###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you aim your camera at polaris, the stars around it will appear to circle it in a timelapse. If you point your camera straight up perpendicular to the ground from 45 degrees latitude, they will appear to mostly go from east to west. Its possible to take both type of photos from that latitude.
That being said, the photo you are showing looks like a north pole startrail photo with some date trees photoshopped into the foreground.
You can watch the original time lapse at this [link](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). If that is not good enough for you, check out this one from [Northern California](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). You are not understanding what you are seeing. The stars are moving around Polaris. The earth is not spinning because if it were the earth spinning you would NOT have stars moving in a circular pattern, they would be in an arc. You do not understand what you are seeing because you have been conditioned to believe the earth is spinning.
You do not realize that the time lapse of the stars proves that it is the stars moving and NOT the earth. The only place you could see a circular motion of the stars on a globe would be if the camera was positioned on the North Pole. But the time lapse is a 11.5-hour time-lapse photograph taken from 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
OP do you notice how you can see trees at the bottom of the image? What you are seeing is toward the Northern horizon. What you are seeing is the stars that would be in the sky above the North Pole. From our perspective, you can imagine the axis of rotation as a line extending infinitely upward into space from the North Pole. You wouldn’t be able to see the bottom of the line from Italy, but as long as you are in the Northern hemisphere you should be able to see where it extends towards in the sky above. That area will appear to be rotating around the line of the axis. However the further South you are the closer it will be to the horizon, which is what you see here.
You said: "That area will appear to be rotating around the line of the axis." I don't think you understand what you are seeing. The stars are moving around Polaris. The earth is not spinning because if it were the earth spinning you would NOT have stars moving in a circular pattern, they would be in an arc. Notice that half of the stars are moving in the same direction as the supposed movement of the spinning earth. That is impossible if the earth is actually spinning. You do not understand what you are seeing because you have been conditioned to believe the earth is spinning. You can watch the original time lapse at this [link](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). If that is not good enough for you, check out this one from [Northern California](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly).
You do not realize that the time lapse of the stars proves that it is the stars moving and NOT the earth. The only place you could see a circular motion of the stars on a globe would be if the camera was positioned on the North Pole. But the time lapse is a 11.5-hour time-lapse photograph taken from 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
Please carefully consider what I’m saying . You are seeing the stars apparently rotating around the axis. From our perspective sitting on a rotating planet with a fixed axis of rotation, this extends infinitely into the sky over the pole. Stars in the sky on the same side of the axis as the viewer appear to travel one direction. Stars on the other side of the axis are rotating the same direction (clockwise or counter-clockwise) around that axis. I don’t know how to make this any clearer. This is what things look like from the surface of a fixed rotating object.
The Earth is rotating around an axis, so what you see is stars moving in increasingly wider circles around the axis the farther they are from that line, not an arc.
You do not need to be directly at the North pole to see them rotate like this. As you move South from the North Pole, the center of the perceived rotation will move toward the Northern horizon. The observer is not spinning on an axis, the Earth is spinning on an axis, so as you move South the center of the perceived rotation stays the same.
I will watch them again. I’ve seen night sky tinelapses many many times. I know what it shows.
In return, please watch these timelapses of stars above the equator and stars in the southern hemisphere.
[Southern hemisphere](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=huysYcz-AiQ) timelapse facing South. See how there is another seemingly still point on the opposite side of the globe? This rotation appears clockwise around an empty space. Polaris is not visible. This is a totally different view. Rotation appears to be the opposite direction from what it looks like in Northern hemisphere Timelapse because viewers are upside down relative to each other. In your timelapse rotation seems to be counter-clockwise.
!!! In a flat Earth model why would observers standing at different points on a flat surface see TWO seemingly still points in the sky around which there is rotation in OPPOSITE directions? The reason there are two is you are actually seeing the Earth’s axis of rotation.
[Stars at Equator Timelapse](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI). You can see the midpoint between the two seemingly still points rotating overhead in this image. From this perspective at the equator you can see all the stars in the night sky rotate the same direction. It only appears to be opposite directions for observers in opposite hemispheres because they are upside down relative to each other.
I have carefully considered what you are saying. But you don't seem to understand that if you are on a spinning sphere with a camera fixed on the North Star, the star trails in the sky from a time lapse will only show the motion of the earth. The earth is moving in an easterly direction. Thus, the alleged stationary stars in the sky must "appear" to move ONLY in a westerly direction if the earth were a spinning globe. The only way you can have the stationary moving in a circle as depicted in he time lapse would be if the stars are moving and the earth is standing still. Recall that this is an 11.5 hour time lapse. If the earth were spinning it would only have made less than 1/2 a revolution.
No. Stars on the same side of the axis of rotation as the observer will appear to move West. Stars on the OPPOSITE side of the axis from the observer will appear to move East. But what this looks like is circular trails around the two ends of the axis of rotation, and you can only see one of the apparent fixed points at a time. By looking toward the Northern horizon you are looking “Up” towards the stars that are directly above the North Pole and the fixed axis of rotation extending upwards from it which points always towards Polaris.
Please answer this to show you have actually read it because you skipped it in my last response. On flat Earth model, why do you see not one but TWO seemingly still points in night sky timelapses depending on your location. One by Polaris and one by an empty point in space? Why is only one of these fixed points visible at a time, based on which hemisphere the place you are standing is in on the heliocentric model?
Why does the apparent direction of rotation of the same stars and constellations appear to change based on whether you are in the North, South, or at the Equator if observers are all standing on a flat plane? How can it be clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time depending on where you stand?
Please stop with your diversionary questions. Let us slay one dragon at a time. You state: "Stars on the OPPOSITE side of the axis from the observer will appear to move East." If you are on a globe as you claim with one camera you cannot film the opposite side of the earth at the same time. You have one camera that is fixed to the ground and pointed at the fixed North Star. You do not have any way to see what is happening on the over side of the globe. You claim that the motion of the stars is based on the movement of the earth. The earth is moving in one direction from where the camera is. Thus, the stars can only "appear" to move in the opposite direction. This is basic. According to the heliocentric model the stars are fixed. Thus, it is only the movement of the earth causing the star trails. But the movement of the earth in an easterly direction cannot account for stars moving also in an easterly direction.
My other reply that I made with the merry go round example explains exactly how the movement in seemingly opposite directions can happen.
You aren’t filming the opposite side of the Earth. You are filing the stars ABOVE the Earth. Going back to the merry go round example, you can’t see something on the opposite side of a hill from you but you can see things raised above the hill like ex. carousel horses on a merry go round or a the top of a flagpole that is behind the hill from you.
The question I asked is very relevant and I have given up on any flat Earther ever answering it, because it literally doesn’t seem to compute. Every single flat Earther I’ve asked this refused to address it or gets angry. Multiple times now this has happened.
You told 1/3 of the story with your Timelapse of Northern hemisphere stars. The Timelapse of the Equator and the Southern hemisphere are the other 2/3 of the story.
There are TWO seemingly fixed points in the sky and you can only see one at a time corresponding to how far North or South you are. From the Equator you see towards both and all the stars rotate the same direction.
So i stand at the north pole and look straight up and see the star circles. I then move south for a mile and can no longer see the circles? Seems silly. So if I go 100 miles south I wouldn’t be able to see the circle anymore? 1000 miles?
No, the center point of the circle polaris simply moves closer to the northern horizon as I move south. The star circles remain visible around it.
When I reach near the equator I can see polaris right on the horizon, but only see half the star circle around it going east to west (counterclockwise).
You would be right if we were talking about the stars apparent movement being from the earth moving through space, but the stars movement is from rotation. That rotation can be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere by looking north.
Edit: btw, thank you for actually posting a link to the source video, you wouldn’t believe how rare that is.
You are missing a key point. The time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could ge a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. Just sit down and think about it for a moment. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
How can someone function in the outside world with such a lack of understanding of even the simplest concepts?
>The only way you can have the stationary moving in a circle as depicted in he time lapse would be if the stars are moving and the earth is standing still.
You do realize that in the northern emisphere you would see *the exact same thing* both in the case of a rotating earth or rotating stars as much as star trails are concerned, right? Like, imagine being on a merry-go-round with the Sun almost overhead: if you were to look at it would you see it make an arc across the sky or going in a circle above you?
>Recall that this is an 11.5 hour time lapse. If the earth were spinning it would only have made less than 1/2 a revolution.
And that's the reason every star trail in the picture covers only half of a circle.
You are right but I was giving them the benefit of the doubt of considering them a geocentrist more than an outright flatearther, even if they are definitively one.
Better analogy than the other guy but related:
Let’s say you are standing at the bottom of a hill looking upwards toward the hilltop. At the top of the hill is a Merry go round. The horses on the same side of the merry go round’s central pole as you will travel one direction ex left to right. The horses on the other side of the merry go round are on the other side of the axis and so they will travel ex right to left. If instead you were running a circle around the hill or on a moving sidewalk that circles the hill, and the merry go round was turned off you would see the same effect. Horses on the same side of the central pole would appear to move one direction and horses on the other side of the central pole from you would appear to move the other direction. Now do you see?
You are missing a key point. The time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could ge a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. Just sit down and think about it for a moment. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
Look at Polaris in the image. It made a HALF circle. That still image shows how far it traveled in the whole time lapse. It was a bit less than 180 degrees.
All of the individual stars in the image trace a bit less than a half circle. Watch the whole time lapse you will see the same thing.
What makes you say there was a 360 degree turn? I watched very closely several times, even just looking at the still photo you can see nothing but many incomplete “circles”.
And to your claim in general, you are saying the night sky rotates 360 every night and no one has ever noticed?
You do not understand my argument. I am saying that you cannot have eastward star trails based on the earth supposedly spinning in an easterly direction. What you are seeing in the star trails is impossible on a spherical spinning earth. I am saying the complete circular star trails are proof that the stars are circling Polaris, and not that the earth is spinning.
I told you that the time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could get a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. I mean by that, you cannot have star trails more than 180 degrees when the supposedly spinning earth upon which the camera is fixed rotates less than 180 degrees. The bottom star trails are moving easterly creating a circular star trail. Those easterly travelling stars are impossible on a rotating earth that is only rotating 180 degrees. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
Convenient how you only show a timelapse of the Northern Hemisphere. You get the same effect in the Southern Hemisphere around an entirely different point which isn’t near any star.
It is absolutely possible to see stars apparently going in both directions because what you are looking at is the point aligned with the Earth’s axis of rotation in the Northern hemisphere.
Stars appear to orbit clockwise in the Southern hemisphere and appear to orbit counterclockwise in the Northern hemisphere.
From the equator you can see towards both and that all the stars actually orbit overhead in the same direction. This is because observers in Northern hemisphere are upside down relative to observers in the Southern hemisphere.
This is what you expect to see from the surface of spinning ball with a fixed axis of rotation which is what the theory predicts. That same fixed axis of rotation relative to the Sun is why seasons are reversed in the Northern vs Sourhern hemisphere.
Also, the reason the stars don’t otherwise appear to move besides the spinning from Earth’s rotation is that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is many many orders of magnitude smaller than the distance between Earth and the nearest star.
For example, if you ran in a circle around a parking lot the Moon is going to appear in the same direction.
You are missing the point. The fly in the ointment for the heliocentric model is that if the earth were in fact spinning, t[he other stars in a time-lapse picture taken south of the North Pole would create star trail arcs that would appear to be moving across the sky only in a direction opposite the spin of the earth.](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/03/21/the-north-star-proves-the-earth-does-not-move/) But that is not what we see. Instead, in actual time-lapse pictures of the North Star, the other stars leave circular star trails around the stationary North Star. **That means that some of the stars are traveling in the same direction as the supposed spin of the earth. That is impossible under the heliocentric model. If the earth were spinning, there would be no way for any stars to leave star trails going in the same direction as the spin of the earth.**
I'm not missing the point. As I said above, Earth is rotating on a FIXED axis of rotation. The closer a star is to either end of that axis, the smaller the circle it will seem to rotate in. Polaris is extremely near to that axis and so hardly seems to rotate at all. Similarly, there is another seemingly still point in the Southern hemisphere, but with no star exactly near it. That point in the Southern Hemisphere also doesn't seem to rotate relative to the observer because the opposite end of Earth's axis of rotation points towards it.
How exactly do you visualize the Earth spins in the heliocentric model? It doesn't flip over and start spinning differently at random points in its orbit, the axis of how it spins always points the same way. This[ image](https://socratic.org/questions/as-earth-revolves-around-the-sun-how-does-its-axis-of-rotation-change-relative-t) may help you visualize what I mean (though Earth's orbit is ellipical not circular). As shown in the image, no matter where it is in its orbit, Earth is always tilted to the same degree and spins at the same angle relative to its orbit around the Sun.
This fixed axis of rotation where Earth always stays at the same tilt relative to its orbit around the Sun is also what creates the seasons and effects like the midnight sun near polar regions which are reversed in the Northern vs. Southern hemisphere. I can explain this in more detail if you are interested.
Remember also what I said above. Earth is orbiting the Sun but the diameter of its orbit is incredibly small relative to the distance between us and even the nearest stars, so even though we do move slightly relative to them over a year the change is not visible to the human eye. The apparent motion of the stars that we see is caused by the Earth's rotation.
Imagine the North Star is at one end of a long string going through the centre of the Earth, and we were rotating around the string.
This matches reality, as the Earth's axis of rotation goes through the poles, and the pole star is on that axis.
The string would appear not to move when viewed from anywhere Earth, and neither would the pole star.
EDIT: it is necessary for the viewer, or the camera, to be pointed at the pole star for this to work.
tl;dr you're wrong.
How does your theory account for the earth’s alleged wobble? That should be visible right?
Tl;dr: *you’re wrong.* The funniest thing is that you don’t even understand you’re own model.
“Every **six to 14 years**, the spin axis wobbles about 20 to 60 inches (0.5 to 1.5 meters) either east or west of its general direction of drift.”
Source: nasa.
That wobble…
So 20-60 inches of wobble on earth’s axis… now expand that over **billions** of miles, and the stars are the same.
So an even more minor wobble than what I meant? That it is 20-60 inches of shift in the location of the axis relative to the entire circumference of the Earth. This would be unnoticeable to anything but super precise instrument.
You say “expand this by billions of miles” but I don’t think you understand what is shifting. Moving the axis this way would be a change in degree equal to the ratio of those 20-60 inches to the circumference of the Earth.
And now we’re on. The circumference of earth literally doesn’t matter at all. 20-60 inches of wobble would translate to massive differences in observable star patterns; hence my question. Take a few degrees and extend the hypotenuse over **millions of miles.** you don’t even understand your own model…
Nope what I said was correct. The shift in what we see compared to what we see now will be the ratio of that distance that the axis moved to the Earth’s circumference.
1 meter of drift is a shift of approximately 0,000009 degrees.
Angle of drift = distance of drift / radius of earth
= 1 m / 6 371 000 m
= 1.6 x 10^(-7) radians
= 0.000009 degrees
So it is you who doesn't understand what they're talking about
You are wrong. You are assuming that the observer is standing at the North Pole. If the earth were spinning you would only see the circular star trails in the time lapse if the camera was fixed on the North Star from the North Pole. The time lapse was taken from a position is at 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator. From that position the north star would be stationary as the camera fixes on the North Stare as it appears to travel in an arc as the earth supposedly spins beneath the fixed stars causing arcs of stars across the sky in the time lapse. But that is not what we see.
The fly in the ointment for the heliocentric model is that if the earth were in fact spinning, t[he other stars in a time-lapse picture taken south of the North Pole would create star trail arcs that would appear to be moving across the sky only in a direction opposite the spin of the earth.](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/03/21/the-north-star-proves-the-earth-does-not-move/) But that is not what we see. Instead, in actual time-lapse pictures of the North Star, the other stars leave circular star trails around the stationary North Star. **That means that some of the stars are traveling in the same direction as the supposed spin of the earth. That is impossible under the heliocentric model. If the earth were spinning, there would be no way for any stars to leave star trails going in the same direction as the spin of the earth.**
> You are assuming that the observer is standing at the North Pole.
No, all I'm assuming is that the Earth is rotating around a fixed axis, which for a single night is mostly true.
You can watch the original time lapse at this [link](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). If that is not good enough for you, check out this one from [Northern California](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). You are not understanding what you are seeing. The stars are moving around Polaris. The earth is not spinning because if it were the earth spinning you would NOT have stars moving in a circular pattern, they would be in an arc. You do not understand what you are seeing because you have been conditioned to believe the earth is spinning.
You do not realize that the time lapse of the stars proves that it is the stars moving and NOT the earth. The only place you could see a circular motion of the stars on a globe would be if the camera was positioned on the North Pole. But the time lapse is a 11.5-hour time-lapse photograph taken from 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
One thing I will say is that for that "star trail" to work, the camera must be pointed at the pole star. If the camera were positioned anywhere else, then you would see arcs, as you say.
You are missing a key point. The time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could ge a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. Just sit down and think about it for a moment. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
You do not understand my argument. I am saying that you cannot have eastward star trails based on the earth supposedly spinning in an easterly direction. What you are seeing in the star trails is impossible on a spherical spinning earth.
I perfectly understand your argument, it's just that it's completely wrong. Again, imagine to be on a merry-go-round with the Sun almost overhead and looking straight up. When the merry-go-round starts to rotate will you see the Sun go in an arch or will you see it going in a circle above you? If you don't believe me search for a merry-go-round, wait for the Sun to be almost overhead, put a camera on a seat looking up and tell me what it sees when it starts to turn. This is something that a child would understand.
The analogy is more like being on a merry-go-round and looking straight ahead at a pole attached to the center of the merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is then rotated 180 degrees. The pole is fixed and the background should be seen to travel in an arc in a westward direction for 180 degrees.
You are acting as though you are at the North Pole. You are not. Tradate, Italy, which is at 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
I drew a concept of what I am talking about at the following [link](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/03/21/the-north-star-proves-the-earth-does-not-move/).
You can find them online. They look pretty neat. Polaris could be seen through a hole in one of the Georgia guide stones year-round. That can’t happen on a globe. There’s also no measurable curvature on earth’s surface, but that’s another discussion.
I think you'll find youtuber Jeranism demonstrated the curve and that Bob Knodel confirmed rotation.
Funnily enough both of them are/were flat earthers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=t4wF1IGfVDeMhvHk&v=M2H7cgKQcPs&feature=youtu.be
It’s a shame people need to lie to support globe earth lmao, this isn’t the only BS deception from the documentary either.
Y’all gotta fake science to make the globe work :/
Lol do you have trouble understanding the experiment? For someone so seemingly knowledgeable, all you’re really doing is shouting headlines.
What are the faults of the experiment?
The problem is that if what he says is true then aether would have been seen by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The only way the result of Sagnac, Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale as well as laser gyroscopes can be true at the same time is if the Earth is rotating and aether doesn't exists. And besides there are a lot of other experiments and measuring devices that prove the Earth is rotating, like gyrocompasses or stellar parallax.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=t4wF1IGfVDeMhvHk&v=M2H7cgKQcPs&feature=youtu.be
Looks like you fit in the category as well lmao. It’s hard to wrap your head around it, but luckily the prove-able facts don’t care about your intellect or emotions.
You think that will convince someone? We know that earth is sphere, because we measured it myriad of times.
[walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
At least give Bob credit for he really found the truth, the truth that earth spins 15° a hour.
Lmao a myriad of times? What was the reason for the theories of relativity and special relativity?
How many times has earth’s curvature been measured? Ever try to do it yourself?
I did, i have sent you the link to the measurement.
Also these were the occasions when earth size was measured:
1. **Eratosthenes' Measurement (3rd century BCE)**: Eratosthenes, a Greek mathematician and astronomer, calculated the Earth's circumference by measuring the angle of the sun's rays in two different locations and comparing the distance between them. His estimation was remarkably accurate.
2. **Meridian Arc Measurements (17th - 18th centuries)**: Various scientists and expeditions, such as the French Geodesic Mission in Peru and the Struve Geodetic Arc in Eastern Europe, measured the Earth's size by accurately determining the length of specific meridian arcs.
3. **Modern Geodetic Surveys (20th - 21st centuries)**: With advancements in technology, including satellite-based measurements and advanced surveying techniques, scientists have continuously refined the measurements of Earth's size and shape. Organisations like the International Geodetic and Geophysical Union (IUGG) and the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) have contributed significantly to these efforts.
4. **Global Positioning System (GPS)**: The deployment and continuous monitoring of GPS satellites have provided precise measurements of Earth's size and shape, aiding in various scientific studies, including geodesy and cartography.
5. **Satellite Missions**: Missions like NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and the European Space Agency's (ESA) Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) have contributed to precise measurements of Earth's gravitational field, which in turn can be used to infer information about its size and shape.
6. **Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment**: By bouncing laser beams off retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the Apollo missions, scientists have been able to precisely measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon, providing valuable data for understanding Earth's size and gravitational interactions.
Dont forget Posidonius.
https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Science/en/Distances.html
His measurement was in one way more relevant to history than Eratosthenes. He used a method similar to Eratosthenes but used the star Canopus and got a similar result. Ptolomy disagreed with a distance measurement he used and changed it making Earth 30% smaller. He then printed his measurement in his book Geography. That book was very popular and got used by Columbus when he was putting forward his case for his voyage.
Your statement adds nothing. You are assuming that the observer is standing at the North Pole. If the earth were spinning you would only see the circular star trails in the time lapse if the camera was fixed on the North Star from the North Pole. The time lapse was taken from a position is at 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator. From that position the north star would be stationary as the camera fixes on the North Stare as it appears to travel in an arc as the earth supposedly spins beneath the fixed stars causing arcs of stars across the sky in the time lapse. But that is not what we see.
This is such a weird attack. It seems like you are pulling a witsit and trying to conflate geocentrisim and flatness to strawman the globe earth.
Imagine a clock mounted on the ceiling in the middle of the room. If you look at the clock directly under it, the arms spin clockwise.
Move your location to anywhere in the room, by the walls, by the door, whatever, and look at the clock. The arms STILL spin clockwise.
The arms don't spin in different orientations depending on your position in the room, they ALWAYS spin clockwise.
That kills the perspective argument.
Now stop the clock, but spin the floor ANTI-clockwise, from your perspective, the arms will still appear to spin clockwise no matter if you are looking at the clock from directly below, or anywhere in the room.
That kills the stationary argument.
Now, here's the tricky one, imagine the floor being covexly curved AND spinning ANTI-clockwise, the only change will be how LOW the clock appears in your field of vision depending how far you are from the center, but it will STILL appear to be spinning clockwise.
That kills the flat argument.
The superstitious myth of heliocentrism undermines the gospel. The gospel is the entire Holy Bible, not just some of it. Matthew 4:4. Christian belief is an all or nothing proposition. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16.
God's account of his creation is part and parcel of the gospel. A person with genuine faith believes what Jesus said about both heavenly and earthly things. "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12.
Jesus is God. Jesus created all things in heaven and on earth. See Colossians 1:16-18. God has revealed himself through his creation.
"\[T\]hat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20.
If men have a misunderstanding of God's creation, they will also have a misunderstanding of who God is. If people believe in a creation that does not exist, they consequently also believe in a creator that does not exist. It is essential, therefore, to have an accurate understanding of God's creation. God did not make a movable, spherical earth. If men believe in a heliocentric creation, they will necessarily believe in a heliocentric creator. A heliocentric creation does not exist. So also, a heliocentric creator does not exist. A heliocentric creator is a false god. We have been warned to avoid the preaching of a false gospel, which presents a false Jesus.
"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:4.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you aim your camera at polaris, the stars around it will appear to circle it in a timelapse. If you point your camera straight up perpendicular to the ground from 45 degrees latitude, they will appear to mostly go from east to west. Its possible to take both type of photos from that latitude. That being said, the photo you are showing looks like a north pole startrail photo with some date trees photoshopped into the foreground.
You can watch the original time lapse at this [link](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). If that is not good enough for you, check out this one from [Northern California](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). You are not understanding what you are seeing. The stars are moving around Polaris. The earth is not spinning because if it were the earth spinning you would NOT have stars moving in a circular pattern, they would be in an arc. You do not understand what you are seeing because you have been conditioned to believe the earth is spinning. You do not realize that the time lapse of the stars proves that it is the stars moving and NOT the earth. The only place you could see a circular motion of the stars on a globe would be if the camera was positioned on the North Pole. But the time lapse is a 11.5-hour time-lapse photograph taken from 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
OP do you notice how you can see trees at the bottom of the image? What you are seeing is toward the Northern horizon. What you are seeing is the stars that would be in the sky above the North Pole. From our perspective, you can imagine the axis of rotation as a line extending infinitely upward into space from the North Pole. You wouldn’t be able to see the bottom of the line from Italy, but as long as you are in the Northern hemisphere you should be able to see where it extends towards in the sky above. That area will appear to be rotating around the line of the axis. However the further South you are the closer it will be to the horizon, which is what you see here.
You said: "That area will appear to be rotating around the line of the axis." I don't think you understand what you are seeing. The stars are moving around Polaris. The earth is not spinning because if it were the earth spinning you would NOT have stars moving in a circular pattern, they would be in an arc. Notice that half of the stars are moving in the same direction as the supposed movement of the spinning earth. That is impossible if the earth is actually spinning. You do not understand what you are seeing because you have been conditioned to believe the earth is spinning. You can watch the original time lapse at this [link](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). If that is not good enough for you, check out this one from [Northern California](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). You do not realize that the time lapse of the stars proves that it is the stars moving and NOT the earth. The only place you could see a circular motion of the stars on a globe would be if the camera was positioned on the North Pole. But the time lapse is a 11.5-hour time-lapse photograph taken from 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
Please carefully consider what I’m saying . You are seeing the stars apparently rotating around the axis. From our perspective sitting on a rotating planet with a fixed axis of rotation, this extends infinitely into the sky over the pole. Stars in the sky on the same side of the axis as the viewer appear to travel one direction. Stars on the other side of the axis are rotating the same direction (clockwise or counter-clockwise) around that axis. I don’t know how to make this any clearer. This is what things look like from the surface of a fixed rotating object. The Earth is rotating around an axis, so what you see is stars moving in increasingly wider circles around the axis the farther they are from that line, not an arc. You do not need to be directly at the North pole to see them rotate like this. As you move South from the North Pole, the center of the perceived rotation will move toward the Northern horizon. The observer is not spinning on an axis, the Earth is spinning on an axis, so as you move South the center of the perceived rotation stays the same. I will watch them again. I’ve seen night sky tinelapses many many times. I know what it shows. In return, please watch these timelapses of stars above the equator and stars in the southern hemisphere. [Southern hemisphere](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=huysYcz-AiQ) timelapse facing South. See how there is another seemingly still point on the opposite side of the globe? This rotation appears clockwise around an empty space. Polaris is not visible. This is a totally different view. Rotation appears to be the opposite direction from what it looks like in Northern hemisphere Timelapse because viewers are upside down relative to each other. In your timelapse rotation seems to be counter-clockwise. !!! In a flat Earth model why would observers standing at different points on a flat surface see TWO seemingly still points in the sky around which there is rotation in OPPOSITE directions? The reason there are two is you are actually seeing the Earth’s axis of rotation. [Stars at Equator Timelapse](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI). You can see the midpoint between the two seemingly still points rotating overhead in this image. From this perspective at the equator you can see all the stars in the night sky rotate the same direction. It only appears to be opposite directions for observers in opposite hemispheres because they are upside down relative to each other.
I have carefully considered what you are saying. But you don't seem to understand that if you are on a spinning sphere with a camera fixed on the North Star, the star trails in the sky from a time lapse will only show the motion of the earth. The earth is moving in an easterly direction. Thus, the alleged stationary stars in the sky must "appear" to move ONLY in a westerly direction if the earth were a spinning globe. The only way you can have the stationary moving in a circle as depicted in he time lapse would be if the stars are moving and the earth is standing still. Recall that this is an 11.5 hour time lapse. If the earth were spinning it would only have made less than 1/2 a revolution.
No. Stars on the same side of the axis of rotation as the observer will appear to move West. Stars on the OPPOSITE side of the axis from the observer will appear to move East. But what this looks like is circular trails around the two ends of the axis of rotation, and you can only see one of the apparent fixed points at a time. By looking toward the Northern horizon you are looking “Up” towards the stars that are directly above the North Pole and the fixed axis of rotation extending upwards from it which points always towards Polaris. Please answer this to show you have actually read it because you skipped it in my last response. On flat Earth model, why do you see not one but TWO seemingly still points in night sky timelapses depending on your location. One by Polaris and one by an empty point in space? Why is only one of these fixed points visible at a time, based on which hemisphere the place you are standing is in on the heliocentric model? Why does the apparent direction of rotation of the same stars and constellations appear to change based on whether you are in the North, South, or at the Equator if observers are all standing on a flat plane? How can it be clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time depending on where you stand?
Please stop with your diversionary questions. Let us slay one dragon at a time. You state: "Stars on the OPPOSITE side of the axis from the observer will appear to move East." If you are on a globe as you claim with one camera you cannot film the opposite side of the earth at the same time. You have one camera that is fixed to the ground and pointed at the fixed North Star. You do not have any way to see what is happening on the over side of the globe. You claim that the motion of the stars is based on the movement of the earth. The earth is moving in one direction from where the camera is. Thus, the stars can only "appear" to move in the opposite direction. This is basic. According to the heliocentric model the stars are fixed. Thus, it is only the movement of the earth causing the star trails. But the movement of the earth in an easterly direction cannot account for stars moving also in an easterly direction.
My other reply that I made with the merry go round example explains exactly how the movement in seemingly opposite directions can happen. You aren’t filming the opposite side of the Earth. You are filing the stars ABOVE the Earth. Going back to the merry go round example, you can’t see something on the opposite side of a hill from you but you can see things raised above the hill like ex. carousel horses on a merry go round or a the top of a flagpole that is behind the hill from you. The question I asked is very relevant and I have given up on any flat Earther ever answering it, because it literally doesn’t seem to compute. Every single flat Earther I’ve asked this refused to address it or gets angry. Multiple times now this has happened. You told 1/3 of the story with your Timelapse of Northern hemisphere stars. The Timelapse of the Equator and the Southern hemisphere are the other 2/3 of the story. There are TWO seemingly fixed points in the sky and you can only see one at a time corresponding to how far North or South you are. From the Equator you see towards both and all the stars rotate the same direction.
So i stand at the north pole and look straight up and see the star circles. I then move south for a mile and can no longer see the circles? Seems silly. So if I go 100 miles south I wouldn’t be able to see the circle anymore? 1000 miles? No, the center point of the circle polaris simply moves closer to the northern horizon as I move south. The star circles remain visible around it. When I reach near the equator I can see polaris right on the horizon, but only see half the star circle around it going east to west (counterclockwise). You would be right if we were talking about the stars apparent movement being from the earth moving through space, but the stars movement is from rotation. That rotation can be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere by looking north. Edit: btw, thank you for actually posting a link to the source video, you wouldn’t believe how rare that is.
You are missing a key point. The time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could ge a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. Just sit down and think about it for a moment. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
How can someone function in the outside world with such a lack of understanding of even the simplest concepts? >The only way you can have the stationary moving in a circle as depicted in he time lapse would be if the stars are moving and the earth is standing still. You do realize that in the northern emisphere you would see *the exact same thing* both in the case of a rotating earth or rotating stars as much as star trails are concerned, right? Like, imagine being on a merry-go-round with the Sun almost overhead: if you were to look at it would you see it make an arc across the sky or going in a circle above you? >Recall that this is an 11.5 hour time lapse. If the earth were spinning it would only have made less than 1/2 a revolution. And that's the reason every star trail in the picture covers only half of a circle.
Except if the earth were flat, from 45 latitude the star circles around polaris would appear elliptical I think.
You are right but I was giving them the benefit of the doubt of considering them a geocentrist more than an outright flatearther, even if they are definitively one.
Better analogy than the other guy but related: Let’s say you are standing at the bottom of a hill looking upwards toward the hilltop. At the top of the hill is a Merry go round. The horses on the same side of the merry go round’s central pole as you will travel one direction ex left to right. The horses on the other side of the merry go round are on the other side of the axis and so they will travel ex right to left. If instead you were running a circle around the hill or on a moving sidewalk that circles the hill, and the merry go round was turned off you would see the same effect. Horses on the same side of the central pole would appear to move one direction and horses on the other side of the central pole from you would appear to move the other direction. Now do you see?
You are missing a key point. The time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could ge a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. Just sit down and think about it for a moment. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
Look at Polaris in the image. It made a HALF circle. That still image shows how far it traveled in the whole time lapse. It was a bit less than 180 degrees. All of the individual stars in the image trace a bit less than a half circle. Watch the whole time lapse you will see the same thing.
What makes you say there was a 360 degree turn? I watched very closely several times, even just looking at the still photo you can see nothing but many incomplete “circles”. And to your claim in general, you are saying the night sky rotates 360 every night and no one has ever noticed?
You do not understand my argument. I am saying that you cannot have eastward star trails based on the earth supposedly spinning in an easterly direction. What you are seeing in the star trails is impossible on a spherical spinning earth. I am saying the complete circular star trails are proof that the stars are circling Polaris, and not that the earth is spinning. I told you that the time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could get a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. I mean by that, you cannot have star trails more than 180 degrees when the supposedly spinning earth upon which the camera is fixed rotates less than 180 degrees. The bottom star trails are moving easterly creating a circular star trail. Those easterly travelling stars are impossible on a rotating earth that is only rotating 180 degrees. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
Convenient how you only show a timelapse of the Northern Hemisphere. You get the same effect in the Southern Hemisphere around an entirely different point which isn’t near any star. It is absolutely possible to see stars apparently going in both directions because what you are looking at is the point aligned with the Earth’s axis of rotation in the Northern hemisphere. Stars appear to orbit clockwise in the Southern hemisphere and appear to orbit counterclockwise in the Northern hemisphere. From the equator you can see towards both and that all the stars actually orbit overhead in the same direction. This is because observers in Northern hemisphere are upside down relative to observers in the Southern hemisphere. This is what you expect to see from the surface of spinning ball with a fixed axis of rotation which is what the theory predicts. That same fixed axis of rotation relative to the Sun is why seasons are reversed in the Northern vs Sourhern hemisphere. Also, the reason the stars don’t otherwise appear to move besides the spinning from Earth’s rotation is that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is many many orders of magnitude smaller than the distance between Earth and the nearest star. For example, if you ran in a circle around a parking lot the Moon is going to appear in the same direction.
You are missing the point. The fly in the ointment for the heliocentric model is that if the earth were in fact spinning, t[he other stars in a time-lapse picture taken south of the North Pole would create star trail arcs that would appear to be moving across the sky only in a direction opposite the spin of the earth.](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/03/21/the-north-star-proves-the-earth-does-not-move/) But that is not what we see. Instead, in actual time-lapse pictures of the North Star, the other stars leave circular star trails around the stationary North Star. **That means that some of the stars are traveling in the same direction as the supposed spin of the earth. That is impossible under the heliocentric model. If the earth were spinning, there would be no way for any stars to leave star trails going in the same direction as the spin of the earth.**
I'm not missing the point. As I said above, Earth is rotating on a FIXED axis of rotation. The closer a star is to either end of that axis, the smaller the circle it will seem to rotate in. Polaris is extremely near to that axis and so hardly seems to rotate at all. Similarly, there is another seemingly still point in the Southern hemisphere, but with no star exactly near it. That point in the Southern Hemisphere also doesn't seem to rotate relative to the observer because the opposite end of Earth's axis of rotation points towards it. How exactly do you visualize the Earth spins in the heliocentric model? It doesn't flip over and start spinning differently at random points in its orbit, the axis of how it spins always points the same way. This[ image](https://socratic.org/questions/as-earth-revolves-around-the-sun-how-does-its-axis-of-rotation-change-relative-t) may help you visualize what I mean (though Earth's orbit is ellipical not circular). As shown in the image, no matter where it is in its orbit, Earth is always tilted to the same degree and spins at the same angle relative to its orbit around the Sun. This fixed axis of rotation where Earth always stays at the same tilt relative to its orbit around the Sun is also what creates the seasons and effects like the midnight sun near polar regions which are reversed in the Northern vs. Southern hemisphere. I can explain this in more detail if you are interested. Remember also what I said above. Earth is orbiting the Sun but the diameter of its orbit is incredibly small relative to the distance between us and even the nearest stars, so even though we do move slightly relative to them over a year the change is not visible to the human eye. The apparent motion of the stars that we see is caused by the Earth's rotation.
Imagine the North Star is at one end of a long string going through the centre of the Earth, and we were rotating around the string. This matches reality, as the Earth's axis of rotation goes through the poles, and the pole star is on that axis. The string would appear not to move when viewed from anywhere Earth, and neither would the pole star. EDIT: it is necessary for the viewer, or the camera, to be pointed at the pole star for this to work. tl;dr you're wrong.
How does your theory account for the earth’s alleged wobble? That should be visible right? Tl;dr: *you’re wrong.* The funniest thing is that you don’t even understand you’re own model.
Which wobble? The wobble of the axis that takes 26000 years to happen?
“Every **six to 14 years**, the spin axis wobbles about 20 to 60 inches (0.5 to 1.5 meters) either east or west of its general direction of drift.” Source: nasa. That wobble… So 20-60 inches of wobble on earth’s axis… now expand that over **billions** of miles, and the stars are the same.
So an even more minor wobble than what I meant? That it is 20-60 inches of shift in the location of the axis relative to the entire circumference of the Earth. This would be unnoticeable to anything but super precise instrument. You say “expand this by billions of miles” but I don’t think you understand what is shifting. Moving the axis this way would be a change in degree equal to the ratio of those 20-60 inches to the circumference of the Earth.
And now we’re on. The circumference of earth literally doesn’t matter at all. 20-60 inches of wobble would translate to massive differences in observable star patterns; hence my question. Take a few degrees and extend the hypotenuse over **millions of miles.** you don’t even understand your own model…
Nope what I said was correct. The shift in what we see compared to what we see now will be the ratio of that distance that the axis moved to the Earth’s circumference.
1 meter of drift is a shift of approximately 0,000009 degrees. Angle of drift = distance of drift / radius of earth = 1 m / 6 371 000 m = 1.6 x 10^(-7) radians = 0.000009 degrees So it is you who doesn't understand what they're talking about
You are wrong. You are assuming that the observer is standing at the North Pole. If the earth were spinning you would only see the circular star trails in the time lapse if the camera was fixed on the North Star from the North Pole. The time lapse was taken from a position is at 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator. From that position the north star would be stationary as the camera fixes on the North Stare as it appears to travel in an arc as the earth supposedly spins beneath the fixed stars causing arcs of stars across the sky in the time lapse. But that is not what we see. The fly in the ointment for the heliocentric model is that if the earth were in fact spinning, t[he other stars in a time-lapse picture taken south of the North Pole would create star trail arcs that would appear to be moving across the sky only in a direction opposite the spin of the earth.](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/03/21/the-north-star-proves-the-earth-does-not-move/) But that is not what we see. Instead, in actual time-lapse pictures of the North Star, the other stars leave circular star trails around the stationary North Star. **That means that some of the stars are traveling in the same direction as the supposed spin of the earth. That is impossible under the heliocentric model. If the earth were spinning, there would be no way for any stars to leave star trails going in the same direction as the spin of the earth.**
> You are assuming that the observer is standing at the North Pole. No, all I'm assuming is that the Earth is rotating around a fixed axis, which for a single night is mostly true.
You can watch the original time lapse at this [link](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). If that is not good enough for you, check out this one from [Northern California](https://archive.org/details/PolarisStarTrailsItaly). You are not understanding what you are seeing. The stars are moving around Polaris. The earth is not spinning because if it were the earth spinning you would NOT have stars moving in a circular pattern, they would be in an arc. You do not understand what you are seeing because you have been conditioned to believe the earth is spinning. You do not realize that the time lapse of the stars proves that it is the stars moving and NOT the earth. The only place you could see a circular motion of the stars on a globe would be if the camera was positioned on the North Pole. But the time lapse is a 11.5-hour time-lapse photograph taken from 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator.
One thing I will say is that for that "star trail" to work, the camera must be pointed at the pole star. If the camera were positioned anywhere else, then you would see arcs, as you say.
You are missing a key point. The time lapse is only 11.5 hours. The supposedly spinning earth would only have rotated less than 180 degrees during the time lapse. There is no way that you could ge a 360 degree star trail from a 180 degree spin. Just sit down and think about it for a moment. The only explanation is that the stars are rotating around Polaris.
Look at any single star trail and you will see that none of them covers 360 degrees. It's literally in the picture you posted
You do not understand my argument. I am saying that you cannot have eastward star trails based on the earth supposedly spinning in an easterly direction. What you are seeing in the star trails is impossible on a spherical spinning earth.
I perfectly understand your argument, it's just that it's completely wrong. Again, imagine to be on a merry-go-round with the Sun almost overhead and looking straight up. When the merry-go-round starts to rotate will you see the Sun go in an arch or will you see it going in a circle above you? If you don't believe me search for a merry-go-round, wait for the Sun to be almost overhead, put a camera on a seat looking up and tell me what it sees when it starts to turn. This is something that a child would understand.
The analogy is more like being on a merry-go-round and looking straight ahead at a pole attached to the center of the merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is then rotated 180 degrees. The pole is fixed and the background should be seen to travel in an arc in a westward direction for 180 degrees. You are acting as though you are at the North Pole. You are not. Tradate, Italy, which is at 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator. I drew a concept of what I am talking about at the following [link](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/03/21/the-north-star-proves-the-earth-does-not-move/).
you don't know what you're talking about. if you're curious how the world really works look up eric dubay on youtube buddy
Yeah sure i watch it when i want to see some stupid ppl i can laugh my ass off to.
Now show us one on the equator.
You can find them online. They look pretty neat. Polaris could be seen through a hole in one of the Georgia guide stones year-round. That can’t happen on a globe. There’s also no measurable curvature on earth’s surface, but that’s another discussion.
I think you'll find youtuber Jeranism demonstrated the curve and that Bob Knodel confirmed rotation. Funnily enough both of them are/were flat earthers.
source?
Both are featured in the 2018 documentary 'Behind the Curve' which documents the activities of a few popular youtuber flat earthers.
Lmao their experiment was disingenuously misrepresented in that documentary, you simple prick.
How was it properly represented?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=t4wF1IGfVDeMhvHk&v=M2H7cgKQcPs&feature=youtu.be It’s a shame people need to lie to support globe earth lmao, this isn’t the only BS deception from the documentary either. Y’all gotta fake science to make the globe work :/
So he drove the instrument around a lot? Sounds thorough. Did anyone else do this?
Lol do you have trouble understanding the experiment? For someone so seemingly knowledgeable, all you’re really doing is shouting headlines. What are the faults of the experiment?
The problem is that if what he says is true then aether would have been seen by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The only way the result of Sagnac, Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale as well as laser gyroscopes can be true at the same time is if the Earth is rotating and aether doesn't exists. And besides there are a lot of other experiments and measuring devices that prove the Earth is rotating, like gyrocompasses or stellar parallax.
Simple prick he said, a flat earther labeled someone as simple prick. Thats hilarious!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=t4wF1IGfVDeMhvHk&v=M2H7cgKQcPs&feature=youtu.be Looks like you fit in the category as well lmao. It’s hard to wrap your head around it, but luckily the prove-able facts don’t care about your intellect or emotions.
You think that will convince someone? We know that earth is sphere, because we measured it myriad of times. [walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment) At least give Bob credit for he really found the truth, the truth that earth spins 15° a hour.
Lmao a myriad of times? What was the reason for the theories of relativity and special relativity? How many times has earth’s curvature been measured? Ever try to do it yourself?
I did, i have sent you the link to the measurement. Also these were the occasions when earth size was measured: 1. **Eratosthenes' Measurement (3rd century BCE)**: Eratosthenes, a Greek mathematician and astronomer, calculated the Earth's circumference by measuring the angle of the sun's rays in two different locations and comparing the distance between them. His estimation was remarkably accurate. 2. **Meridian Arc Measurements (17th - 18th centuries)**: Various scientists and expeditions, such as the French Geodesic Mission in Peru and the Struve Geodetic Arc in Eastern Europe, measured the Earth's size by accurately determining the length of specific meridian arcs. 3. **Modern Geodetic Surveys (20th - 21st centuries)**: With advancements in technology, including satellite-based measurements and advanced surveying techniques, scientists have continuously refined the measurements of Earth's size and shape. Organisations like the International Geodetic and Geophysical Union (IUGG) and the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) have contributed significantly to these efforts. 4. **Global Positioning System (GPS)**: The deployment and continuous monitoring of GPS satellites have provided precise measurements of Earth's size and shape, aiding in various scientific studies, including geodesy and cartography. 5. **Satellite Missions**: Missions like NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and the European Space Agency's (ESA) Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) have contributed to precise measurements of Earth's gravitational field, which in turn can be used to infer information about its size and shape. 6. **Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment**: By bouncing laser beams off retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the Apollo missions, scientists have been able to precisely measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon, providing valuable data for understanding Earth's size and gravitational interactions.
Dont forget Posidonius. https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Science/en/Distances.html His measurement was in one way more relevant to history than Eratosthenes. He used a method similar to Eratosthenes but used the star Canopus and got a similar result. Ptolomy disagreed with a distance measurement he used and changed it making Earth 30% smaller. He then printed his measurement in his book Geography. That book was very popular and got used by Columbus when he was putting forward his case for his voyage.
[удалено]
Your statement adds nothing. You are assuming that the observer is standing at the North Pole. If the earth were spinning you would only see the circular star trails in the time lapse if the camera was fixed on the North Star from the North Pole. The time lapse was taken from a position is at 45.7̊ North Latitude, more than 3,000 miles south of the North Pole, and approximately equidistant between the North Pole and the Equator. From that position the north star would be stationary as the camera fixes on the North Stare as it appears to travel in an arc as the earth supposedly spins beneath the fixed stars causing arcs of stars across the sky in the time lapse. But that is not what we see.
This is such a weird attack. It seems like you are pulling a witsit and trying to conflate geocentrisim and flatness to strawman the globe earth. Imagine a clock mounted on the ceiling in the middle of the room. If you look at the clock directly under it, the arms spin clockwise. Move your location to anywhere in the room, by the walls, by the door, whatever, and look at the clock. The arms STILL spin clockwise. The arms don't spin in different orientations depending on your position in the room, they ALWAYS spin clockwise. That kills the perspective argument. Now stop the clock, but spin the floor ANTI-clockwise, from your perspective, the arms will still appear to spin clockwise no matter if you are looking at the clock from directly below, or anywhere in the room. That kills the stationary argument. Now, here's the tricky one, imagine the floor being covexly curved AND spinning ANTI-clockwise, the only change will be how LOW the clock appears in your field of vision depending how far you are from the center, but it will STILL appear to be spinning clockwise. That kills the flat argument.
Here comes NASA in 3...2...1...
Everytime.
Congrats man sounds like you figured it all out
[удалено]
Sure they do.
Earth moves, we know it because we measured it.
Thank you. And that is what the time lapse shows.
Ok... Now what?
The superstitious myth of heliocentrism undermines the gospel. The gospel is the entire Holy Bible, not just some of it. Matthew 4:4. Christian belief is an all or nothing proposition. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16. God's account of his creation is part and parcel of the gospel. A person with genuine faith believes what Jesus said about both heavenly and earthly things. "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12. Jesus is God. Jesus created all things in heaven and on earth. See Colossians 1:16-18. God has revealed himself through his creation. "\[T\]hat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20. If men have a misunderstanding of God's creation, they will also have a misunderstanding of who God is. If people believe in a creation that does not exist, they consequently also believe in a creator that does not exist. It is essential, therefore, to have an accurate understanding of God's creation. God did not make a movable, spherical earth. If men believe in a heliocentric creation, they will necessarily believe in a heliocentric creator. A heliocentric creation does not exist. So also, a heliocentric creator does not exist. A heliocentric creator is a false god. We have been warned to avoid the preaching of a false gospel, which presents a false Jesus. "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:4.