160 lines
8.2 KiB
Plaintext
160 lines
8.2 KiB
Plaintext
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Search Quora
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Try Quora+
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What do flat-Earthers say about star trail photography? Why don’t they take time lapses of stars at the equator, and the Northern and Southern Hemisphere to prove the flat-Earth?
|
|||
|
|
Michael Brenner Studied Mechanical Engineering & Comparative Linguistics at Vienna University of Technology · 4y
|
|||
|
|
Well, star trail photography is the ultimate vindication of a flat realm over which light phenomena - which must all be roughly in the same plane - rotate in lockstep around a center.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Add question
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Let’s say you are a flee on a chicken rotating on a spit in a grill oven, and let’s imagine this grill has pointy heat sources. Then the flee will see these points rise, move to the zenith and set and all these points including himself would lie in a plane, not matter where on the chicken it stands, his section of the chicken would always be a circle, it would be “his equator”. Similarly, there is no reason why a star that ends up dead overhead of you would rise north of you and set north of you, this star would rise dead east of you and set dead west of you, would it be one star in billions, amorphously spread around a vast 3dimensional space, within which you are rotating.
|
|||
|
|
Below an image taken on the equator, with both “poles” visible. We clearly see the prismatic effect of the sky, because every latitude would be its own “equator” relative to distant stars in a 3D environment.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Upvote · 11
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
177
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Something similar can be done with the rays of the sun, which we know have only one
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
source, i.e. one pole, but we see two: below a panoramic view capturing “solar point” and
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
“anti-solar point” but we all know of course, that we only have the solar point, and that
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
the antisolar point is a prismatic artifact - so is anti-Polaris.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ONLY if the stars are pretty much arranged 2 dimensionally, rotating in lockstep, can the above star trail image emerge on a photo plate. Now yes, stars will rise in the north of your position, move overhead of you into their zenith and then continue to set in the north of your position again.
|
|||
|
|
Another huge problem are the fantasy distances: take the guiding figure of the “summer triangle” for instance, made up of the stars Deneb, Altair and Vega, a figure that has guided people for thousands of years unaltered. The maximum difference in their alleged distances is between Deneb and Altair and that difference is a whopping 1,318,800,000,000,000km. When you move past two light sources with this difference in distance, and they do NOT change relative position, you have to infer first: that they have absolutely NO velocity relative to each other, and second: that they both follow our own movement rigidly - which both clearly are preposterous propositions. Now, because no star changes relative position to other stars, we must assume this rigidity for the entirety of the visible, allegedly 13bio light year deep universe all around us.
|
|||
|
|
A special star trail is of course the trail of the Sun, postulated to be the result of the trail of an orbiting earth: A rigid rotating body constitutes a gyroscope which will at all costs keep orientation in space, and thus the noon point at one time of the year will be the evening point three months later, then the midnight point, the morning point and then after completing 360˚ again the noon point.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
But the noon point remains noon all year round, as sun dials demonstrate, none of which have swivels incorporated in their design.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1
|
|||
|
|
Don't let yourself be fooled by fancy terms like “sidereal day” and such, because the backdrop has nothing to do with the relation between earth and sun, and this relation is 15˚ to the hour, no less and no more.
|
|||
|
|
The fact that your Rolex ticks 86,400 times noon to noon and does so reliably throughout the year, always indicating noon as having the sun in the zenith, is alone a devastating blow to the orbital model. The desperate attempt to introduce the stars as argument is simply out of place, first because according to model we have a 3,784,000,000,000km void around us, which makes the stars completely irrelevant to a discussion about the relation between earth and sun, and second, because the measurements are against such argument: The Sun is overhead exactly every 24x15˚=360˚ and NOT 360˚–0.986˚ and that means of course that the Sun keeps a constant 24h orbital period around us and NOT vice versa.
|
|||
|
|
Sun, Moon and the Wandering Stars (i.e. Planets, from gr. “planetes=wandrer”) are phenomena independent of the rigid, rotating star canopy, and it is important to notice that the Sun is not, and has never been, associated with being a star, it is and always has been the SUN. To call the Sun a star is a newfangled fancy unrelated to observed reality. On the other hand, the Planets are like stars, but they are not rigid like the others, they are wandering.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Otto Neugebauer:"The popular belief that Copernicus's heliocentric system constitutes a
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
reference system has no effect on the structure of the model and the Copernican models
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and are far less
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
elegant and adaptable. Modern historians making ample use of the advantage of hindsight
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
stress the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it has
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
introduced. In fact, the actual computation of the planetary positions follows exactly the
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
in the wrong direction, for the actual computation as well as the underlying kinematic
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
concept."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3.1K views · View 11 upvotes · View 2 shares
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1 of 9 answers
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Add a comment...
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Add comment
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Andrew Halliwell · 4y
|
|||
|
|
OK, then… Explain how the stars rotate in opposite directions when in the northern and southern hemisphere. On a flat disk with the sky rotating overhead, it wouldn’t matter where you were in the world. They would always rotate in the same dire(mctoior…e)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Michael Brenner · 4y
|
|||
|
|
“Explain how the stars rotate in opposite directions when in the northern and southern hemisphere.” They don't, because if they would, the sky would have to have a ball bearing around the celestial equator to allow the northern part(…more)
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Andrew Halliwell Just saying something doesn’t happen doesn’t make it true. Why not go t…
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Nathaniel Day · 4y
|
|||
|
|
Or the stars are just really far away. What’s does it mean noon remain noon al year round, are you saying a round earth would spin at random speeds? There where some boat on the ocean, when I rotated on the spot, the boats move in lock step, I guess the boats must also be on a photo plate also.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Michael Brenner · 4y
|
|||
|
|
You do not grasp the consequences of a composite movement like rotation and orbit:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Rotation is 360*/24h but a superimposed orbit would take away 4minutes a day, which we don’t observe. That means the terminator line would advance 0.986deg per day over the year, which we also do not observe.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Nathaniel Day Yes we do observe it, that is what a day is, a day is from our frame of referen…
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Dave Morgan · 3y
|
|||
|
|
“…because no star changes relative position to other stars…”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Oh look another claim about science that is several centuries out of date!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(Edmund Halley measured stellar proper motion in the early 1700s!)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Victoria Bingham · 4y
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Let us know when you’ll have a class in these things. I’ll be first to register.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete Stanton · 4y
|
|||
|
|
You don’t think that possibly the length of an hour was set as 1/24th of the time between solar noons… So the 1 degree change per day is already taken care of?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Although the length of an hour is related to the rotation of the earth, it isn’t exactly 15 degrees of rotation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Sorry
|
|||
|
|
2
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Michael Brenner · 4y
|
|||
|
|
360 divided by 24 is exactly 15 ….. sorry
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete Stanton Who said it’s 360 degrees? You yourself said that it would have to be about a…
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
View more comments
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
About the Author
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
View 8 other answers to this question
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Michael Brenner
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Studied Mechanical Engineering & Comparative Linguistics at Vienna University of Technology 944.2K content views 10.3K this month Active in 1 Space Joined August 2016
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Follow · 564
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Notify me
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ask question
|
|||
|
|
|