Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« on: November 05, 2017, 09:16:30 AM »
As you know, startrail images in southern hemisphere are in the way that all of stars are orbiting around a central star called Sigma Octantis. How is that adjustable in the flat earth theory?

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2017, 09:45:05 AM »
hi
The following is an excerpt from Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe (by Samuel Birley Rowbotham):

It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.

Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star. It is scarcely polite to contradict the statements made, but it is certain that persons who have been educated to believe that the earth is a globe, going to the southern parts of the earth do not examine such matters critically. They see the stars move from towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied. But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute movements of the southern constellations. Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south--pole star included--sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W. 1

MM. Von Spix and Karl Von Martius, in their account of -their scientific travels in Brazil, in 1817-1820, relate that "on the 15th of June, in latitude 14° S, we beheld, for the first time, that glorious constellation of the southern heavens, the Cross, which is to navigators a token of peace, and, according to its position, indicates the hours of the night. We had long wished for this constellation as a guide to the other hemisphere; we therefore felt inexpressible pleasure when we perceived it in the resplendent firmament."

The great traveller Humboldt says:--

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. More especially ought it to be at all times visible when the nearest star belonging to it is considerably nearer to the so-called "pole star of the south" than is the nearest of the stars in the "Great Bear" to the pole star of the north. Humboldt did not see the Southern Cross until he was in the 16th latitude south, and then it was "strongly inclined," showing that it was rising in the east, and sharing in the general sweep of the stars from east to west, in common with the whole firmament of stars moving round the pole star of the northern region.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.
1 "South Sea Voyages," p. 19, vol. 1. 

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2017, 01:57:41 PM »
This is an example of Rowbotham just being flat out wrong. In his day, his marks in England may have never been south of the Equator themselves, so he was free to fabricate without much chance of failure.

On the first point, this is just bad geometry. He may have thought it was true, but it's not. Stars do travel in arcs, and it's well understood from a globe point of view.

On the second point, this is incorrect on multiple points; Southern stars do indeed turn around Sigma Octantis...



...and Crux can be seen even from just North of the equator, depending on the time of year.

Turns out his anonymous 'unbiassed and truthful friends' were wrong.

The third point is false; the Earth is not flat. The evidence is  found by going really high and taking a picture.

Rowbotham sucks, stop citing him

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2017, 05:48:30 PM »
I love this.

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

Why couldn't they see it until they were 16 degrees south? Ignore the word "clouds" in there, surely every night was crystal clear before that.

Here's my favorite pictures related to this - star trails from the equator.
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

the only flat earth excuse for this is if there are multiple celestial poles, or if they have some weird bipolar flat earth model. Neither can result in the near-circumpolar stars both being visible from everywhere along the equator.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2017, 06:37:19 PM »
Why did you guys stop researching? Keep reading the Flat Earth research published after Earth Not a Globe.

devils advocate

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2017, 06:55:41 PM »
Why did you guys stop researching? Keep reading the Flat Earth research published after Earth Not a Globe.

Hi Tom, can you please put a link/title to one of your recommended research papers? I am currently reading Eric Dubay and want something more evidence based, less "says so in Rowbotham/bible etc". Cheers.

DA

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2017, 07:22:00 PM »
Why did you guys stop researching? Keep reading the Flat Earth research published after Earth Not a Globe.

Everywhere we looked we saw evidence for a round earth. If someone points me at a statement I can think about, I'm happy to think about it, but how much of my life should I dedicate to convincing you you're wrong, when I've got my own life to live?

Even if you say "This is covered in the book XXX by YYY ZZZ" it would help. Just saying "Keep reading" means there's no end in sight. I could dedicate my entire life to this and never figure out what you're talking about.

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2017, 07:21:31 AM »
Why did you guys stop researching? Keep reading the Flat Earth research published after Earth Not a Globe.

I've read about some evidences to prove that the Earth is not a globe such as moon rotation at night, lunar eclipse at day, there is nothing called satellite orbiting around earth etc. and all of them are justifiable in global earth. There was nothing to really prove that the earth is not a globe. If you have some evidences that the earth is really flat I will be so happy to know it.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 07:47:23 AM by Iman Fozouni »

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2017, 02:45:19 PM »
Why did you guys stop researching? Keep reading the Flat Earth research published after Earth Not a Globe.

I have. It continued to be terrible, and never improved.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2017, 07:48:15 PM »
Rowbotham was wrong about this - as with everything else - but it's hard to get your head around.

In the northern hemisphere, stars rise in the east and set in the west - they do that in the southern hemisphere too.

But because the people south of the equator are "upside down" compared to those in the north, the stars rotate about the south pole in a clockwise direction instead of counter-clockwise as they do in the northern hemisphere.

If the Earth was flat - then (at least according to the two maps we've been shown) - people in the south would see something very different to what they actually see.

* In the unipolar map - it's quite unclear what "looking south" actually means - because "south" is "towards the nearest point on the ice wall" - and that's an entirely different direction for the people of Australia and South Africa or South America.  They'd be seeing entirely different stars through the night...each star would have to race across the sky.   This makes ZERO sense and certainly doesn't match reality in the slightest.

* In the bipolar map - the South pole exists - but it's due in a totally different direction.  The exact definition of "north" and "south" is a bit vague - but Australians living on their East coast would see stars rotating around the Southern Cross in an ellipse somewhere in the direction of Western Australia...which is not what they see at all.

Neither map comes close to matching even the simplest real world observations.   The best we get from the FE'ers is "celestial gears" and "celestial currents" - which just have stars going every which way - and still not matching reality.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2017, 07:51:46 PM »
The explanation for the unipolar map was that there are distinct south celestial poles, one for Africa, one for South America, and one for Australia.

This doesn't explain why when you go some place in between like Tahiti you don't see more than one south celestial pole, or stars moving in weird patterns where the two systems are grinding against eachother, or why more than one celestial south pole should have identical stars but the north pole has different stars.

For the bipolar map there has to be some weird dance of stars that is not observable from anywhere on earth.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2017, 07:54:46 PM »
The explanation for the unipolar map was that there are distinct south celestial poles, one for Africa, one for South America, and one for Australia.

This doesn't explain why when you go some place in between like Tahiti you don't see more than one south celestial pole, or stars moving in weird patterns where the two systems are grinding against eachother, or why more than one celestial south pole should have identical stars but the north pole has different stars.

For the bipolar map there has to be some weird dance of stars that is not observable from anywhere on earth.

So in the unipolar view, stars orbit three different places/   But that would require that we'd see a contra-flow of stars in places where we see the junction of two flows - so stars would be crossing the sky in opposite directions!   I'm quite sure this amazing phenomenon would have been widely reported...and it isn't.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline cgm79

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2020, 05:46:11 PM »
How are you calculating the direction of the stars in the "southern hemisphere"? Most people just refer to star trails because they can't visibly see the direction of the stars just by standing outside at night.

But just exactly "how" are these circumpolar star trails being shot? From what I understand, a camera must have overlaid angles within a wide-angle lens which are stacked for oftentimes a 360-degree panoramic shot.

I have not yet tried this experiment for myself and I am not debunking anything, but I will not simply believe things without evidence, especially when it has come into question.
Unless you have measured the angle that stars are moving and can share your method, or have shot star trails yourself, in one angle without a special lens, I don't see how you can know that stars are really moving in the direction that cameras with multiple overlaid angles are creating. I think those star trails are pretty, but I consider them works of art and not necessarily representing reality.

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2020, 07:15:10 PM »
All you need is a way of holding the camera still for a long exposure at night - think 30 minutes as a minimum or perhaps a couple of hours if there’s little light pollution. Even iPhones can do this now.

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/01/31/star-trails-from-47˚s-72˚w/
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

SteelyBob

Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2020, 12:52:40 PM »
It's worth pointing out that the southern cross is quite a long way off being a true pole feature - its southern-most star is at a declination of only -63 degrees, meaning that it is entirely unsurprising that it is visible in the northern hemisphere's southern latitudes. The true southern pole star, sigma octantis, is very dim and is barely visible without magnification, which makes it far less useful for navigation that its northern counterpart. Instead, people use the southern cross and other nearby stars to estimate the location of the south pole by extrapolation.

The simple fact is that the star trails we observe are entirely consistent with our latitude. Close to the poles we see them rotating in circles above us, and close to the equator we see a far more linear motion, with stars passing from the horizon to the opposite horizon in lines over our heads. None of this makes any sense in FET, which completely fails to explain what is significant about the equator, and why the stars move in the way that they do.