[JSS]

I finally got a clear night and managed to capture some star trails.

Your evidence isn't good around here. A moderator of this forum has branded you to be a compulsive liar, and you have blatantly lied in previous threads.

I fail to see how a moderator calling me a liar makes it so. That's using the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

I have presented my evidence, you may choose to believe it or not, or if you want to challenge it, then point out any evidence in the image that backs up your claim.

I stand by my work, and the image showing circular star trails.  You are also free to conduct this experiment yourself to verify my results.

[SteelyBob]

I finally got a clear night and managed to capture some star trails.

Your evidence isn't good around here. A moderator of this forum has branded you to be a compulsive liar, and you have blatantly lied in previous threads.

I'm still waiting for Tom to explain my apparent misunderstanding of polar azimuthal projections and how, contrary to popular belief, you can make straight-line measurements on them and compare any two different parts of the projection without fear of distorted results.

This was addressed to you without answer:

Nope, I wasn't wrong at all. I looked as Stellarium and couldn't find circular star trails.

So you’re standing by taking linear measurements on a picture which has the normally flat line of the horizon wrapped around in a circle? You don’t see a problem with that exercise?

No. I just see a misunderstanding of the polar projection, and planispheres. If you were representing the 180 degree view of the sky on a piece of paper you would do so on a circle.

Indeed you might choose to do that. But if you were to attempt to use a ruler to try to infer the angle subtended at the eyes of an observer between any two points, then other than cases involving measurement from the centre of the azimuthal projection, you will get a wrong answer. As you have done in your example.

You don’t need to even understand azimuthal projections to grasp this - it’s pretty obvious if you think about it.

I would need to see more evidence that it is impossible to portray the shapes an observer sees when looking up at the domed concave celestial sky onto a flat circular plane.

Here is an inverse example with a RE globe. If you are looking down at a globe and saw the great lakes in the shape of a circle for argument's sake (drawn orange circle), why don't you think that this circular shape can be maintained in a projection?

https://gisgeography.com/azimuthal-projection-orthographic-stereographic-gnomonic/



It literally says that this projection simulates what the observer would see from that position over the globe.

If the observer is hovering over the globe (if it was a globe) and sees the shape of a circle in the United States (orange circle) from that position, why shouldn't it also be a circle in the associated flat projection described?

Tom, you do realise that diagram actually contradicts your own argument, don’t you?

Look at the latitude lines on the globe - they are equally spaced. Now look at them then on the projection. They are not equally spaced, are they? The areas close to the pole are quite accurately represented, but the closer you get the equator, the more compressed everything gets.

That’s why you can’t measure distances on a projection like that.

And you posted that, not me. Thank you.

So, again, do you now concede that your pixel measuring exercise was incorrect in its conclusions?

[Tom Bishop]

Look at the latitude lines on the globe - they are equally spaced. Now look at them then on the projection. They are not equally spaced, are they?

If you look at a globe the latitude/longitude lines aren't equally spaced. They are distorted and foreshorten from the center due to perspective.

The below example of this projection clearly says that it simulates the view of a globe, and what we would see:

https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/projection/chap4figs.html#4



Is says that the projection simulates what an observer would see when looking at a sphere.

Why is it not possible to correctly translate shapes on the globe that the observer sees from a particular position over the globe to a 2D image?

So, again, do you now concede that your pixel measuring exercise was incorrect in its conclusions?

No. You are mistaken in your understanding of this.

I fail to see how a moderator calling me a liar makes it so. That's using the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

Since you admit that an authority has branded you to be a compulsive liar, I really see nothing further to discuss. I generally agree with that moderator's decisions, and agree that this determination that you are a liar is accurate as well.

[JSS]

I fail to see how a moderator calling me a liar makes it so. That's using the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

Since you admit that an authority has branded you to be a compulsive liar, I really see nothing further to discuss. I generally agree with that moderator's decisions, and agree that this determination that you are a liar is accurate as well.

Yes, I admit that Pete called me a liar.  I don't see how that has any bearing on my actually being a liar.  His word has no more weight in an argument than anyone elses.

You're still using an Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid for dismissing my evidence.  Since you have not presented any other arguments or evidence to show my photos are not genuine, I'm afraid your entire claim has failed and the photo continues to show that stars do make circular trails.

[Tom Bishop]

I fail to see how a moderator calling me a liar makes it so. That's using the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

Since you admit that an authority has branded you to be a compulsive liar, I really see nothing further to discuss. I generally agree with that moderator's decisions, and agree that this determination that you are a liar is accurate as well.

Yes, I admit that Pete called me a liar.  I don't see how that has any bearing on my actually being a liar.  His word has no more weight in an argument than anyone elses.

You're still using an Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid for dismissing my evidence.  Since you have not presented any other arguments or evidence to show my photos are not genuine, I'm afraid your entire claim has failed and the photo continues to show that stars do make circular trails.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy is only really a fallacy if the person is unqualified. I am fairly sure that they are qualified enough to determine whether or not you have lied to them.

[JSS]

I fail to see how a moderator calling me a liar makes it so. That's using the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

Since you admit that an authority has branded you to be a compulsive liar, I really see nothing further to discuss. I generally agree with that moderator's decisions, and agree that this determination that you are a liar is accurate as well.

Yes, I admit that Pete called me a liar.  I don't see how that has any bearing on my actually being a liar.  His word has no more weight in an argument than anyone elses.

You're still using an Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid for dismissing my evidence.  Since you have not presented any other arguments or evidence to show my photos are not genuine, I'm afraid your entire claim has failed and the photo continues to show that stars do make circular trails.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy is only really a fallacy if the person is unqualified. I am fairly sure that they are qualified enough to determine whether or not you have lied to them.

No, that's not how the Appeal to Authority Fallacy works.  Using someone not qualified would be the Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.  It doesn't actually matter if Pete's 'qualification' of being a forum moderator is valid or not, using that as the basis of your argument is still a fallacy.  Also, being a moderator of an internet forum does not give anyone extra qualifications or weight in their arguments.  They have the authority to enforce decisions, but that does not automatically make anything they say true. 

You are using the Appeal to Authority Fallacy twice here.  Once to claim that my pictures are false because Pete says I am a liar, and again to claim that Pete must be right because he is a moderator. Double fallacy.

Regardless, you have not shown any valid arguments why my photo should be dismissed, therefore it's still valid evidence that star trails are not ovals as you claim. They are very clearly circles.

[Longtitube]

There is also no accounting for Tom arguing star trails are oval or elliptical, while the wiki article AATW quoted, which Tom created in 2019 and has subsequently edited on several occasions, insists star trails are circles. It’s difficult to take him seriously here.

[AATW]

Appeal to Authority Fallacy is only really a fallacy if the person is unqualified. I am fairly sure that they are qualified enough to determine whether or not you have lied to them.

I honestly don't understand what you're arguing here.
Your Wiki, which you apparently wrote, says the stars go in circles. You're now saying they don't.
Are you just arguing with anyone who says anything now even if it's something you previously claimed?

JSS has clearly demonstrated they do go in circles and your only counter argument is "pants on fire!". And while Pete and JSS have crossed swords, Pete has actively shown interest in JSS's astrophotography so there's no hint Pete things JSS is lying about this.

The fundamental problem you have is that in your model stars would actually only go in circles at the North Pole. You'd be at the centre of rotation looking up. From anywhere else the centre of rotation would be offset and because in your model the stars are relatively close you'd get an ellipse. The shape would vary by Latitude. That isn't what's observed.

Then we get to the problem of angular size where the stars are at significantly different distances through the night so would change angular size and luminosity. That isn't what's observed.

Then you have the issue of the star trails in different locations. At the equator they look like this.



This is what you'd expect on a spinning ball, not what you'd expect if we're living on a plane with a disc of stars rotating above us.

Then you get into the Southern hemisphere issues where the axis of rotation is a southern point and the rotation is in the opposite direction. I see there's some half-baked explanation for that on the Wiki, a video by the aptly named P-Brane. But the explanation doesn't work. If you're looking up at a rotating disc and then look down at the same rotating disc then you will observe a different direction of rotation. That explanation doesn't work with a rotating disc which remains above you no matter your location.

TL;DR, your model of the stars and their movements doesn't match observable reality.

[Tom Bishop]

JSS has clearly demonstrated they do go in circles and your only counter argument is "pants on fire!". And while Pete and JSS have crossed swords, Pete has actively shown interest in JSS's astrophotography so there's no hint Pete things JSS is lying about this.

If you want to suggest that something is evidence I would suggest not citing someone branded to be a compulsive liar. You can't be a compulsive liar and expect that your evidence is trusted, regardless of subject.


It's fairly easy to see that the stars would seem to rotate clockwise when looking North and counter-clockwise when looking South in a FE model with stars passing overhead that appear from the observer's horizon.



When the observer looks North he he sees a counter clockwise curving from East to West. When he looks to the South he sees a clockwise curving from East to West.

There are also situations in which two celestial poles manifest. P-Brane's explanation is one of them, or it is found that when light comes in though a magnifying dome, it creates an opposite point of rotation.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation



Alternatively, there could be two celestial systems - https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

[AATW]

If you want to suggest that something is evidence I would suggest not citing someone branded to be a compulsive liar. You can't be a compulsive liar and expect that your evidence is trusted, regardless of subject.

...says the man who hangs on Trump's every word, someone who told more demonstrable lies than any other President in history
But in any case I have seen other star trail photos, I have seen other time lapses. JSS's matches what I'd expect to see. And you know what, your philosophy is apparently to base your views on empirical observations so rather than trying to defame JSS how about you make your own observations if you doubt his results.

It's fairly easy to see that the stars would seem to rotate clockwise when looking North and counter-clockwise when looking South in a FE model

Incorrect. Because there only one centre of rotation which is the Northern hub.



Someone from point A - the North Pole would look up and see the stars going round in a circle above them - which matches observations, so far so good.
Someone at point B, roughly the equator, would see stars going in arcs but all in the same direction. You wouldn't get the arcs going in the shape showed in the photo above.
Someone at point C in, say, Australia, would also see arcs but with a wider radius. There is no other centre of rotation they would see the stars going around.

In the South if you're looking North you would see stars going from East to West and if you're looking South you'd see them going West to East. But they wouldn't be rotating around a Southern point in your model.

There are also situations in which two celestial poles manifest. P-Brane's explanation is one of them, or it is found that when light comes in though a magnifying dome, it creates an opposite point of rotation.
Alternatively, there could be two celestial systems - https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

So you're having to make up ad-hoc, unexplained mechanisms to make the observations fit your model?
Not very Occam's Razor, is it?
There is a model which explains all this very neatly of course...

[JSS]

JSS has clearly demonstrated they do go in circles and your only counter argument is "pants on fire!". And while Pete and JSS have crossed swords, Pete has actively shown interest in JSS's astrophotography so there's no hint Pete things JSS is lying about this.

If you want to suggest that something is evidence I would suggest not citing someone branded to be a compulsive liar. You can't be a compulsive liar and expect that your evidence is trusted, regardless of subject.

This is just your Appeal to Authority again, and also an Ad hominem attack against my character.  Neither refute the image I posted, thus you have entirely failed to prove your point.

Stars go in circles, there is overwhelming evidence for this, including in your own wiki.

It's fairly easy to see that the stars would seem to rotate clockwise when looking North and counter-clockwise when looking South in a FE model with stars passing overhead that appear from the observer's horizon.

When the observer looks North he he sees a counter clockwise curving from East to West. When he looks to the South he sees a clockwise curving from East to West.

All I see are claims here.  I have not seen a simulation of this that accurately shows the movements of the stars.  You are simply stating that it is so. Has anyone created a computer simulation showing this effect and thus proven it is accurate?  Which FE map did they use for it?

There are also situations in which two celestial poles manifest. P-Brane's explanation is one of them, or it is found that when light comes in though a magnifying dome, it creates an opposite point of rotation.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation

Alternatively, there could be two celestial systems - https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

Situations where two poles manifest?  Do the Earths poles appear and disappear?

Looking at your Wiki pages, they add several more conflicting explanations. The stars are somehow distorted, or there are two 'gears' turning the sky in opposite directions, or it's distortion through a dome.

They can't all be right, and I do not see any computer simulations, math, equations or any details on how one can simulate the motion of the stars using any of these methods.

Once more, all I see are claims.  I see no evidence or theory backing up any of these claims, no measurements or predictions that match the observations of the sky.

This on the other hand, is direct photographic evidence that stars go in perfect circles.  The stars being very far away while the Earth rotates explains and predicts this motion exactly.

[AATW]

The stars being very far away while the Earth rotates explains and predicts this motion exactly.

Ah yes. That's a point Tom failed to address. If the stars are small and close then the angular size and luminosity would vary greatly through the night as the distance varies greatly.
That is not what is observed.

Tom, your model claims that the stars are rotating in a disc above us. If they're moving anti-clockwise when you're looking from below then there is no possible way to see them rotating in the opposite direction from below no matter where you're looking at them from. If you look at them from above then yes, you'll see them rotating in the opposite direction but that isn't analogous to looking North and South from below the disc of stars.

[JSS]

I have been thinking about how to prove stars move in perfect circles, no matter where you are on the planet and I think I have a simple, direct method to do so.

The Equatorial Telescope Mount



This is a very simple device, it's just shaft with a motor that turns the telescope in a circle, making one rotation every 24 hours.

When you point the axis of this motor at the north or south pole star, you can then mount your telescope to it, aim your telescope at a star and that star will remain perfectly centered in your viewfinder as the telescope is now rotating with the stars.

The key here is this mount simply rotates your telescope in a circle. That is all it does. It is physically a single axis, it's incapable of moving in anything BUT a circle. It literally can not turn in ovals or parabolas or any other shape, it is a single rotating axis. And it will keep any star you look at perfectly aligned.

This could not be possible if the stars did not also move in perfect circles.

There are hundreds of sites explaining how EQ mounts work and how to set them up if anyone wants to look them up. The EQ mount has been made and sold to millions of people around the world, it's widely used and so simple there can be little confusion on how it operates, and if it did not work as advertised, this would be well known by now.

[Tom Bishop]

...says the man who hangs on Trump's every word, someone who told more demonstrable lies than any other President in history

I don't see that we are talking about American politics in this thread. Sounds like you have quite an obsession. Fairly concerning considering considering that you aren't even an American citizen and live nowhere close to America.

So you're having to make up ad-hoc, unexplained mechanisms to make the observations fit your model?

It is hardly ad-hoc to the model. Bending light is already an established part of the FE model, and creates the domed observations. Light bending like through the glass dome would tend to fit with the rest of the model rather than be something radically different.

Incorrect. Because there only one centre of rotation which is the Northern hub.

It was demonstrated that it is possible to get two centers of rotation, so your assessment on what is possible is incorrect.

This is just your Appeal to Authority again, and also an Ad hominem attack against my character.

You don't have a good character. You have repeatedly gone into threads to make lies, and have been banned from this forum on multiple occasions.

[JSS]

This is just your Appeal to Authority again, and also an Ad hominem attack against my character.

You don't have a good character. You have repeatedly gone into threads to make lies, and have been banned from this forum on multiple occasions.

Tom, could you at least try and quote properly?  For anyone following this thread, your habit of stripping out who said what makes your posts confusing to read. Thanks.

You can't use an Ad hominem attack to try and justify another.

Do not confuse your opinion with the truth, just because you claim I am a liar does not make it so.  You can claim I am a liar all you want, but that's just a claim, and is simply an Ad hominem attack to avoid debating my points with logic.

If I say 1+1=2, you can't claim that is wrong because you think I lied in the past.  You need to prove it. Calling me a liar is the lazy way out.

If I post a photo of circular star trails, unless you can show some evidence it's faked, what you think of my character doesn't matter.  Anyone can do the same experiment I did and validate my results.

I also posted about the EQ mount and how it shows that stars move in circles, all information there is also easy to verify.

[Pete Svarrior]

Regardless of my opinions on JSS, I do not think it's reasonable to just call him a liar in response to everything he says (I said I'd step in if something like that were happening, and, in my view, it clearly is now).

Tom, please tone it down. I'm not asking you to trust JSS (and, by the looks of it, neither is he: "This experiment proves (if only to myself) that star trails are indeed circular."), but this is not productive in the upper.

[SteelyBob]

Look at the latitude lines on the globe - they are equally spaced. Now look at them then on the projection. They are not equally spaced, are they?

If you look at a globe the latitude/longitude lines aren't equally spaced. They are distorted and foreshorten from the center due to perspective.

The below example of this projection clearly says that it simulates the view of a globe, and what we would see:

https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/projection/chap4figs.html#4



Is says that the projection simulates what an observer would see when looking at a sphere.

Why is it not possible to correctly translate shapes on the globe that the observer sees from a particular position over the globe to a 2D image?

They are equally spaced on the globe, that's the whole point. If you measure the distance between the latitude lines with a piece of string they are the same distance apart. Just like on the real planet, where 1 minute of latitude is 1nm. Now project that onto a flat map, and the foreshortening you describe happens. Now, if you try to measure the distance between the lines using a ruler, you will get a different result depending on where you measure on the map, with the results getting closer to the truth the closer to the middle of the projection you are. You can see that problem very clearly in the two projections shown in your example - countries close to the centre of the projection change apparent size when they are moved away from the centre in the other projection - look at, say, the width of the Baltic countries when they are centred and compare them with their apparent width when the centre is moved to Michigan - they come up narrower if you tried to use a ruler to measure their size.

And that's exactly the problem with your star projection - you can't use a ruler to measure the distance between pairs of stars when they are in different places on the projection - you'll get a different result, even if they are the same angular distance apart. Which of course they are, because they rotate in circles around the pole stars, as evidenced by Stellarium and every other star charting system, phone app, telescope controlling system, navigation chart, and just plain look-outside-and-see-for-yourself.

This is one of the most astonishing arguments I think I've ever seen online - you are confronted with a tidal wave of evidence, some of which you are even providing yourself, and you are still refusing to change your position. It's utterly stunning. Do you have a response, for example, to JSS's telescope mount point? They work really well, you know? And they would only work if the stars moved in circles. Doesn't that tell you something?

And thanks Pete, for stepping in. I have no interest in whether JSS is a liar or not, because he is not asking me to trust him. Calling him a liar in no way furthers your point, Tom - it merely looks like you are evading.   

[edited for a typo]

[Tom Bishop]

It goes both ways. If you are telling us that we can't trust random images because it's possible that they were modified then we can't trust random people who come to the forum who claim to have personal proof, because it is possible that it was modified.

In the first case you find it sufficient that you generally concede that you have no evidence that something was specifically modified, declaring it invalid because it is possible to be modified. In the second case you complain about evidence to see that something is modified, because it supports your belief to take that position. This sparks of hypocrisy.

They are equally spaced on the globe, that's the whole point. If you measure the distance between the latitude lines with a piece of string they are the same distance apart. Just like on the real planet, where 1 minute of latitude is 1nm. Now project that onto a flat map, and the foreshortening you describe happens. Now, if you try to measure the distance between the lines using a ruler, you will get a different result depending on where you measure on the map, with the results getting closer to the truth the closer to the middle of the projection you are. You can see that problem very clearly in the two projections shown in your example - countries close to the centre of the projection change apparent size when they are moved away from the centre in the other projection - look at, say, the width of the Baltic countries when they are centred and compare them with their apparent width when the centre is moved to Michigan - they come up narrower if you tried to use a ruler to measure their size.

No. You are asking us to compare the two different orthogonal projections (A) and (B) in the above image from psu.edu, centered on Michigan and the Baltic countries, and see that they look different. This has no analogy to the question of whether a shape that the observer sees in the sky can be represented on a flat plane.

There is only one position we are comparing to the sky in the Stellarium projection of the sky, centered at a particular location. This is analogous to only comparing the shapes we see when looking down at a globe while we are hovered over the globe centered over Michigan and the orthogonal projection (A) when centered over Michigan.

[stack]

It goes both ways. If you are telling us that we can't trust random images because it's possible that they were modified then we can't trust random people who come to the forum who claim to have personal proof, because it is possible that it was modified.

In the first case you find it sufficient that you generally concede that you have no evidence that something was specifically modified, declaring it invalid because it is possible to be modified. In the second case you complain about evidence to see that something is modified, because it supports your belief to take that position. This sparks of hypocrisy.

No, two totally different scenarios. In the first, we just don't know if or how something was captured, modified, whathaveyou. In the second scenario it is explained if or how something was captured, modified, whathaveyou - You just don't believe the person.

[AATW]

It was demonstrated that it is possible to get two centers of rotation, so your assessment on what is possible is incorrect.

If the light passes through a solid glass hemisphere. Not even close to analogous to our atmosphere.
And completely contradicts the P-brane video on your Wiki which is on the same page as the "glass dome" video.
You have two videos on the same Wiki page which offer alternative and contradictory explanations for the same observation.
The first just doesn't work. The second is using a solid glass dome which isn't optically anything like our atmosphere.
This is an admission that you can't explain it and are just inventing ad-hoc - indeed contradictory - mechanisms to explain the observation.
An observation which is expected - indeed predicted - by a globe earth.
Occam's razor would suggest that is the simpler, and therefore more likely to be correct, explanation.