Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« on: December 02, 2018, 05:23:32 PM »
If the earth tilts etc through the year then why does polaris stay in the same place. This is very odd. Rers?

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2018, 06:35:32 PM »
Polaris does move. Just not enough to notice with the naked eye. More details here

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2018, 06:43:22 PM »
Thanks. Didnt mean the obvious. Surely the star constelations would be upside down for 6 months of the year?

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2018, 06:54:45 PM »
I see. Why would they be? The constellations appear to rotate as the earth does but us orbiting the sun doesn’t change the direction we are looking in when we look up at night. It does change the position we are looking from but the stars are FAR. To give you some idea, the nearest star to earth (other than the sun) is 267,000 times further away than earth’s distance from the sun. So we don’t see the stars or constellations in different places through the year
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2018, 07:31:28 PM »
I see. Why would they be? The constellations appear to rotate as the earth does but us orbiting the sun doesn’t change the direction we are looking in when we look up at night. It does change the position we are looking from but the stars are FAR. To give you some idea, the nearest star to earth (other than the sun) is 267,000 times further away than earth’s distance from the sun. So we don’t see the stars or constellations in different places through the year
Thanks for the response. We forget these basics. What about earths position 6 months after the longest summer day in the uk for example. Is it not logical that if we were facing the sun with northern hemisphere tilted fully(longest day of uk summer), then 6 months later we would be facing away from the sun at the same time of day? But we should be no?

So 9pm sunset in summer(august) shouldnt be the same time 6 months later. More like 12 hours different. Constellation should appear upside down maybe?

So if we werent tilted then simply every month we would need to adjust our clocks worldwide by 120mins every month in most places. So 3 months later its a quarter further on its orbit round the sun. We should still be facing the same direction with the sun rising 6 hours ahead of schedule.

Actually all diagrams on the internet have this flaw no?

Also they are still teaching that our orbit round the sun is an obvious oval when its about as rounded as our equator.

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2018, 08:24:40 PM »
Thanks for the response. We forget these basics. What about earths position 6 months after the longest summer day in the uk for example. Is it not logical that if we were facing the sun with northern hemisphere tilted fully(longest day of uk summer), then 6 months later we would be facing away from the sun at the same time of day? But we should be no?

So 9pm sunset in summer(august) shouldnt be the same time 6 months later. More like 12 hours different. Constellation should appear upside down maybe?

So if we werent tilted then simply every month we would need to adjust our clocks worldwide by 120mins every month in most places. So 3 months later its a quarter further on its orbit round the sun. We should still be facing the same direction with the sun rising 6 hours ahead of schedule.

Actually all diagrams on the internet have this flaw no?

Also they are still teaching that our orbit round the sun is an obvious oval when its about as rounded as our equator.
Right. Let's see if this helps. Polaris is (roughly) directly above the North Pole. A long way above but above none the less. So as we rotate Polaris stays (roughly) in the same place because it is above the axis of rotation. Earth is tilted about 23 degrees with respect to the sun, that's where we get seasons from. As the earth orbits the sun first the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun then the southern hemisphere is. The earth's orbit IS elliptical, the earth is actually closer to the sun in the northern hemisphere's winter, but a much bigger factor is the tilt of the earth and the resultant way the sun hits the northern hemisphere more directly during our summer.

This is how the earth orbits the sun (not to scale, obviously!):



So when the earth is on the left of this diagram it's the northern hemisphere's summer, on the right it's the northern hemisphere's winter. I've drawn a line through the earth's axis of rotation and an arrow pointing to where Polaris is. You'll note that the two white arrows are parallel, indicating that Polaris doesn't move through the year. Why is that when the earth is in a different position? Because of what I said above. I was talking about the nearest star there, Polaris is much further away than that. It's over 10,000,000 times further away from earth than the diameter of earth's orbit around the sun. Imagine a triangle with a base of 1mm and a height of 10km. From a 1mm difference are you going to notice the difference in position of an object 10km away?

In brief, earth stays pointing in the same direction as it orbits the sun and the diameter of earth's orbit around the sun is so small compared with how far Polaris is that we don't notice any difference in Polaris's position as we go through the year. And if you're wondering why our orbit around the Milky Way's galactic centre doesn't change it's position, Polaris is also in the Milky Way and orbiting too so the relative positions remain largely the same. Over geological time things will move but not in human lifetimes.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 08:26:45 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2018, 12:53:35 PM »
Worth mentioning also that the Earth 'wobbles' during a cycle that takes approximately 27,700 years. It is called precession and means that between now and about 15,000AD Polaris will gradually be replaced by Vega as the northern 'pole star'. Good news for astronomers and anyone using stellar navigation since Vega is about 2 magnitudes brighter than Polaris.


The wobble of the Earths axis is most likely a consequence of the collision that occurred way back in the Earths history when another planetoid collided with the Earth. Some of the debris that was left over recongealed and led to the formation of the Moon.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 01:02:19 PM by LoveScience »

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2018, 04:36:03 PM »
It is called precession

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758 (Perseid meteor shower precessional paradox, two consecutive messages)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776185#msg1776185 (part III)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082 (acceleration of the annual precession paradox, two consecutive messages)

The wobble of the Earths axis is most likely a consequence of the collision that occurred way back in the Earths history when another planetoid collided with the Earth. Some of the debris that was left over recongealed and led to the formation of the Moon.

That cannot be true.

"The birth of smaller, solid planets out of the larger, gaseous ones
is conjectured in order to explain the difference in the relation of
weight to volume in the larger and smaller planets; but this theory is
unable to explain the difference in the specific weights of the smaller
planets and their satellites. By a process of cleavage, the moon was
born of the earth; but since the specific weight of the moon is greater
than that of the larger planets and smaller than that of the earth, it
would seem to be more in accord with the theory that the earth was
bom of the moon, despite its smallness."

Who Parked Our Moon?

"Undoubtedly the greatest mystery concerning our Moon is how it came to be there in the first place. Prior to the Apollo missions, one serious theory as to the Moon’s origin was that it broke off of the Earth eons ago. Although no one could positively locate where on Earth it originated, many speculated the loss of material explained the huge gouge in the Earth, which forms the Pacific Ocean. However, this idea was discarded when it was found that there is little similarity between the composition of our world and the Moon.

A more recent theory had the Moon created out of space debris left over from the creation of the Earth. This concept proved untenable in light of current gravitational theory, which indicates that one large object will accumulate all loose material, leaving none for the formation of another large body. It is now generally accepted that the Moon originated elsewhere and entered the Earth’s gravitational field at some point in the distant past.

Here theories diverge — one stating that the Moon was originally a planet which collided with the Earth creating debris which combined forming the Moon while another states the Moon, while wandering through our solar system, was captured and pulled into orbit by Earth’s gravity. Neither of these theories are especially compelling because of the lack of evidence that neither the Earth nor the Moon seem to have been physically disrupted by a past close encounter. There is no debris in space indicating a past collision and it does not appear that the Earth and the Moon developed during the same time period.

As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Asimov was right to consider the Moon’s orbit — it is not only nearly a perfect circle, but stationary, one side always facing the Earth with only the slightest variation. As far as we know, it’s the only natural satellite with such an orbit.

This circular orbit is especially odd considering that the Moon’s center of mass lies more than a mile closer to the Earth than its geometric center. This fact alone should produce an unstable, wobbly orbit, much as a ball with its mass off center will not roll in a straight line. Additionally, almost all of the other satellites in our solar system orbit in the plane of their planet’s equator. Not so the Moon, whose orbit lies strangely nearer the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or inclined to the Earth’s ecliptic by more than five degrees. Add to this the fact that the Moon’s bulge — located on the side facing away from Earth — thus negating the idea that it was caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull — makes for an off-balanced world.

It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Nebular
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Fission
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Capture
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Accretion
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Planetary

When did the Earth's spin axis become tilted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees?

Modern astronomy is eager to tell us that it was the collision with Theia, with the debris gathered around the Earth to form the early Moon.


That is, no other collision with Earth has taken place since.


But then we have a huge problem.

Because there are ample geological and documentary proofs that the Earth, in the heliocentrical setting, did undergo a collision some thousands of years ago, in the age of modern man.

How did the Earth manage to regain its orbital speed?


One day, in 1849, a certain archaeologist made an important discovery at Nineveh.

Once these tablets were brought to England, they wished they had never found them in the first place.


And that is because the Ammizaduga Venus tables show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.


http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."


If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged, confirming the findings of Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720184710/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html



In Jaiminiya-Upanisad-Brahmana it is written that the center of the sky, or the point around which the firmament revolves, is in the Great Bear.

Hindu astronomical tablets composed by the Brahmans in the first half of the first millennium before the present era show a uniform deviation from the expected position of the stars at the time the observations were made (the precession of the equinoxes being taken into consideration). Modern scholars wondered at this, in their opinion inexplicable, error. In view of the geometrical methods employed by Hindu astronomy and its detailed method of calculation, a mistake in observation equal to even a fraction of a degree would be difficult to account for.

Could it be that the precession of equinoxes shifted the direction of the axis so that, three or four thousand years ago, the polar star was among the stars of the Great Bear?  No. If the earth moved all the time as it moves now, four thousand years ago the star nearest the North Pole must have been a-Draconis. The change was sudden; the Great Bear "came bowing down." In the Hindu sources it is said that the earth receded from its wonted place by 100 yojanas,10 a yojana being five to nine miles. Thus the displacement was estimated at from 500 to 900 miles. The origin of the polar star is told in many traditions all over the world. The Hindus of the Vedas worshiped the polar star, Dhrura, "the fixed" or "immovable." In the Puranas it is narrated how Dhrura became the polar star. The Lapps venerate the polar star and believe that if it should leave its place, the earth would be destroyed in a great conflagration.


The length of the longest day in a year depends on the latitude, or the distance from the pole, and is different at different places. Gnomons or sundials can be built with great precision. The Babylonian astronomical tablets of the eighth century provide exact data, according to which the longest day at Babylon was equal to 14 hours 24 minutes, whereas the modern determination is 14 hours 10 minutes and 54 seconds. "The difference between the two figures is too great to be attributable to refraction, which makes the sun still visible over the horizon after it has set. Thus, the greater length of the day corresponds to latitude 34° 57', and points to a place 2/2° further to the north; we stand therefore before a strange riddle [vor einem merkwiirdigen Ratsel]. One tries to decide: either the tablets of System II do not originate from Babylon [though referring to Babylon], or this city actually was situated far [farther] to the north, about 35° away from the equator."


Claudius Ptolemy, who, in his Almagest, made computation for contemporaneous and ancient Babylon, arrived at two different estimates of the longest day at that city, and consequently of the latitude at which it was located, one of his estimates being practically of the present-day value, the other coinciding with the figure of the ancient Babylonian tables, 14 hours 24 minutes. The Arabian medieval scholar Arzachel computed from ancient codices that in more ancient times Babylon was situated at a latitude of 35° 0' from the equator, while in later times it was situated more to the south. Johannes Kepler drew attention to this calculation of Arzachel and to the fact that between ancient and modern Babylon there was a difference in latitude. Thus Ptolemy, and likewise Arzachel, computed that in historical times Babylon was situated at latitude 35°. Modern scholars arrived at identical results on the basis of ancient Babylonian computations. "This much, therefore, is certain: our tables [System II, and I also], and the astronomers mentioned as well, point to a place about 35° north latitude. Is it possible that they were mistaken by 2° to 2M°? This is scarcely believable."


Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free? In America the plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it reached latitude 50°; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75°, was not covered with this perennial ice.

If we look at the distribution of the ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, we see that a circle, with its center somewhere near the east shore of Greenland or in the strait between Greenland and Baffin Land near the present north magnetic pole, and a radius of about 3,600 kilometers, embraces the region of the ice sheet of the last glacial age. Northeastern Siberia is outside the circle; the valley of the Missouri down to 39° north latitude is within the circle. The eastern part of Alaska is included, but not its western part. Northwestern Europe is well within the circle; some distance behind the Ural Mountains, the line curves toward the north and crosses the present polar circle. Now we reflect: Was not the North Pole at some time in the past 20° or more distant from the point it now occupies—and closer to America? In like manner, the old South Pole would have been roughly the same 20° from the present pole.

Billions of tons of ice would have fallen on the polar regions, flash-freezing everything in little more than an instant.
 
This, at last, would explain the mystery of the mammoths found frozen where they stood. The mammoth, contrary to belief, was not a cold region animal, but one which lived in temperate grasslands.
 
Somehow those temperate regions were frozen in a moment. Some mammoths have been found frozen in the middle of eating! There you are munching away and the next thing you know you’re an ice lolly. If this ionized ice did rain down, the biggest build up would have been nearest to the magnetic poles because they would have had the most powerful attraction. Again, that is the case. The ice mass in the polar regions is greater at the poles than at the periphery and yet there is less snow and rain at the poles to create such a build up.

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2018, 09:27:01 PM »
Got. U gotta write this quick berfore it times out.

We move forward 6hrs a year.
Thats 1 min a day. But our day is 4 min fast.

That should be 24hrs a year.

Starting from

day 1..4 minutes fast
Day 365....1460 minutes fast.
That 24hrs20m in 1 year. So thats 12hrs10 min rotation extra in 6 months. All this is at the ecliptic plane btw.

So what happened to the 20 minutes?

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2018, 09:35:04 PM »
How can we be facing the sun in 6 months time when we only shouldve turned 3hours. 3 hours is a quarter of what is said to happen in 6 months time. Thats 30min a month but 4 min a day is 120m a month based on 4 days.

So why the leap year. All this indicates the wobble effect maths equation.

Earths orbit is 3% variable.
The 4 minutes added is 3% as well. Hmm...strange coincedence.

Nobel prize goes too?

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2018, 12:14:10 AM »
If the earth tilts etc through the year then why does polaris stay in the same place. This is very odd. Rers?

Polaris is (almost) directly above the north pole ... the earth remains at the same tilt all year so Polaris does not appear to move
If you are at the North Pole Polaris will appear directly above
If you are at the Arctic Circle (~66 degrees N) Polaris will appear 66 degrees above the horizon when you face North
If you are at the Tropic of Cancer (~23 degrees N) Polaris will appear 23 degrees above the horizon when you face North

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1061
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2018, 10:22:16 AM »
Thanks for the response. We forget these basics. What about earths position 6 months after the longest summer day in the uk for example. Is it not logical that if we were facing the sun with northern hemisphere tilted fully(longest day of uk summer), then 6 months later we would be facing away from the sun at the same time of day? But we should be no?

So 9pm sunset in summer(august) shouldnt be the same time 6 months later. More like 12 hours different. Constellation should appear upside down maybe?


Your part of the Earth only 'faces' the sun for half of the (24hr) day, with variation in length of the day/night cycle over that 24hrs differing between summer and winter.

The solar day is defined by which part of the Earth lines up with the sun on each rotation, and time taken. The sidereal day by the time it takes to complete 360 degrees of rotation. There's a difference between the two, and that's why we have leap years.

The stars in your sky differ according to season. In the illustration above, imagine a large sphere outside the Earth's orbit, at a far greater size and scale than in the illustration, and 'paint' the constellations on it.

You see the right (winter) side of them more at nighttime as you move through winter, you see the left side more as you go through summer. But earth's rotation still takes in a full sweep of them every day 
 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2018, 10:32:24 AM »
Quote
You see the right (winter) side of them more at nighttime as you move through winter, you see the left side more as you go through summer. But earth's rotation still takes in a full sweep of them every day


Correct... If we could hide daylight as you can on any planetarium software you will see this simulated. I can go one step further since my telescope is permanently set up with computer controlled 'GOTO' I can easily observe the brighter winter stars (Betelgeuse and Rigel in Orion for example) in broad daylight during July. if the air is steady enough I can see down to 2nd/3rd magnitude during the day time.

Between day and night you are effectively looking out in opposite directions in space over a 24 hour period. This is down to both the Earths rotation on its axis and its revolution around the Sun. makes complete sense and follows real world experience precisely on the heliocentric model.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 10:46:40 AM by LoveScience »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1061
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2018, 01:32:48 PM »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2018, 11:53:53 PM »
If the earth tilts etc through the year then why does polaris stay in the same place. This is very odd. Rers?
What I would love to know, how does FE explain a fixed southern celestial pole that is visible from the equator south, in every direction away from the center of the disk.

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2018, 02:06:48 PM »
If the earth tilts etc through the year then why does polaris stay in the same place. This is very odd. Rers?


Because we tilt in the same direction all year.
This video explains how the seasons work on the spherical earth, which is because of the fact that we tilt in the same direction all year.
Polaris is directly above the North Pole which is tilted in the same direction at 23 degrees all year, so Polaris is basically always directly above if you are at the north pole.
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!