Star Trails, North & South Poles: How Do Flat-Earthers Explain Such Things?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2024
- There are countless good reasons why Flat-Earthers should break away from their cult. These beautiful star trails are only one such reason.
Links & Credits:
--------------------------
Jamie's Video and Photography: • North Star (STAR TRAIL...
Larry W. Brown's North Celestial Time-Lapse: • Cumulative North Celes...
Russ Olinatz's 2015 Perseids Meteor Shower: • Star Trails - 2015 Per...
Maki Yanagimachi's New Zealand Timelapse: • Star Trail Time Lapse
Large Millimeter Telescope: • Time-Lapse of Southern...
Eric Dubay's "Flat Earth Star Trails Explained": • Video
Mozart - Eine Kleine Nachtmusik allegro
RUclips Ad-Free Creative Commons
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Six Hundred Strike [EPIC: The Musical] Full Animatic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zov6NXIAuow/mqdefault.jpg)
A lot of people commenting don't seem to understand that star "trails" originated with film photography. Modern digital cameras make it easy to take pictures of the night sky and there are a lot of high-resolution Moon photos and pictures of Jupiter and Saturn on RUclips that are taken with simple digital cameras. You couldn't just walk out into your backyard with a film camera and snap a close-up picture of the Moon with a film camera. You had to use the right film speed and set a long exposure time, which also meant accepting some blurring because the Moon would move a little in the night sky while the shutter was open.
Taking pictures of stars with a film camera was nearly impossible. The shutter had to be open for a very long time, so you had to have a motorized tripod that would move the camera during the exposure. You also had to set that tripod up just right, without the aid of computers or GPS ... it was basically a crap shoot. And you had no idea if you got a good picture or not until you sent the film in for processing, which you weren't going to do until the you finished out the roll (usually 12 pictures or so).
In contrast, it was easy to take a star trail picture: You just had to set the camera up on a tripod and manually open the shutter (usually with a short, flexible attachment so that you could open and close the shutter without jiggling the camera). No motorized tripod was necessary, and your chances of getting a good picture were much higher. The shutter would be open for several hours, and if necessary you could babysit the camera and cover the lens with a hand or something if a car came by and threatened to flood the camera in light.
It's obvious that the only thing you could accept is the real thing (live) in front of you. Go down to the SH and have a look. I don't need a camera (and who needs time-lapse?) I just go out for a pee throughout the night, and I observe the Crux constellation circling the south celestial pole (in stages). I see the eastern side of the circling at night in summer (and the western side in winter).
So over a year I have constantly been observing this (to argue for a globe) and I have seen the whole circle. At more than 30 degrees S, the Crux never rises or sets, it just goes around in circles. You can see this too, from Sydney, south enough to see the bottom of the circle. This is proof that the southern star-trails exist. How is it not?
+Justwantahover Either English is not your native language and you are grossly misunderstanding the point of this video, or you are a moron.
How do they explain strartrails? They don't.
google which way the stars go in northern and southern hemisphere and you will get this For an observer on the earth, objects move from east to west (this is true for both northern andsouthern hemispheres). More accurately put, when looking north, objects in the sky movecounter-clockwise. Though all objects rotate in the sky, the observed path stars make in the sky depend on the observer's latitude
Its easy to get confused in New Zealand, large hills, sheep all over the place , volcanoes and and large guys wearing skirts chanting and making odd faces .
The Bible alludes to a spherical earth in at least three locations. One is in Isaiah, where it reads "he sits enthroned above the circle of the earth."
"The Hebrew word in question is khûg (חוּג) which is also found in Proverbs 8:27 where, in many Bible versions, it is translated ‘vault’. For example, the New American Standard Bible reads, “Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; and He walks on the vault of heaven.” Clearly ‘vault’ carries the sense of something three-dimensional and is given as the primary meaning of khûg in the well-known Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.1 In modern Hebrew, a sphere is denoted by khûg, along with kaddur, galgal, and mazzal.2 In Arabic (another Semitic language), kura means ball and is the word used in the Van Dyck-Boustani Arabic Bible (1865) to translate khûg in Isaiah 40:22."
There are two other places, both found in the N.T. In these places Jesus is speaking about the second coming, and he says "at that time (singular, the second coming happens in one moment), two will be lying in a bed (nighttime) one will be taken and the other will be left; two women will be grinding grain (morning)... two men will be in the field (main part of the day)...." all these things will be happening at a single moment in time. This references the time zones, which could only be caused by a spherical earth. There may be other passages.
We hardly need a barbaric Arabic Bronze Age Fairytale Book to tell us anything about the nature of physical reality. Get real.
I've still never had a flat earther explain star trails
The best explanation I ever got had to do with a Faraday loop. The thermal conduction of the Earth's poles create the sun at the flat earth's equator as a dipole equilibrium in our atmosphere. The sun rotates counter clockwise as most EM charged polar objects rotate. The south pole however is the opposite dipole and pulls stars clockwise. The stars sun and moon are in the Earth's electromagnetic sphere or just beyond as is Venus and mercury which are stars also in the atmosphere or just outside. Look up gleasons projection map it explains the flat earth model scientifically. I am stating that the earth is flat but there are good arguments beyond most FE kooks.
I have to admit flat earth can explain basically everything but this. They have ZERO answers . this is why i am undecided still. otherwise i would jump onto the flat earth boat.
+ScrotumSqueezer They just DENY it. And they can have a fucking look for themselves. BASTARDS.
+ScrotumSqueezer They just DENY it. And they can have a fucking look for themselves. BASTARDS.
+ScrotumSqueezer They just DENY it. And they can have a fucking look for themselves. BASTARDS.
Speaking of boats, if you hopped in one you could use it to easily confirm that the earth is a globe with a radius of 3,959miles (6,371km).
Lets say you leave a port and there is a hotel that stands 500ft above sea level. The farther away you move from that hotel, the more it will appear to 'sink' over the horizon. At 26.46miles and beyond, the top of that hotel will have finally 'sunk' over the horizon and no telescope will ever be able to see it again.
If the hotel was 1000ft above sea level you'd be able to see the top up to 37.42 miles..
The formula for calculating this is s^2 = (r + h)^2 - r^2 where s is how far you can see, r is the radius of earth, and h is how high your eyes are.
You could land on any planet and easily calculate its spherical radius using this method.
Uhm, that's not all? At all?
- What is the sun?
- What is the moon?
- What is light?
- What is consiousness?
- What does the map look like?
- Who is in control?
- Where do we come from?
- What are the stars and planets?
- What causes the moon phases?
- What causes eclipses?
- What causes the tides?
- Whats above us?
- Whats below us?
- What are sunspots?
- What is our true history?
It's been three years, where are you now?
wait, but he never said what his explanation of the clockwise southern star trails is. Do they merely deny that observation? But anyone on the southern hemisphere can verify it
The russ olinatz video has clouds that don't move. with stars moving circling over the clouds in the background. On a globe at the equator stars should go up and over with no circles.
How does an equator cancel out rotational movement????
on a flat earth the night sky looks different depending on which hemisphere you are in. Its all in the angle and perspective of you location. If the earth is rotating and moving at 60,000 around the sun, and solar system is moving at 600,000mph then its not possible to open up the exposure on a camera and take those beautiful photos of the star trails. Those photos prove the earth is FLAT and Motionless....
are you kidding us? How could you take a startrail on a flat and motionless Earth? You actually see the sky rotating around a star but at the same time you can see the sky rotating around a second star. Now, put this 2 centers on you flat earth sky and create a model coherent to reality, since I can see the stars rotating counterclockwise around Polaris from Italy, Japan or USA and clockwise around Sigma Octantis from Australia, South Africa and Argentina. Of course you must put in this model Sun, Moon, planets, comets, ISS and other satellites you can see naked eye...
Nicola P It's ALWAYS about perspective with these flat fucktards. It's their ABSOLUTE FAVORITE WORD, EVER - their word of the day, but it's their word of the day every fucking damn day! They're always going ON and ON about it!
Well, here's MY "perspective" on all of this - IT'S STUPID. Oh, so very stupid. Every once in a while, something DOES get me thinking about all of this flat-earth nonsense, and I'm like, "Hmm... well, that makes a lot of sense, actually!" But then within seconds I think of five things that CONTRADICT the thing I thought didn't make sense on a globe earth. That right there shows that the "proof" I almost fell for was a total lie, since it didn't make ANY sense in REALITY. Ohhhhh, almost got me there, flat-earthers! I almost fell for a lie, and that's what angers me the most about flat fucktards! (sorry, feel like I went on a bit of a tangent there, it's 7:45 am and I haven't gone to bed yet, I'm very tired)
THERE WILL NEVER, EVER BE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FLAT EARTH. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Go back to school, take some physics courses. That'll straighten you out (one could only hope).
And that's my fucking perspective. These pathetic excuses for human beings need to get a new hobby. Believing the earth is flat isn't cool any more (if it ever was to begin with).
you dumb fuck - if the earth was spinning and the stars also moving - the time-lapse would look like a fucking mess - but instead its perfect star trails because earth is not moving - btw there is ZERO proof EVER that earth is in motion and that goes for all the speeds and motions of earth - its never been proven or observed - so you believe in science fiction - dummy
tremarctos9 Foucault's pendulum, laser gyroscopes in planes, the Eotvos effect, Doppler shift in spectroscopy... Please don't mistake your ignorance for absence of evidence.
Greg McCormick have you yourself tested these theories???
I wish I could "like" your description. Perfectly said. (Good taste in music too.) Nice video!
Methinks +Eric Dubay is living in a fantasy land. :-P
+ZombieSymmetry Methinks +Eric Dubay has got it all togeather
You just proved that the Earth is Flat and I will demonstrate in an upcoming video how you did it! Great Job! With detailed and accurate animations and when you compare the rotation of the earth and it's movements and the stars it is absolutely impossible to get star trails that are perfect circles! However on a Flat Stationary Earth Plane with a rotating Star field the rotation of the stars is exactly how it looks in your video..Again..Thankyou for establishing once and for all that we DO NOT live on a spinning globe!!!
TruthNoTrolls, I know this is late response, but bare with me. Have you heard of the Eötvös Effect? It's pretty neat. Before I elaborate on it, I want to show this little snippet from the manual for the "Smart Weigh Pocket Scale", on page 5 under "Calibration":
_The calibration of the scales has been performed at the factory. However,_
_the weighing range can shift slightly during the shipping,_ *or due to changes*
*in local acceleration of gravity around the world.* [Emphasis mine]
ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71Ga4MEfnHS.pdf
What do you suppose "..local acceleration of gravity around the world" means? That's where the Eötvös Effect comes in! This is a great proof because it's easy to test and confirm and impossible to fake:
Back in the early 1900s, a Hungarian scientist and nobleman was doing very precise weighing of objects aboard ships at sea and noticed something very interesting. Objects _consistently_ LOST weight when traveling east and GAINED weight when traveling west. Later testing showed that this effect was _strongest_ at the equator and _weakest_ at the poles.
This makes perfect sense on a rotating globe, and no sense on a non-rotating Earth, flat or otherwise: As you travel east you are traveling in the direction of spin, which adds _slightly_ to your centrifugal force, which pulls you _slightly_ more away from the surface, which makes you weigh less. Mass is unaffected. Traveling west does the opposite: Subtracting from your centrifugal force, making you weigh more. The strongest effect is at the equator because it is the furthest from the center of rotation (the axis).
On the FE this doesn't work _even if it was spinning_ because A) The strongest effect would be at the "edge" not the equator and B) The effect would push objects _outward,_ not _upward._
And because the strongest effect is at the equator, that means that the the equator is the furthest from the axis, which fits a sphere, but not a disk. So this means the Earth is spinning AND is a shape that has the equator the farthest from the axis (a sphere). And if THOSE two things are true, then gravity must also be true because the people "below" the equator would be "upside down" in relation to the people "above" the equator.
Wolfie6020 did at least two videos demonstrating this effect:
- "Flat Earth vs Globe - Does weight change with Latitude? Is this evidence the Earth is spinning?" ruclips.net/video/CkhxPm15PFo/видео.html
- "Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft - how does it affect Gravity?" ruclips.net/video/oy0erMiS6xs/видео.html
Wolfie takes a sensitive scale aboard an airplane (He's a commercial airline pilot) and shows this effect working by weighing an object of known weight while traveling east and then west.
But even if you don't believe this, why do you think the scale manufacturer put that bit in the manual about local acceleration of gravity? What would that signify otherwise?
But they wouldn't go opposite ways on a flat earth.
TruthNotTrolls Sturrock Star trails on a flat earth should be ellipses, not circles. The reason is that you would be looking at the circles from towards an edge. Look at a plate as you turn the edge towards you...
That is absolutely incorrect TruthnotTrolls. It's pretty easy to tell how the star trails would look on a flat earth based on the FE cosmology. And they would absolutely NOT look like they do in the video. And also, there's no way to show what they look like on the flat earth, since the earth isn't flat. We can only show what the star trails look like on a globe, since that's what the earth is.
We live on a spinning globe.
Now let's try to draw the Zodiac on the half sphere/firmament... ^^
I will have an empirical explanation on my channel in 1 - 2 weeks. Should be, at the least, a good starting empirical working model for FE and star trails.
+Zeteticism DotCom You CAN'T explain it.
PROOF OF GLOBE
The stars in the southern hemisphere (SH) prove globe. It's
observed that the stars in the SH circle the south celestial pole in ever
tightening circles. How could that happen when you haven't even got a south
pole? Your "model" requires the SH stars to only have wide arcs (not
complete circles) that are all wider than any circling in the NH, cos the SH
arcs would have to be "outside" all the NH circling stars (cos of the
way your "model" is). And (in your "model") SH stars path's
arcs are required to be up-side-down open arcs that are ever widening as we
look deeper south. But that is not what we observe! We observe exactly what we
see in the NH, ever tightening complete circles as we look deeper south, except
the stars are circling in the opposite direction (clockwise instead of
anti-clockwise). This is proof that there is indeed a south pole (and that is
proof of a globe). Let's make what we see fit with a flat earth. What are the
southern stars circling around if there is no south pole? And even worse (in a
flat earth) if the stars are circling in opposite directions in the north and
south (with only one pole and only one flat disc) the stars would mix and the
constellations would be mixed beyond recognition (how could they not). Don't
take my word for it, use a time-laps video camera to shoot the NH and the SH
stars, facing the camera north and south (in each hemisphere). What will you
see in the south in the SH? Ever widening up-side-down open arcs, going
anticlockwise? Or will it be ever tightening full circles, going clockwise? If
you see the former, you are right, but if you see the latter, the world is a
globe. It's that simple. Flat 0 Globe 1
Answer the question before you head off on a tangent and
IGNORE my question.
I see the southern star-trails at south, from Australia. On your flat earth, the same thing would be observed at north-west, from South America (if I'm seeing it at south). But in reality, we all see the southern star-trails at south, from anywhere in the SH. Fits a globe but not a disc. Can you make it "fit"?
@Zeteticism DotCom
All your bull shit crap has been debunked by Reds Rhetoric, here is the video ruclips.net/video/JfXNcaBJEcM/видео.html
4 years passed and the flatties still have no explanation
I think it is time for you to re-access what you have stated. The Northern star trails all seem centered on and around Polaris, whereas in the south all our star trails are at altitudes of 45 degrees and up. How would this work on a globe. Try using the physics you so proudly mention to work that one out.
Cosmic Surfer
Just what are you tryig to say?
Dejan Haskovic.... I think that he is trying to say something for reasons.
You're talking about looking south from a standpoint in the northern hemisphere. The picture from a standpoint in the southern hemisphere is the other way around. In particular, people in South America, South Africa and Australia all have the same viewing patterns, in fact the exact same views simultaneously, logical on the southern hemisphere of a globe, but impossible on the AE projection, because there, people on those southern continents are looking in the opposite direction when looking south. On a globe people looking south on all three continents are looking in the same direction in the sky.
+Cosmic Surfer
First get your terminology correct, an angle of 45 degrees when measuring the sky (or the Earth) is not an 'altitude' it's a *LATITUDE*.
Second, the angle where the star trails are centered, depends on the terrestrial latitude, the farther north a person travels in North America, the higher in the sky the Pole Star Polaris will appear. And the farther south a person travels in North America, the lower in the sky Polaris will appear. Conversely the farther south a person travels in Australia, the higher in the sky the constellation Crux or the "Southern Cross" will appear. And the farther north a person travels in Australia, the lower in the sky Crux will appear. These observations make sense on an oblate spheroid earth, but never makes sense on a flat earth.
The claim on one part of the video that people in Australia think we are looking south when instead we are really looking north is absolute rubbish; my compass, GPS systems and driving north to Sydney and south to Canberra, confirms this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Hahaha, "Try using your physics..." You not only lack the concept of A S T R O N O M Y, you have no idea what physics actually means. As they say in Iceland, durrrrrrrrrrrr
you seem to ignore you video has fish eye. and of course, so in reality the star trails should never look like that. but of course also, all those videos or most of them, are edited and modified. but the important thing is that they show that the stars actualy spins around the earth. I havent seen yet an un edited actual video, because its hard to do, and of course not anyone have resourses to do a time lapse.
How much more does a time lapse picture take??
Is it just me, or in DoPayMeForFeedingYouBullshit's last little demo at 4:55 does he not have the stars moving the wrong freaking way so his two 10,000-mile-tall men would be looking up at _clockwise_ rotation?
Flat Earth: the #1 online dating service for faces and palms.
if there was a mid night sun in the southern hemisphere the tip of Argentina would see it but it doesn't
You see it from everywhere you should.
If you look up "equator star trails" it. Proves flat Earth. You should see stars wizzing in strait lines. Instead you see both south and north stars circling separately and meeting in the middle then running away from the middle again in opposite swirls. If the Earth was round then how would that be possible? The stars would not conjoin and then move away from one another. They should follow the same rotation and show streaks across the sky... Someone with the same smarts as me please make this comment into a video... But don't use my name...
G.Gorrell there's a lot of different flat Earth models. But just because there's one pole doesn't mean there can't be two separate pulls.
G.Gorrell incorrect. There have been many flat Earth models that have come out just like nasa releases a new globe model almost every year
LoL, Flat ards are just a bunch of denials, Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.
So, Samie will never provide evidence to back up her claims, instead she will just keep saying: "you're wrong, bla bla bla.."
How the hell can we see the Nothan Star from the Suthern hemisphere??
You can’t
People don't even know the difference between Geocentrism and Flat model.
And then they pretend to be "truth defenders" hoping to fool someone. LOOOOL
im not a flat earther..... but I sure as hell don't understand how the bottom of a planet can see what we are seeing , yet time lapse cameras show perfect circles above each area....... how the fuck can it replicate on the opposite side regardless backwards or forwards... if were fat in the middle how like at 4:11 how could we both see such lines yet not get blurred or messed up transitioning from south to north? why wouldn't the south have completely different stars? like if im standing at the top of a basket ball, I clearly cannot see then underside of the equator and beyond...... how the fuck could we see the same stars let alone the time lapse never seem to cross, both perfect circle lines? I mean I know we could all see the ones directly out in front of us... but the same exact pattern backwards..... that makes no fucking sense at all ....... if were on a 360 degree sphere I just don't see how these time lapse vids of star movements aren't a jumbled fucking mess.....criss crossing all over the place.... or how the north star always seems to appear near the lower left of moon and never changes on a planet spinning, a moon rotating with us, spinning around a solar system that's spinning around a universe.......
It's simple. sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
You're riding a ball, dude.
I didn't say we weren't..... I still am not understanding how the south is seeing the exact same stars from that web page you linked... are they seeing the same constellations...or just star trails?
no globterds, how do YOU explain it ? earth spins one direction and you believe you're standing upside down so North and South should see the same movement. but we don't.
You're silly. sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
Are you serious? Kidding? or What? The only way the stars would appear to move counterclockwise in the north and clockwise in the south is by being on a globe.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 What?? U can’t be serious.
@@kenlogsdon7095 actually you are silly. If Earth was a globe the sky would not look that way from the equator. Impossible. There would be one motion of stars from your point of view. Instead you have three, one counterclockwise one straight line and one clockwise. That's impossible, think about it dummy
@@danbrooks4270 wrong. Read my comment to Ken Logsdon in this thread
North pole doen't exist. it's like antarctica version of conventional flat earth. Antarctica itself is a real continent. However the earth is flat and south pole is the center of celestial bodies.
What's the deal with the southern time lapses. Cartoons.
+Trakmatik If you mean that the stars appear too dense / numerous, it's because both the LMT (Mexico) and Lake Tekapo (New Zealand) star trails were done with fairly large telescopes. Here is a longer version of the New Zealand video: ruclips.net/video/9QP1fqhN7IE/видео.html
+The Quagmire do these star trails show that the earth is spinning on its axis and orbiting the Sun at the same time, because I'm not seeing it.
+Ace Ofbass I'm not sure I understand the question. The star trails say nothing really about our orbit around the Sun. The trails have exposure times ranging from a few hours to 10 hours. In that time frame, the Earth moves very little around the Sun.
Since flat-Earthers don't believe a South pole exists, believing instead that Antarctica is an ice-wall surrounding the disk world, the existence of a pole in the South around which stars rotate is a problem for them.
+Ace Ofbass It's proof that there really is a south pole. And isn't that proof of a globe? Your fuck-wit "model" doesn't even have a south pole. Without a south pole, what are your southern stars circling around? They circle in OPPOSITE directions in each pole. If your "model" is just a flat disc, the stars should mix and the constellations would be mixed beyond recognition. How could they not?
+Justwantahover I'm not sure what the problem is, but all of your comments were hung up in the spam filter for some reason. I just now discovered them and released them.
Eric Dubay's Credencials: Yoga and Wing Chun instructor. Well, If we were to simple base people's credentials on what their professions are... Jesus' credentials would be a Carpenter that never practiced his craft beyond his adolescent years. Yet, he's the Son of God. So, they both must be liars since they are not a world-renowned, socially accepted and "esteemed" Physician, or scientists, or astrologer...
Let me put it this way. Fuck Eric Dubay and the horse he rode in on.
Hey! Full stop. Check yourself at the door.
I like horses!
Next time I have a tooth ache I will go to the tailor since professional qualifications mean nothing.
Earth is a sphere, but is a concave earth sphere, and we live inside....
Get with the program?🤣🤣🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I couldn't understand if you were proving the earth was flat or a sphere. This seems to prove it is flat and the stars are moving, because if the earth is moving at an axis the stars would not be circular.
Yes they are, why wouldn't they?
Ya and how fake are your southern star trail rotation? Extremely bullshit.. they are all computer generated rotations and not camera generated.
there are 400.000 plus videos about flat earth, this questions have been answered do your research before, is your homework ;)
+Daniel Fuenzalida 399,999 of those are about calling each other retards though.
Calamus056
jajaj kind of true cant deny there is a lot of fighting and shilling etc... but there are some pretty neat channels and videos that show ever little aspect, im still investigating as well and still have found flaws in all models.
Daniel Fuenzalida Yeah, i don't even care about the shape of earth. I just want NASA to release 24/7 livestream (from launch to orbit) so we can irrefutably proof everything we want.
P.S.: There's no shilling going on, that's just everyone being retarded.
Calamus056
we have been so programmed to fight that we havent learn to talk or debate, it makes me angry as well, that is why even the simplest issue can generate inmense noise. That is something I have learned from this. Nevertheless i am developing my tolerance and patience and Im getting better at it :)
+Daniel Fuenzalida
PROOF OF GLOBE
The stars in the southern hemisphere (SH) prove globe. It's
observed that the stars in the SH circle the south celestial pole in ever
tightening circles. How could that happen when you haven't even got a south
pole? Your "model" requires the SH stars to only have wide arcs (not
complete circles) that are all wider than any circling in the NH, cos the SH
arcs would have to be "outside" all the NH circling stars (cos of the
way your "model" is). And (in your "model") SH stars path's
arcs are required to be up-side-down open arcs that are ever widening as we
look deeper south. But that is not what we observe! We observe exactly what we
see in the NH, ever tightening complete circles as we look deeper south, except
the stars are circling in the opposite direction (clockwise instead of
anti-clockwise). This is proof that there is indeed a south pole (and that is
proof of a globe). Let's make what we see fit with a flat earth. What are the
southern stars circling around if there is no south pole? And even worse (in a
flat earth) if the stars are circling in opposite directions in the north and
south (with only one pole and only one flat disc) the stars would mix and the
constellations would be mixed beyond recognition (how could they not). Don't
take my word for it, use a time-laps video camera to shoot the NH and the SH
stars, facing the camera north and south (in each hemisphere). What will you
see in the south in the SH? Ever widening up-side-down open arcs, going
anticlockwise? Or will it be ever tightening full circles, going clockwise? If
you see the former, you are right, but if you see the latter, the world is a
globe. It's that simple. Flat 0 Globe 1
Answer the question before you head off on a tangent and
IGNORE my question.