Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?

  • 29 Replies
  • 2863 Views
Star trails. Bottom line, observing star trails alone prove whether the Earth is flat or spherical. Use time lapse photography. We know that, if standing relatively close to the North pole, snd looking up and facing north, the stars appear to move in a tight, circular COUNTERCLOCKWISE direction around the fixed point of Polaris. Right? Ok. IF  standing relatively close to the "South Pole" ( southern most points of S. America or S. Africa or South Island, NZ), and looking up and facing south, we see the stars moving in a tight circular CLOCKWISE direction around a fixed point, then the Earth is NOT FLAT! it has to be spherical. If the Earth is flat, the view in the south would be stars appearing to move in a much looser COUTERCLOCKWISE (same direction as north pole perspective) circular rotation. Is this not fact?? Is this not the most simple and obvious proof or disproof there can be?? Seriously. If someone disagrees, spare the scoffing. Just tell me how the Earth could possibly be flat if the southern vies shows stars rotating in a tight clockwise direction around a fixed point.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2022, 08:16:36 PM »
I would say you are missing one slight part.
No matter where you are, the stars in the north appear to trace a circle around a point due north; and the stars in the south appear to trace a circle around a point due south; and, most importantly, these are 180 degrees apart.
This can be observed best on the equator, but to a lesser extent it can also be observed away from the equator.

Without this part you can have a bipolar Earth, with a north region and a south region, with the stars turning in opposite directions in each.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2022, 08:49:41 PM »
I think insisting that this one observation is proof of a Round Earth is just demonstrating a lack of creativity.

Is it an observation that is most easily explained by assuming you are standing on a globe? Sure. But things in the sky can and do appear to move, and not all are always moving in unison. What you've stumbled upon, OP, is evidence in support of a RE. But there can be, and are, other ideas people have floated here and elsewhere to explain how that might work in various other models. I'd encourage you to peruse Jane's FE Compendium thread,  or if you're feeling like a longer time investment you can read through Wise or Sandokhan's material in FE Believers, or check out posts from Jrowe on Dual Earth Theory, or Sceptimatic about his FE model that replaces Gravity with denpressure. I appreciate the fact you just sort of dove into the pool without testing the water, I'd just also encourage you to do a bit of looking around the place to get familiar.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2022, 12:48:57 PM »
Jack Black...did you actually read what I wrote?? I said the exact same thing, in different words. IF there are north (counterclockwise star rotation/movement)) and south (clockwise star rotation/movement)  "fixed points" in the circular star trails, it is proof that the earth is not flat. However, IF, in the SOUTHERN hemisphere, you see COUNTERCLOCKWISE movement of the stars with NO FIXED POINT, THEN that is very strong evidence that the earth IS flat, AND, it is proof that the Earth is NOT a sphere. How can I state it any more clearly?? Please read more carefully and engage your brain rather than assuming I said something I didn't, or assuming that I didn't say something that I did. Thanks.

My question remains unaddressed...

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2022, 12:59:31 PM »
Boydster...I did not present evidence of a flat Earth or evidence of a globe Earth. I simply stated what can be determined by simple observation, which would lead to either proving or disproving flat Earth or a globe Earth. We don't need to study the works or opinions of this person or that person. We need only open our eyes and look. WHICH DO YOU SEE WHEN IN THE EXTREME SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE (looking south) WHEN YOU WATCH THE "MOVEMENT" OF THE STARS....A tight clockwise rotation of the stars around a fixed point (like we see in the extreme northern hemisphere, although rotating in the OPPOSITE direction?) OR, do do you see a loose counterclockwise movement of the stars without any "fixed point center"?? WHICH IS IT?? Does no one know??  How can I describe it any more clearly?? This is the most simple application of science and the scientific method.

My question remains unaddressed...

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2022, 02:53:37 PM »
Boydster...I did not present evidence of a flat Earth or evidence of a globe Earth.
I get that you think that, but you're still wrong. You're claiming you have "proof" based on the star trails, as if that's something that exists outside mathematics and logic, and as if what you have is something above and beyond evidence when it's not. And I'm telling you, your assertion demonstrates a lack of creativity on your part, in addition to demonstrating a willingness to use language improperly (since, you know, you doubled down on that language in your reply to JackBlack).

Maybe, before loudly advertising to everyone around you that you haven't even bothered to do the slightest bit of reading before jumping into a diatribe about how everyone other than you is wrong, you could read more about the models that people tend to discuss here. Seems like a great way be respectful of the people you claim to want to engage with, yeah?

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2022, 02:58:15 PM »
Jack Black...did you actually read what I wrote?? I said the exact same thing, in different words.
Yes. Did you read what I wrote?
Here is a simple animation to help you understand the problem:


Are you saying these gears couldn't possibly exist above a flat surface because one is turning one way and the other is turning another way?

Because that sure seems to be what you are suggesting, and I am saying the exact opposite.

So before telling others to read more carefully engage their brain, follow your own advice and read what others have said, with your brain engaged.

Both Boydster and myself, in different ways, have addressed your question of:
If the Earth is flat, the view in the south would be stars appearing to move in a much looser COUTERCLOCKWISE (same direction as north pole perspective) circular rotation. Is this not fact??
The simple answer is that that is NOT a fact.

That is only a fact which comes from one specific FE model, so it should start with "If this specific FE model is correct...". Other models produce different results.

So while you are partially correct, in that a specific observation would be strong evidence of a flat Earth, or at least that region of Earth being roughly flat; you are not correct that this other observation you speak of is evidence of Earth not being flat (even as a hypothetical).

That is why I pointed out you need that 180 degree separation.
Because that is what pushes it from just objecting to one FE model to objecting to all of them (although some excuses can still be made).

Likewise, Boydster never said that you did provide evidence.
Instead they indicated that the idea that your hypothetical observation would be proof that Earth is spherical is wrong.
And their argument is correct.
That observation alone is not enough to prove Earth is spherical.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2022, 06:22:58 AM »
Jack Black...did you actually read what I wrote?? I said the exact same thing, in different words.
Yes. Did you read what I wrote?
Here is a simple animation to help you understand the problem:


Are you saying these gears couldn't possibly exist above a flat surface because one is turning one way and the other is turning another way?

I will say this can’t possibly exist over a flat earth that’s remotely consistent with basic observations of stars. 

I think insisting that this one observation is proof of a Round Earth is just demonstrating a lack of creativity.

And yet the OP said-

Seriously. If someone disagrees, spare the scoffing. Just tell me how the Earth could possibly be flat if the southern vies shows stars rotating in a tight clockwise direction around a fixed point.

So why start talking about their “lack of creativity” instead of just answering the question? 

Even the thread title is phrased as a question.  And the answer IMO is yes.  I think it’s the simplest and most conclusive evidence that can be verified by anyone.  Other methods to determine the shape of the earth tend to rely on third party data (maps, satellite images, etc) or subject to potential measurement error (eg far you can see).
« Last Edit: August 15, 2022, 06:45:29 AM by Unconvinced »

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2022, 11:54:49 AM »
So why start talking about their “lack of creativity” instead of just answering the question? 
Because OP is the one making the affirmative claim (claiming to have "proof" of something). This is basic debate. It's called Burden of Proof. And I pointed the OP toward the FE Compendium, that goes into Celestial Gears as well as Dual Earth Theory and other FE models, they have specifically chosen not to actually do any work here and just take the lazy approach. If they want to claim they have found proof of a Round Earth, it's on them to demonstrate that. Claiming to have proven something, while demonstrating that in reality they have only failed to consider alternative possibilities, isn't something that anyone should be defending no matter what shape you want to tell people the Earth is. And I can pretty confidently say "failed to consider alternative possibilities" because, again, I pointed them toward a resource to take a deeper dive. This isn't just ignorance, it's willful ignorance despite guidance, and that's incredibly disrespectful. But yes, I should go out of my way even more, accepting the Burden of Proof for myself even though it clearly lies on the person that made the affirmative claim and has chosen to break all standards of decorum. ::)

You're right, in that the OP phrased it as a question. I answered that question by stating it's 1) not a proof, 2) demonstrates that the OP didn't work to try and even consider alternative possibilities, and then I went even further and gave them the ability to try and form a more substantial argument by specifically showing them how to find easy to access information about how some of the various FE models discussed at this site work. If they don't want to do any of that, it's not a me problem. It's on them.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2022, 12:08:21 PM »
Let me simplify my question (and, it was posed PRIMARILY as a question, NOT as a statement). Using time lapse photography, if you are in the extreme southern hemisphere, and point the camera up to where the globers claim should be a fixed point that the stars are circling around, on a clear night, what would be captured by the time lapse photography?

Now, can you stop hypothesizing and obfuscating, and putting words and motives and attaching character traits to my question? Just answer my question. WHAT WOULD THE TIME ELAPSE PHOTOGRAPHY CAPTURE?

Is that really too difficult to understand, and answer??

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2022, 12:55:01 PM »
Thank you "Unconvinced". I'm glad that someone on this forum can recognize a simple question without having the need to convolute everything.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2022, 01:04:38 PM »
Let me simplify my question (and, it was posed PRIMARILY as a question, NOT as a statement). Using time lapse photography, if you are in the extreme southern hemisphere, and point the camera up to where the globers claim should be a fixed point that the stars are circling around, on a clear night, what would be captured by the time lapse photography?

Now, can you stop hypothesizing and obfuscating, and putting words and motives and attaching character traits to my question? Just answer my question. WHAT WOULD THE TIME ELAPSE PHOTOGRAPHY CAPTURE?

Is that really too difficult to understand, and answer??
This isn't a real question though, you already know the answer. That's called a leading question. And it's a poor one, at that, with the flaws baked into it having already been pointed out. It would show the stars moving in circles above the poles, with each circle spinning in an opposite direction. And, AGAIN, as was already stated multiple times, this is not a proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth. Instead, it's evidence in support of a globe, but not definitive proof. How many times do you need this to be repeated? Can we just skip ahead to the part where it's been said that number of times?

To be clear: You aren't entitled to answers here. Being combative about having your demands met isn't likely to win you over any actual FE proponents into a debate. Nothing about your posts in this thread has shown any sort of good faith attempt at discussion.

Here's JackBlack, answering your question:
I would say you are missing one slight part.
No matter where you are, the stars in the north appear to trace a circle around a point due north; and the stars in the south appear to trace a circle around a point due south; and, most importantly, these are 180 degrees apart.
This can be observed best on the equator, but to a lesser extent it can also be observed away from the equator.

Without this part you can have a bipolar Earth, with a north region and a south region, with the stars turning in opposite directions in each.

Here's me, answering your question:
I think insisting that this one observation is proof of a Round Earth is just demonstrating a lack of creativity.

Is it an observation that is most easily explained by assuming you are standing on a globe? Sure. But things in the sky can and do appear to move, and not all are always moving in unison. What you've stumbled upon, OP, is evidence in support of a RE. But there can be, and are, other ideas people have floated here and elsewhere to explain how that might work in various other models. I'd encourage you to peruse Jane's FE Compendium thread,  or if you're feeling like a longer time investment you can read through Wise or Sandokhan's material in FE Believers, or check out posts from Jrowe on Dual Earth Theory, or Sceptimatic about his FE model that replaces Gravity with denpressure. I appreciate the fact you just sort of dove into the pool without testing the water, I'd just also encourage you to do a bit of looking around the place to get familiar.

Here's Jack, answering your question again, with more words and even pictures to help you understand:
Jack Black...did you actually read what I wrote?? I said the exact same thing, in different words.
Yes. Did you read what I wrote?
Here is a simple animation to help you understand the problem:


Are you saying these gears couldn't possibly exist above a flat surface because one is turning one way and the other is turning another way?

Because that sure seems to be what you are suggesting, and I am saying the exact opposite.

So before telling others to read more carefully engage their brain, follow your own advice and read what others have said, with your brain engaged.

Both Boydster and myself, in different ways, have addressed your question of:
If the Earth is flat, the view in the south would be stars appearing to move in a much looser COUTERCLOCKWISE (same direction as north pole perspective) circular rotation. Is this not fact??
The simple answer is that that is NOT a fact.

That is only a fact which comes from one specific FE model, so it should start with "If this specific FE model is correct...". Other models produce different results.

So while you are partially correct, in that a specific observation would be strong evidence of a flat Earth, or at least that region of Earth being roughly flat; you are not correct that this other observation you speak of is evidence of Earth not being flat (even as a hypothetical).

That is why I pointed out you need that 180 degree separation.
Because that is what pushes it from just objecting to one FE model to objecting to all of them (although some excuses can still be made).

Likewise, Boydster never said that you did provide evidence.
Instead they indicated that the idea that your hypothetical observation would be proof that Earth is spherical is wrong.
And their argument is correct.
That observation alone is not enough to prove Earth is spherical.

And here's my most recent post prior to this one, which (stop me if you've heard this one before) also answers the question posed in your thread title:
So why start talking about their “lack of creativity” instead of just answering the question? 
Because OP is the one making the affirmative claim (claiming to have "proof" of something). This is basic debate. It's called Burden of Proof. And I pointed the OP toward the FE Compendium, that goes into Celestial Gears as well as Dual Earth Theory and other FE models, they have specifically chosen not to actually do any work here and just take the lazy approach. If they want to claim they have found proof of a Round Earth, it's on them to demonstrate that. Claiming to have proven something, while demonstrating that in reality they have only failed to consider alternative possibilities, isn't something that anyone should be defending no matter what shape you want to tell people the Earth is. And I can pretty confidently say "failed to consider alternative possibilities" because, again, I pointed them toward a resource to take a deeper dive. This isn't just ignorance, it's willful ignorance despite guidance, and that's incredibly disrespectful. But yes, I should go out of my way even more, accepting the Burden of Proof for myself even though it clearly lies on the person that made the affirmative claim and has chosen to break all standards of decorum. ::)

You're right, in that the OP phrased it as a question. I answered that question by stating it's 1) not a proof, 2) demonstrates that the OP didn't work to try and even consider alternative possibilities, and then I went even further and gave them the ability to try and form a more substantial argument by specifically showing them how to find easy to access information about how some of the various FE models discussed at this site work. If they don't want to do any of that, it's not a me problem. It's on them.



STAR TRAILS OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ARE NOT A PROOF OF A ROUND EARTH. That means they can't possibly be the best proof, because they fail the test of being a proof. Your question has been answered. Over. And. Over.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2022, 01:46:04 PM »
I will say this can’t possibly exist over a flat earth that’s remotely consistent with basic observations of stars.
Can you try justifying that?
And more importantly, just by using the OP, without needing to include other observations like the fact that these poles are always 180 degrees apart?

It has stars in one "hemisphere" appearing to rotate in one direction, while the stars in the other "hemisphere" appear to rotate in another direction.
And that is the key bit they were using.

Even the thread title is phrased as a question.  And the answer IMO is yes.  I think it’s the simplest and most conclusive evidence that can be verified by anyone.  Other methods to determine the shape of the earth tend to rely on third party data (maps, satellite images, etc) or subject to potential measurement error (eg far you can see).
And I think it lacks a key piece of information.


Using time lapse photography, if you are in the extreme southern hemisphere, and point the camera up to where the globers claim should be a fixed point that the stars are circling around, on a clear night, what would be captured by the time lapse photography?

Now, can you stop hypothesizing and obfuscating, and putting words and motives and attaching character traits to my question? Just answer my question. WHAT WOULD THE TIME ELAPSE PHOTOGRAPHY CAPTURE?

Is that really too difficult to understand, and answer??
No, it isn't difficult to understand and answer. The issue is that you don't appear to like the answer.
The answer will fundamentally depend upon what model you are using.
For the RE model, you would expect to observe the stars rotating about a point due south.
For the NP centred FE model, you would expect to observe the stars rotating about a point due north, tracing wide circles to the south.
For the SP centred FE model, you would expect to observe the stars rotating about a point due south.
For the bipolar FE model, you would expect to observe the stars rotating about a point due south.
For the not-really flat FE models like JRowes DET, you would expect to observe the stars rotating about a point due south.

Notice how the observation is not inconsistent with all FE models?

And as Boydster has point out, we have answered your question several times.
So do you really want an answer, or do you just want people to say yes you must be correct?

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2022, 01:13:55 PM »
Jack Black and Boydster...YOu both make a lot of assumptions about me, what I wrote in the OP, what I know, what you think I am trying to say, etc. You don't know any of that. And, I can only assume that you use those same tactics in your evaluation of information. Asumption, assumption, assumption...and, judging by this little exchange, I can only assume that you are wrong in most of your assumptions.

So, you say the stars in the extreme southern hemisphere rotate tightly in a clockwise direction? I did not state that. You did. I only asked the question, which no one actually answered until these last two replies. So, it appears, you don't like the answer to my question, which was your own answer. You don't like the fact that the stars in the south move that way. Isn't that correct. So, you concoct some fantasy to "support" your unfounded hypothesis (not fact, and not even theory). I am searching for truth. It seems that you are searching for justification to believe something that is...well...are you familiar with the term...confirmation bias?

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2022, 01:21:03 PM »
I guess you think Jack and Boyd are FE supporters huh.
Aren't assumptions a bitch.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2022, 01:25:01 PM by Mikey T. »

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2022, 02:35:04 PM »
Jack Black and Boydster...YOu both make a lot of assumptions about me, what I wrote in the OP, what I know, what you think I am trying to say, etc. You don't know any of that. And, I can only assume that you use those same tactics in your evaluation of information. Asumption, assumption, assumption...and, judging by this little exchange, I can only assume that you are wrong in most of your assumptions.

So, you say the stars in the extreme southern hemisphere rotate tightly in a clockwise direction? I did not state that. You did. I only asked the question, which no one actually answered until these last two replies. So, it appears, you don't like the answer to my question, which was your own answer. You don't like the fact that the stars in the south move that way. Isn't that correct. So, you concoct some fantasy to "support" your unfounded hypothesis (not fact, and not even theory). I am searching for truth. It seems that you are searching for justification to believe something that is...well...are you familiar with the term...confirmation bias?
*Chef's kiss* Wow, this is amazing. If you keep wearing those really thick blinders you're wearing, I have a feeling you will have a hard time finding any truth. But I do wish you the best of luck.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2022, 03:41:12 PM »
Jack Black and Boydster...YOu both make a lot of assumptions about me
Quite the opposite.
You are making lots of assumptions about us, and about the FE you are suggesting is refuted by a hypothetical observation.

All while ignoring what is actually being said.

So, you say the stars in the extreme southern hemisphere rotate tightly in a clockwise direction? I did not state that. You did.
Yes and no.
I know that they do, and stated what was required to complete your alleged disproof.
But to address your argument, I did not assume it.
Instead I merely pointed out how your hypothetical observation could work on a FE.

I only asked the question, which no one actually answered until these last two replies.
Wrong again, we answered, in the first response, in different ways.
I directly addressed this part of your OP:
"Just tell me how the Earth could possibly be flat if the southern vies shows stars rotating in a tight clockwise direction around a fixed point."

I explained how such a hypothetical observation could work on a FE, demonstrating that such a hypothetical observation is not proof of a round Earth, and that your claim was not a fact.

It is you who doesn't like the answer, because your claim is wrong.

Even now you just resort to insults rather than dealing with the fact that you are wrong and that the answer to your question is no, it is not a fact; No, it is not the most simple and obvious proof or disproof there can be as it is not a disproof of a FE.
The best you would get is a disproof of a RE.

I am searching for truth.
You clearly aren't.
Because the answers were not the ones you wanted, you made up all sorts of nonsense while ignoring what was actually said, all so you can ignore the answers.
If you were actually searching for the truth, your response would have been accepting that your "best proof" was incomplete and doesn't actually demonstrate that Earth can't be flat.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2022, 11:58:17 PM »
Jack Black and Boydster...YOu both make a lot of assumptions about me, what I wrote in the OP, what I know, what you think I am trying to say, etc. You don't know any of that. And, I can only assume that you use those same tactics in your evaluation of information. Asumption, assumption, assumption...and, judging by this little exchange, I can only assume that you are wrong in most of your assumptions.

So, you say the stars in the extreme southern hemisphere rotate tightly in a clockwise direction? I did not state that. You did. I only asked the question, which no one actually answered until these last two replies. So, it appears, you don't like the answer to my question, which was your own answer. You don't like the fact that the stars in the south move that way. Isn't that correct. So, you concoct some fantasy to "support" your unfounded hypothesis (not fact, and not even theory). I am searching for truth. It seems that you are searching for justification to believe something that is...well...are you familiar with the term...confirmation bias?
*Chef's kiss* Wow, this is amazing. If you keep wearing those really thick blinders you're wearing, I have a feeling you will have a hard time finding any truth. But I do wish you the best of luck.

They're definitely right about you making assumptions. I've pointed out a dealbreaking flaw with FE on multiple forums and since nobody (not even yourself) was able to explain it you assume that I must have been communicating it badly

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2022, 02:54:32 AM »
I would say you are missing one slight part.
No matter where you are, the stars in the north appear to trace a circle around a point due north; and the stars in the south appear to trace a circle around a point due south; and, most importantly, these are 180 degrees apart.
This can be observed best on the equator, but to a lesser extent it can also be observed away from the equator.

Without this part you can have a bipolar Earth, with a north region and a south region, with the stars turning in opposite directions in each.

Isn’t the problem with your analysis you can see some of the same star constellations from the south and north hemispheres.  And when viewed between the two hemispheres, they travel/rotate in opposite directions? 

« Last Edit: August 17, 2022, 03:18:10 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2022, 04:05:14 AM »
They're definitely right about you making assumptions. I've pointed out a dealbreaking flaw with FE on multiple forums and since nobody (not even yourself) was able to explain it you assume that I must have been communicating it badly
No, they aren't. I'm not FE, I don't have to argue for FE just to entertain you. And I didn't say you were communicating your idea badly, I said your approach was very adversarial and not one that would invite much interaction with actual flat Earthers. Which is exactly what you've experienced.

Edit to add, and avoid any games of twisting words that someone might want to play. Here's my quote, stating exactly what I described above. Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. Muckraker too, for that matter  ;D
I'm noticing a trend of people that are brand new to a board, come out swinging like this and declaring that they just can't find anyone else on those boards that will engage them, and then leaping to the conclusion that the FE proponents at said board don't have a response. From what I've seen, the issue is typically the messenger and their delivery.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2022, 04:28:09 AM by boydster »

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2022, 04:23:13 AM »
I would say you are missing one slight part.
No matter where you are, the stars in the north appear to trace a circle around a point due north; and the stars in the south appear to trace a circle around a point due south; and, most importantly, these are 180 degrees apart.
This can be observed best on the equator, but to a lesser extent it can also be observed away from the equator.

Without this part you can have a bipolar Earth, with a north region and a south region, with the stars turning in opposite directions in each.

Isn’t the problem with your analysis you can see some of the same star constellations from the south and north hemispheres.  And when viewed between the two hemispheres, they travel/rotate in opposite directions?
When viewed in different hemispheres, the direction remains the same.

What can cause an apparent change in direction is going from the star passing due north to passing due south, because you are looking at it from the opposite direction.
But that is more from how humans perceive things, and the tricks our minds play on us.

The best way to view it for the RE is to set up a camera to point directly to the celestial north/south pole, with a wide angle (180 degree) lens.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2022, 05:48:45 AM »

When viewed in different hemispheres, the direction remains the same.




Are you saying there are no stars that are visible both from the norther and Southern Hemisphere, their corresponding constellations,  that don’t appear to travel in different directions?


Quote
The Amazing Sky

https://amazingsky.net/

But the direction they move is opposite. When looking 180° away from the Pole, the seasonal stars move from left to right in the Northern Hemisphere, but from right to left in the Southern Hemisphere.

Is it false one of the failures of flat earth is it has no reasonable explanation how a star seen in the northern hemisphere travels in one direction, and how that same star travels in the opposite direction when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere.


Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2022, 11:08:57 AM »
I will say this can’t possibly exist over a flat earth that’s remotely consistent with basic observations of stars.
Can you try justifying that?

Yeah.  It’s not what the motion of the stars looks like at all.

Quote
And more importantly, just by using the OP, without needing to include other observations like the fact that these poles are always 180 degrees apart?

Why is this so important?

I don’t disagree with your first reply, although there are plenty of alternative observations that could also do the job.  (eg. stars being in the same positions relative to each other at all times).

But it seems weird to then say, that it could hypothetically work like your example on a flat earth, when that’s so obviously not what we see. 

Quote
It has stars in one "hemisphere" appearing to rotate in one direction, while the stars in the other "hemisphere" appear to rotate in another direction.
And that is the key bit they were using.

Yeah, it was a short post and it didn’t exclude every possible workaround that’s utterly broken for other reasons.   

Quote
Even the thread title is phrased as a question.  And the answer IMO is yes.  I think it’s the simplest and most conclusive evidence that can be verified by anyone.  Other methods to determine the shape of the earth tend to rely on third party data (maps, satellite images, etc) or subject to potential measurement error (eg far you can see).
And I think it lacks a key piece of information.

Not much though.  I’m nitpicking, but I think you are a bit too.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2022, 11:31:35 AM »
So why start talking about their “lack of creativity” instead of just answering the question? 
Because OP is the one making the affirmative claim (claiming to have "proof" of something). This is basic debate. It's called Burden of Proof. And I pointed the OP toward the FE Compendium, that goes into Celestial Gears as well as Dual Earth Theory and other FE models, they have specifically chosen not to actually do any work here and just take the lazy approach. If they want to claim they have found proof of a Round Earth, it's on them to demonstrate that. Claiming to have proven something, while demonstrating that in reality they have only failed to consider alternative possibilities, isn't something that anyone should be defending no matter what shape you want to tell people the Earth is. And I can pretty confidently say "failed to consider alternative possibilities" because, again, I pointed them toward a resource to take a deeper dive. This isn't just ignorance, it's willful ignorance despite guidance, and that's incredibly disrespectful. But yes, I should go out of my way even more, accepting the Burden of Proof for myself even though it clearly lies on the person that made the affirmative claim and has chosen to break all standards of decorum. ::)

You're right, in that the OP phrased it as a question. I answered that question by stating it's 1) not a proof, 2) demonstrates that the OP didn't work to try and even consider alternative possibilities, and then I went even further and gave them the ability to try and form a more substantial argument by specifically showing them how to find easy to access information about how some of the various FE models discussed at this site work. If they don't want to do any of that, it's not a me problem. It's on them.

Except the OP appeared to be saying that the motion of the stars should prove it one way or the other unless someone can explain it otherwise

Clearly there was zero burden of proof necessary for such explanations to make it into Jane’s compendium.  Or even burden of being remotely hypothetically possible.

Does burden of proof mean having to account for any and all nonsense that someone might come up with?

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2022, 12:25:47 PM »
So why start talking about their “lack of creativity” instead of just answering the question? 
Because OP is the one making the affirmative claim (claiming to have "proof" of something). This is basic debate. It's called Burden of Proof. And I pointed the OP toward the FE Compendium, that goes into Celestial Gears as well as Dual Earth Theory and other FE models, they have specifically chosen not to actually do any work here and just take the lazy approach. If they want to claim they have found proof of a Round Earth, it's on them to demonstrate that. Claiming to have proven something, while demonstrating that in reality they have only failed to consider alternative possibilities, isn't something that anyone should be defending no matter what shape you want to tell people the Earth is. And I can pretty confidently say "failed to consider alternative possibilities" because, again, I pointed them toward a resource to take a deeper dive. This isn't just ignorance, it's willful ignorance despite guidance, and that's incredibly disrespectful. But yes, I should go out of my way even more, accepting the Burden of Proof for myself even though it clearly lies on the person that made the affirmative claim and has chosen to break all standards of decorum. ::)

You're right, in that the OP phrased it as a question. I answered that question by stating it's 1) not a proof, 2) demonstrates that the OP didn't work to try and even consider alternative possibilities, and then I went even further and gave them the ability to try and form a more substantial argument by specifically showing them how to find easy to access information about how some of the various FE models discussed at this site work. If they don't want to do any of that, it's not a me problem. It's on them.

Except the OP appeared to be saying that the motion of the stars should prove it one way or the other unless someone can explain it otherwise

Clearly there was zero burden of proof necessary for such explanations to make it into Jane’s compendium.  Or even burden of being remotely hypothetically possible.

Does burden of proof mean having to account for any and all nonsense that someone might come up with?
I answered the question posed in the thread title directly, and offered Jane's thread for reading so the OP could understand that there are models above and beyond what they are assuming. And DET and Celestial Gears both deal with the stars moving around the poles in opposing directions. Sandokhan's may very well, too, for all I know, but it's all so convoluted and full of copypasta it's hard to follow anything. Burden of proof means when someone makes a claim, it is on that person to support it. Making a claim, and then saying "unless anyone else can step up right now and disprove my claim, it is proven" is not how proofs work.

And suggesting Jane's compendium is some sort of proof or whatever is insanity. It's a collection of easy-to-digest summaries of varies FE models. What are you even trying to illustrate here? I'm at a loss for what your point is. Why would a burden of proof need to be met for her to acknowledge and explain different models?

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2022, 01:17:40 PM »

And DET and Celestial Gears both deal with the stars moving around the poles in opposing directions.


And it doesn’t explain why the same stars that can be seen both in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate the celestial poles in different directions.

Doesn’t explain the retrograde of planets.  Especially since Venus can be mapped from earth by radar with no indication of a physical supporting structure for Venus.

And the fact that the sun should never be physically blocked by the horizon on a flat earth.  That, and on a flat earth the North Star should be seen from Australia.  Thus, if the earth was flat, there should be places on the earth where one could see the northern and southern celestial poles at the same time.

Celestial gears do not explain the reality of what is seen. 

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2022, 01:48:35 PM »

I answered the question posed in the thread title directly, and offered Jane's thread for reading so the OP could understand that there are models above and beyond what they are assuming.

Not before accusing them of “demonstrating a lack of creativity”. This might be the only forum on the internet where mods great new members this way, LOL.

Quote
And DET and Celestial Gears both deal with the stars moving around the poles in opposing directions.

They deal with it badly. 

Quote
Sandokhan's may very well, too, for all I know, but it's all so convoluted and full of copypasta it's hard to follow anything.

Yet you still suggest new members  trawling through it.

Quote
Burden of proof means when someone makes a claim, it is on that person to support it. Making a claim, and then saying "unless anyone else can step up right now and disprove my claim, it is proven" is not how proofs work.

Again, the OP suggested that the observation should be a way to prove or disprove, not that they had proof.  You are free to disagree.

Quote
And suggesting Jane's compendium is some sort of proof or whatever is insanity. It's a collection of easy-to-digest summaries of varies FE models. What are you even trying to illustrate here? I'm at a loss for what your point is. Why would a burden of proof need to be met for her to acknowledge and explain different models?

Yeah, it’s a bunch of random stuff that (maybe) flat earthers said here at some point.

But your claim is that these “models” can satisfactorily answer the OP’s question.  So where’s the proof for that claim?  Certainly not in the place you are directing them to. 

IMO, things can get really silly overusing concepts like burden of proof.  Sometimes it’s just easier to have a normal discussion.

Besides, the idea that a new member should be familiar with these things before posting anything seems a bit ridiculous to me. You could watch hundreds of hours of flat earth videos, talk to thousands of flat earthers there or on Reddit and never come across them.  They just don’t seem to be things that actual flat earthers believe.  Celestial gears made it onto Tom’s wiki, but that’s about it and Dual Earth appears to be literally one guy’s crazy idea and he probably wasn’t even serious to start with.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to rock up, just talking about the things that flat earthers actually say.


*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • 17774
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2022, 01:59:29 PM »
It's not a way to prove or disprove FE. What even is your point here?

I did not claim those models satisfactorily explain it. I said "DET and Celestial Gears both deal with the stars moving around the poles in opposing directions." My words are right there. Respond to what I said, instead of what you imagine I said, and this would be a lot more fruitful. And at the same time, stop imaging things the OP might have said or meant when attacking me for addressing what they actually posted.

OP was demonstrating a lack of creativity. As was pointed out. And not just by me.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2022, 02:01:53 PM »
Are you saying there are no stars that are visible both from the norther and Southern Hemisphere, their corresponding constellations,  that don’t appear to travel in different directions?
Again, this comes down to what you mean by "appear to travel in a different direction".
If you have 2 people on opposite sides of a road and they watch a car travel down the road to the east, does the car appear to travel in a different direction?
Yes and no. Both observe the car travelling to the east. But one observes the car moving left to right while the other observes it moving right to left.

Likewise, assuming you can't see the complete circle of the star, if a star passes north of you, it appears to move from right to left.
If it passes south of you, it appears to move from left to right.
But that is simply because you are facing in a different direction.

You don't need Earth to be a particular shape for that.

Doesn’t explain the retrograde of planets.  Especially since Venus can be mapped from earth by radar with no indication of a physical supporting structure for Venus.
I don't think I have ever seen a FE explanation for the planets.

Thus, if the earth was flat, there should be places on the earth where one could see the northern and southern celestial poles at the same time.
I would say that differently.
There are places on Earth where one can see the north and south celestial poles at the same time, on the equator.
If Earth was flat, you should be able to see them all over Earth.

Celestial gears do not explain the reality of what is seen.
And with plenty of actual problems with the FE, there is no need to use things which can be explained on a FE as an attempt to disprove it.

Why is this so important?
Because the OP wanted to claim that this one single observation would be enough to disprove a FE.
In reality, almost nothing works like that.
We wouldn't allow a FEer to come in with a cheap single observation which lacks a lot of information understanding the model, so why should we allow REers to do so?
Especially when the OP decided to ignore it and double down.

And yes, there are plenty of alternatives which can be used to show the FE model is wrong, so I don't think we should use things which FEers can try to argue out of, even if that would then cause loads of other problems, or if loads of other problems exist which they can't address.

Yes, it is nitpicking. But when someone acts like the OP has, I will nitpick.

Or even burden of being remotely hypothetically possible.
If that is going to be your standard we can throw out FE right from the start.

However, I also note some FEers would use a similar standard based on their own opinions to discard a RE.

Re: Star trails of southern hemisphere...The best proof or disproof?
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2022, 02:36:03 PM »
Or even burden of being remotely hypothetically possible.
If that is going to be your standard we can throw out FE right from the start.

Indeed we can.  Which is why I don’t think it’s particularly helpful  to dwell too much about burdens of proof.

Sure, the OP was talking about proof and specifically about the models that flat earthers actually talk about. Maybe not all entirely correctly, but whatever.  I find the reactions quite amusing. 

Anyway this is all yet another weird circular argument about logic and argumentation between a bunch of people who all basically agree with each other.

Laters.