Why does the sun not circle the northern celestial pole?

For a flat earth, the sun would orbit the northern celestial pole like this…



So time lapse photography should result in the sun making a circle around the celestial North Pole like one nights worth of star trails?  Similar like this?


https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg

The sun should circle the celestial North Pole on a FE.

But the sun does this…. For six months…


media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg


Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…

Flat Earther’s ignoring the truth again….

Still now flat earth takers?  Interesting? 

The stars and Sun move above the Earth within the concave Firmament dome that encapsulates all the Earth below it.

So the sun, moving above the Earth in circular patterns, follows in a concave circles that move inward and outward again, as a massive spiral pattern back and forth over each year.

It never spirals into the center above Earth, or your ‘north pole’, for that pattern does not go on that line, which would be a strange thing indeed.

Star circles form all over above the Earth, because we only see part of the skies and stars at any point on Earth.

If they didn’t form a circle over and over above you, and form circles above other areas of Earth, why would that happen above a ball Earth? If the Earth rotates over a path in one direction, we’d see different stars from the areas of that path above us as it ‘rotates’ around, in a line of all those stars.

Earth would have to rotate in one path all the time, it can’t veer itself and rotate in other paths or directions, right?

We’d see the stars move in the path we are on Earth, which would be different everywhere on Earth rotating in one path.

That doesn’t happen, obviously, so that proves once again it is not a rotating ball in endless space, speeding through it randomly, which would have us seeing new stars all the time. The stars aren’t following the Earth and at the same relative points, trillions of miles away, that’s even more ridiculous to believe happens.

The stars and Sun move above the Earth

Each complete one revolution about the North Pole once a day.

Is that false.


The sun orbits about the north celestial pole once a day like this?



Is this false.


The stars revolve around the same norther celestial pole like this…




So time lapse photography should result in the sun making a circle around the celestial North Pole like one nights worth of star trails? 

So…

If the earth is flat and the sun orbits the same celestial pole as the stars in about the same amount of time, so why does the sun make trails like this?

media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg


When,  on a flat earth, it should revolve around the northern celestial pole like this.

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

[/quote]

Yes it is a false example of it.

Again, the sun and stars move above Earth in a concave position as they circle above Earth.

They don’t circle in a flat plane above the flat plane of Earths surface, that is a popular but wrong model of the flat Earth.

concave circles

No mater how “concave” this rim is, it still revolves around the same axle.


“”


So the sun should still circle day to day the norther celestial pole similar to the stars to cause trails like this.


https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg


But instead does this.


media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg

Sun trails that show no indication of a sun that orbits a celestial pole. Trails that only make sense if earth rotates and orbits the sun in the heliocentric model.

Yes it is a false example of it.

Again, the sun and stars move above Earth in a concave position as they circle above Earth.

They don’t circle in a flat plane above the flat plane of Earths surface, that is a popular but wrong model of the flat Earth.

It doesn’t matter they are “concave”.  They still circle the same point in the sky for the flat earth model.  They should in the flat earth model revolve around the same point, literally circle the same point.  Sun trails show that the FE model is wrong.

Yes it is a false example of it.

Again, the sun and stars move above Earth in a concave position as they circle above Earth.

They don’t circle in a flat plane above the flat plane of Earths surface, that is a popular but wrong model of the flat Earth.

That’s isn’t addressing the issue.

Both the stars and sun revolve around the same northern celestial pole at the same speed.  (Added.  As in one revolution per 24 hours.  )

Similar to this.



The stars do this.



So the sun should do this. 

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

[/quote]

 No matter what BS you spout. The sun is visible throughout the earth every 24 hours.  The claim is the sun on FE sets because of “prospective”. (added and rotated about the North Pole) There is no reason and no evidence ever given “concave circles” would stop the sun circling the norther pole in the same manner as stars like this…



Like the different parts of a “concave“ rim would all revolve around the same axel.



All points despite the “concave” of the rim will circle the same axle.

So this…





Would not produce sun trails like this.


media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg


But the heliocentric model of the sun would..

Star circles form all over above the Earth, because we only see part of the skies and stars at any point on Earth.

Except they don't, as clearly shown near the equator, where instead they form circles in a plane which intersects Earth.
And more importantly, in the south, we can see those circles, but they are around the south pole, not the north.

Why would that happen on a flat Earth?

If they didn’t form a circle over and over above you, and form circles above other areas of Earth, why would that happen above a ball Earth?

Because the orientation of the surface of a round Earth varies with location.

Truly simple.
A child could understand.

We’d see the stars move in the path we are on Earth, which would be different everywhere on Earth rotating in one path.

This depends on distance.

With a FE, with things circling 5000 km overhead, the distance from that centre of rotation is quite significant, and the paths should be distorted quite substantially around Earth.
e.g. if you look towards the north pole, you wouldn't see nice circles, you would see ellipses.

But for a RE, where the nearest start is ~ 40 000 000 000 000 km away, even the 300 000 000 km orbit around the sun is insignificant and wont change the view you get through your eyes or a simple camera.

So the face we see the nice circles around the celestial poles is already enough to show Earth is not a magical flat disc with the starts magically circling overhead.

Again, the sun and stars move above Earth in a concave position as they circle above Earth.

And by that do you mean that a given star is changing altitude all over the place?
Or do you mean that a given star is tracing a circle along a concave dome?

If the former, why don't we see anything to support that?
If the latter, that is circling in a plane overhead.

Yes it is a false example of it.

Again, the sun and stars move above Earth in a concave position as they circle above Earth.

They don’t circle in a flat plane above the flat plane of Earths surface, that is a popular but wrong model of the flat Earth.

Can you prove that, Turbonium? Surely you have proof?

I see how much time you spend attempting to debunk anything science, and absolutely zero time trying to prove the flat earth. The flat earth in your imagination has an edge, so where are your attempts to get to that edge and easily prove your argument?

I'm sorry, but for all these reasons, I don't believe you're actually a flat earther. You're in too deep and just a person addicted to debating.

For a flat earth, the sun would orbit the northern celestial pole like this…



Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…

For the last time.

If you had a decent flat Earth map, and drew things straight, you would realize that it has to do nothing of the sort.



These three circles represent the sun's path throughout the year. This is how seasons work.

On the other hand, if the sun just had to fly into the north, what you'd have instead is the warm weather suddenly skipping over, say New Zealand during spring, to instead go from Mexico up across to Russia. Sure, that makes sense.

Or, like I've told you, it fluctuates gradually between these three circles with spring and fall in the equator as a transition.

Now about that nonsense about the sun circling overhead. Get your Paint program. Make two short vertical lines through one section  of these circles. You'll see that if you cut out a beginning and endpoint, that you get an arc. This is how the sun behaves. We are only able to see a chunk of it in sight.

There's no such thing as a decent flat earth map, Bulma. Those three circles you drew are an absolute crock of shit, regarding the path of the sun.

Flat Earth talk in today's day and age is radical. You've been radicalized into the flat earth cult. They do say that weak willed people such as yourself make perfect subjects for hypnosis and radicalisation.

For the last time.

Does that mean you wont be repeating this BS again?

If you had a decent flat Earth map, and drew things straight, you would realize that it has to do nothing of the sort.

You mean like this:

Oh look, the sun should appear to circle the north pole.

On the other hand, if the sun just had to fly into the north, what you'd have instead is the warm weather suddenly skipping over, say New Zealand during spring, to instead go from Mexico up across to Russia. Sure, that makes sense.

So you are saying the FE model is nonsense and doesn't make sense?

Or, like I've told you, it fluctuates gradually between these three circles with spring and fall in the equator as a transition.

And now you are just posting intentionally dishonest BS?

Again, you KNOW the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day.
It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it, it has been explained to you.

In your crappy image, you are showing Earth an integer number of SIDEREAL days apart.
That means it would be 11 am for both IN SOLAR TIME!
So excluding the sun, the stars should be in the same position.

If you instead look at solar time, it would be closer to 11 PM.

You have had this explained to you repeatedly, and you have made no honest attempt to refute it.
So you have no excuse.

Stop repeating the same dishonest BS.
And stop deflecting from the topic.

Now about that nonsense about the sun circling overhead.

Glad you admit the FE is nonsense.

You'll see that if you cut out a beginning and endpoint, that you get an arc.

Which doesn't help.

I see how much time you spend attempting to debunk anything science, and absolutely zero time trying to prove the flat earth. The flat earth in your imagination has an edge, so where are your attempts to get to that edge and easily prove your argument?

I'm sorry, but for all these reasons, I don't believe you're actually a flat earther. You're in too deep and just a person addicted to debating.

Why does there have to be an edge?