[edby]

Celestial globe below. Whatever our model of reality, I think we have to agree that all the stars appear to move together. The constellations stay the same shape whatever the time of night. So if our model is geodesic, we have to assume that the whole heaven is a sphere, and disappears underneath us when it is no longer visible, as opposed to remaining on top of us but somehow out of sight.

I am not taking any view here. I would just like Flatearthers to explain this observation. How is it that all the stars appear to move together?

[Tom Bishop]

This is the same question as "why doesn't the sun slow down when it gets into the distance"

I believe that the Electromagnetic Accelerator would also have the side effect of consistent speed.

Per perspective, there is an article here on the speed of the sun, although a rewrite is in order. Also see p-brane and his perspective videos.

[edby]

This is the same question as "why doesn't the sun slow down when it gets into the distance"

I believe that the Electromagnetic Accelerator would also have the side effect of consistent speed:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.0

Per perspective, this is explained here, although a rewrite is in order:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

I don't see why. This is about shape, not speed.

[edby]

Let me spell this one out. All the stars move together, but with a geocentric model this means they form a complete sphere, going all the way round the earth. Do Flatearthers agree with this? It means that half the time the stars are underneath the earth (day time) half the time above (night).

Also see p-brane and his perspective videos.

I remember that. He concludes that the mathematics is wrong.

[edby]

I looked this up. Turns out there is no 'celestial globe' in the FE model. All the stars lie on a plane surface, and are quite near.

Why do they set? Easy, perspective. You see a plane flying above, which is really flying parallel to the earth's surface, but it appears to 'set' on the horizon.

The problem here is why, if the stars are all fixed, that they don't get closer together as they move together across the earth, towards the horizon. And why in particular doesn't Polaris move with them? On the contrary, it stays fixed while all the others appear to rotate around it.

And if you ask why the heavenly bodies lie on a plane, easy. If the celestial globe were a globe, and half of which rotates under the earth, then the sun is on it, so the sun would go under the earth for the whole night. But no one lives under the earth! Everyone is on top! So everyone would be in daylight at the same time, which everyone agrees is false.

So what actually happens is the sun goes clockwise around the earth in a great circle. The reason you can't see it at night is because it has a lampshade.

No I am not making this up.

[rabinoz]

This is the same question as "why doesn't the sun slow down when it gets into the distance"

I believe that the Electromagnetic Accelerator would also have the side effect of consistent speed.

Per perspective, there is an article here on the speed of the sun, although a rewrite is in order. Also see p-brane and his perspective videos.

I believe that the Electromagnetic Accelerator is simply a hypothesis with no supporting physical or theoretical evidence.

• There is no evidence that there is such an electromagnetic field. There is the earth's weak magnetic field, but that does not bend light on earth.
  
  
• An electromagnetic field cannot bend light anyway, see Q & A: Light and Magnets... and Gravity.
  

P-brane's perspective videos might attempt to claim that perspective reduces the sun's height above the earth to zero but they don't explain why the same perspective doesn't shrink the sun's size to zero also.
And please don't drag in "a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer" because the moon behaves in the same way.
There are no "intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer" in the case of the moon. The moon's size and craters can be clearly seen the whole time it's in the sky.

[Tontogary]

I have seen P-Brane video below and it is pretty much a load of rubbish.



He tries to link the suns crepuscular rays with the stars, which is complete nonsense.

Crepuscular rays caused by the sun AppleCare as they do because the sun is either in front or behind you. So when you see a convergence with the sun on your back, (you will never see the rays meet) the light source is behind you. you will never see another point of light (another sun) at the point of convergence, that would just be silly.

The stars are their own light sources, so why he thinks they appear as pinpoints of light, that rotate in the same way as the suns rays do is just a complete load of hogwash. Unless he thinks the stars actually are actually projections and the light source is at Polaris??
That’s might work, in a fantasy world but not in reality..

Actually he could be proving the round earth in his video, and disproving the flat earth.

He says the reason crepuscular rays are converging towards the opposite horizon.

Now take his salad bowl and it clearly is a a bowl, or half a globe.
Crepuscular rays are rays of light that have been formed when the suns light is not shining out in all directions equally, but have been obscured by clouds, as shown in his video.

Now how can a cloud with a base of a few thousand feet obscure the sun, which is a few hundred (thousand, anyone’s guess will do here) above that?

Anyway say that is true somehow.
The rays emitted from the sun are reflected off dust/water/whatever particles in the atmosphere too cause the effect we see. Now PeaBrain says that is a bowl, but in reality the layer it is reflected off will be at a similar hieght off the ground, like a temperature inversion layer.
If that layer is a bowl (as is indicated in the video) then it follows the shape of the earth, ie at x metres above the surface, which in itself shows the surface of the earth is a globe....

Well done P-Brane!

As for the stars, unless the light source is behind you, reflecting all the stars onto a shiny mirror, it wont work.......

And if you want a really good laugh at a video, this one is a real side splitter, worth the watch for the comedic value, thankfully not too long, so you dont do yourself an injury! I have to thank Tom ( i think it was) for posting this up in another thread. Comedy gold.....

[edby]

The last one was fascinating. One of the comments suggest that ‘Roundearthers’ get equally confused:

This would not work, since on the equator, straight above, we would see a straight dividing line of the southern stars rotating clockwise, and the northen stars rotating counter-clockwise.

Surely not. They would all be moving in the same direction, but when I turn my gaze from the North to the South, the counter-clockwise direction becomes clockwise. So no inconsistency there.

The real problem is that the dividing line would be entirely symmetrical, with the same constellations reflected on each side. I.e. there would be a reflection of Polaris in the south, with a reflection of Ursa Major pointing to it etc. But it is well known that the constellations seen from the South are all different, and not mirror images.

[edby]

Another problem. See the Polaris trail below. The FE hypothesis is that all these stars lie on a flat rotating disc, whose centre of rotation is Polaris, where Polaris lies 3,000 miles directly above the North Pole. The disc rotates anti clockwise. To explain why stars appear to ‘set’ when both the celestial and terrestrial disc are planar, FE invokes perspective.

But that’s very weird. All the stars currently below Polaris lie beyond the North Pole, so are a long way distant when in that position, probably over Alaska if I am in London. But they are rotating all the time. Why do they appear to maintain their relative shape while rotating? Why is the rotation a perfect circle and not an ellipse, squashed up below Polaris, and elongated above?

[Tontogary]

I agree.

I have seen stars in the north and south hemisphere, and on the equator. They all look like they are rotating as though we are looking up on the inside of a sphere of infinite distance, who’s axis of rotation is very close to Polaris, and sigma Octantis....

Now there are dozens of weird alternative ideas out there but Occams Frazier should cut the lot of them out, and go with us rotating inside the celestial sphere.

[edby]

This video quite comical.

He admits himself that Arizona is not at 70o as he first thought, but 34.  Best comment:

If you go to Ecuador, which is on the equator (hence its name) and set up a time lapse 360 degree camera, you will see that looking north the stars rotate counter-clockwise, while looking south they rotate clockwise. Looking east you will see them moving up, while looking west you will see them moving down. All of this is easily explained by a rotating spherical Earth, but requires some serious mental gymnastics and a lot of "trust me, this is how it works" on the FE model. How come flat Earthers like p-brane can SAY how it would work, but can't SHOW how it would work? For that matter, how come even after all these centuries there is still not a single WORKING model of the flat Earth? This, by itself, should make people question its validity.

[sandokhan]

The FE hypothesis is that all these stars lie on a flat rotating disc, whose centre of rotation is Polaris, where Polaris lies 3,000 miles directly above the North Pole. The disc rotates anti clockwise.

This is the correct FE map, not the unipolar map:



The global Piri Reis map.


If you go to Ecuador, which is on the equator (hence its name) and set up a time lapse 360 degree camera, you will see that looking north the stars rotate counter-clockwise, while looking south they rotate clockwise. Looking east you will see them moving up, while looking west you will see them moving down. All of this is easily explained by a rotating spherical Earth.

It cannot be explained at all on spherical Earth.

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

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



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

Here is another well known photograph showing the same thing:



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


Other photographs showing the same thing:

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

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

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


Facts which are unknown to most RE:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

In support of the above conception regarding the magnetic pole being situated in the rim of the polar opening, Palmer refers to the following facts: Between each magnetic pole around the Earth pass magnetic meridians. In contrast with geographical meridians, which measure longitude, the magnetic meridians move from east to west and back again. The difference between the geographical meridians, or true north and south, and the direction in which a magnetic compass points, or the magnetic meridian of the place, is called the declination. The first observation made was in London in 1580 and showed an easterly declination of 11 degrees. In 1815 the declination reached 24. 3 degrees westerly maximum. This makes a difference of 35. 3 degrees change in 235 years, which is equal to 2,118 miles. Now if we make a circle around the Pole, with a radius of 1,059 miles, so that it is 2,118 miles in diameter, this would represent the rim of the polar opening along which, in this case, the North Magnetic Pole traveled from one point to its diametrically opposite point on the circle, 2,118 miles away, in 235 years.

This is the reason why the magnetic pole and the geographical pole do not coincide.

According to Marshall Gardner, the rim of the polar opening, which is the true magnetic pole, is a large circle 1,400 miles in diameter.

If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point.

No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm

The Earth cannot be a solid sphere if the geographical and the magnetic south pole do not coincide.

There are only two theories which account for this: HE and FE.

HE can be dismissed immediately since there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field is NON DIPOLAR cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.

The non dipolar feature is explained ONLY by HE and FE.

Since HE can be ruled out immediately due to the fact that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, we are left with FE.

Certainly it relates to the FE model, since it is the only one which can explain why the geographical and the magnetic poles do not coincide.

[edby]

 

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

I don’t see how it confirms any FE model. When you say ‘orbit’, do you mean the star system goes underneath the earth, or do you subscribe to the standard FE single plane model?
You mentioned magnetic poles, which are not the same as celestial poles. Can we keep magnetic poles out, please?

If you go to Ecuador, which is on the equator (hence its name) and set up a time lapse 360 degree camera, you will see that looking north the stars rotate counter-clockwise, while looking south they rotate clockwise. Looking east you will see them moving up, while looking west you will see them moving down. All of this is easily explained by a rotating spherical Earth.

It cannot be explained at all on spherical Earth.

The question of the terrestrial system is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is whether the celestial system is spherical, or flat. The standard Ptolemaic system has a sphere rotating around the Earth (which could be flat, or round, doesn’t matter).  The modern FE system has all the stars on a flat plane, rotating around the North Pole.

You are advocating what? Again, flat/round earth is irrelevant to the celestial system.

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

??

[SpaceCadet]

The FE hypothesis is that all these stars lie on a flat rotating disc, whose centre of rotation is Polaris, where Polaris lies 3,000 miles directly above the North Pole. The disc rotates anti clockwise.

This is the correct FE map, not the unipolar map:



The global Piri Reis map.


If you go to Ecuador, which is on the equator (hence its name) and set up a time lapse 360 degree camera, you will see that looking north the stars rotate counter-clockwise, while looking south they rotate clockwise. Looking east you will see them moving up, while looking west you will see them moving down. All of this is easily explained by a rotating spherical Earth.

It cannot be explained at all on spherical Earth.

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

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



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

Here is another well known photograph showing the same thing:



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


Other photographs showing the same thing:

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

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

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


Facts which are unknown to most RE:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

In support of the above conception regarding the magnetic pole being situated in the rim of the polar opening, Palmer refers to the following facts: Between each magnetic pole around the Earth pass magnetic meridians. In contrast with geographical meridians, which measure longitude, the magnetic meridians move from east to west and back again. The difference between the geographical meridians, or true north and south, and the direction in which a magnetic compass points, or the magnetic meridian of the place, is called the declination. The first observation made was in London in 1580 and showed an easterly declination of 11 degrees. In 1815 the declination reached 24. 3 degrees westerly maximum. This makes a difference of 35. 3 degrees change in 235 years, which is equal to 2,118 miles. Now if we make a circle around the Pole, with a radius of 1,059 miles, so that it is 2,118 miles in diameter, this would represent the rim of the polar opening along which, in this case, the North Magnetic Pole traveled from one point to its diametrically opposite point on the circle, 2,118 miles away, in 235 years.

This is the reason why the magnetic pole and the geographical pole do not coincide.

According to Marshall Gardner, the rim of the polar opening, which is the true magnetic pole, is a large circle 1,400 miles in diameter.

If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point.

No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm

The Earth cannot be a solid sphere if the geographical and the magnetic south pole do not coincide.

There are only two theories which account for this: HE and FE.

HE can be dismissed immediately since there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field is NON DIPOLAR cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.

The non dipolar feature is explained ONLY by HE and FE.

Since HE can be ruled out immediately due to the fact that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, we are left with FE.

Certainly it relates to the FE model, since it is the only one which can explain why the geographical and the magnetic poles do not coincide.

You do spend an inordinate amount of time denying simple facts, making blanket statements with no basis and no proof.

Counter rotating stars have been observed and their "divergence" explained perfectly well by the spherical earth.

That the magnetic and geographical poles do not coincide has been perfectly explained on a spherical earth.

The North and South magnetic and geographical poles are well known and have had humans at thise locations for hundreds of years.

Your denying them makes no difference to the fact. It is just as if you deny the fact that direc floghts from sydney to santiago exist and are not done at supersonic speeds.

[Round Eyes]

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

the earth is not a solid sphere, there is molten iron and its because of this (and convection currents) that we have a magnetic field (over simplified, yes).  the magnetic field fluctuates, as does the geographic north pole.  thousands of years ago, Polaris, was not the "north star" as we rotated around a different star.  The tilt of the earth wobbles over a period of 26,000 years.  combine these two issues and the magnetic north and geographic north (axis) will always be off to some degree.  this is much easier to explain in the RE model than FE, agree?

[rabinoz]

If you go to Ecuador, which is on the equator (hence its name) and set up a time lapse 360 degree camera, you will see that looking north the stars rotate counter-clockwise, while looking south they rotate clockwise. Looking east you will see them moving up, while looking west you will see them moving down. All of this is easily explained by a rotating spherical Earth.

It cannot be explained at all on spherical Earth.

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

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



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

I do wish you read the explanation that went with the star-trails photograph.
You would then find that your claim that the "angular distance between stars varies" is not supported by the extreme fish-eye lens photo you presented.

Here is the note that went with that photograph:

Star Trail from the Equator (Ecuador), "From Southern Pole to Northern Pole"
The following image is an unprecedented star trail image taken from the Equator (this imaginary line that splits the Earth into the two hemispheres) in Ecuador (the country). If you stand on the Equator line you can see the Southern Pole at the horizon to the South (left of the image) and the Northern pole at the horizon on the opposite direction. The Earth rotation will make all the sky and stars look like they rotate around these two points, making them appear as concentric circles (which look like ellipses on this distorting fish eye image). Note that on this image, that cumulates 10 hours of exposure starting 1 hour after sunset and finishing 1 hour before sunrise (nights and days always last 12 hours on the Equator, it is a permanent equinox), more than 90% of the sky is 'visible', this is another particularity of being on the ecuator line : you can observe the largest part of the sky during any night. An extremely bright meteor appeared during that night and seems to be pointing at the Southern Pole (extreme left of the image). Image processing done with Prism software.

If you want to see the movie of the true sky rotation explained above (and showed in all these pictures) by moving the camera yourself, you MUST have a look at this "Virtual night Time Lapse Movie", the first one ever made.

From: Star Trail from the Equator (Ecuador), "From Southern Pole to Northern Pole"

Please note the explicit statement "The Earth rotation will make all the sky and stars look like they rotate around these two points, making them appear as concentric circles (which look like ellipses on this distorting fish eye image)".

[Tom Bishop]

Counter rotating stars have been observed and their "divergence" explained perfectly well by the spherical earth.

It does not make sense that stars diverge from each other in the Round Earth model. They are supposed to be light years away from each other. If any of the stars are spreading away from each other in a scene then it implies that they are traveling many light years in space over the course of the night.

[Tom Bishop]

You would then find that your claim that the "angular distance between stars varies" is not supported by the extreme fish-eye lens photo you presented.

You do realize that the warping necessary would need to be opposite of a fish-eye/wide-angle lens.

Fish-eye lens warping:



Fish-eye scene example:




Diverging stars images:

[Tontogary]

It’s a pity people do not actually read the commentary on the links that rate provided.

When clicking on the picture of the two polar rotations shots it calls it an “equirectangular projection” clearly not a standard viewe and distorted, so i find it hard to understand why this image is being touted as what one would actually see???

Try looking at the Equatorila view, and the polar rotation views and you will see there are no trails which diverge, or cross, or have any trail other than the same in relation to the other stars.

Maybe a little reading and scrutiny should be applied before claiming it as a slam dunk to show star divergence or similar.

I would also suggest that this is line of those things that should be subjected to the Zetetic process, i.e. go outside and look and see the stars. Record it if you wish. You will see the results your self, the star constellations DO NOT change shape, diverge or rotate differently in relation to each other.

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

[Tom Bishop]

It’s a pity people do not actually read the commentary on the links that rate provided.

Rabinoz did. He provided a quote that one of the images was from fish-eye lens.

As does your link state "which look like ellipses on this distorting fish eye image." You should probably read your own links before accusing others of that.