round, convex surface.

How do the Stars move at the equator

Just like they move elsewhere.
They appear to trace a circle parallel to the equatorial plane.

Why is it we see stars make perfect circles [snip]
It doesn't make any logical sense for them to make PERFECT circles.

Have you confirmed they are perfect?
That there is not even a slight variation?
You seem to be making the same argument of those long dead about parallax. (although what follows doesn't seem to indicate that or be connected to this at all)
Earth is tiny in comparison to the distance to the stars, as is its orbit around the sun (which would make a yearly perturbation).
Earth's orbit is ~150 000 000 km. For comparison, the nearest star (other than the sun) is ~ 39 735 067 984 839 km
That is roughly 250 000 times.
That means the slight variations are not detectable with the human eye.
Even the sun is 150 000 000 km away, while Earth's radius is a mere ~6400 km, making the sun 23 000 times as distant as you could be from the centre of Earth.
This means even the variation of the sun from a perfect circle (for a day) is not noticable. Instead all that is noticeable for it is the yearly variation.

No matter which model you believe you cannot see the entirety of a hemispheres sky. ( as mainstream science tells us.

Not quite.
It says you can see a hemisphere of sky, i.e. one celestial hemisphere, with it centred on you. Technically if you were out a sea you could see slightly more.

I can only see a plane for roughly 140 seconds on average. keeping the math simple if it travels at 500 miles an hour. I can see virtually 19.45 miles in any direction.

Only for that plane.
If you instead used an object on the ground for comparison, and were standing on the ground, that would give you a few miles at best.
If you use a small ball (like a ball bearing) you might claim you can't see more than a few m.

There are many reasons why objects can't be seen.
You can have objects get too small to see (which doesn't work for a bright light against a dark background).
You can have them go below the horizon (which means they are no longer in the hemisphere of sky you can see).
You can have something else get in the way (like a roof).