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#Picture2Note 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.htmlhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpgFacts which are unknown to most RE:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htmIt 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.htmThe 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.