However, this does not prove that the star does not exist.
Sigma Octantis is apparently motionless, just like the star Polaris, and southern hemisphere observers see southern hemisphere stars orbiting Sigma Octantis.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo
The reason why the stellar rotations in the two different hemispheres are opposite is because the celestial sphere as known as firmament spins on its axis west to east, causing the stars in the northern hemisphere to appear rotating counterclockwise, the stars in the equator to appear rotating straight, and the stars in the southern hemisphere to appear rotating clockwise.
Sorry if this was addressed already: If I lived on the equator, would I be able to photograph parts of both a north and south star trail?
As an aside, I have believed the Earth is flat for about 2-3 years, and find it fascinating how some churches dance around the issue. I remember when I found this book about flat Earth Cosmology written by “Cosmas Indicapleudes” in 550 AD, by a Greek monk living in Egypt, (but found and released around 1846) and showed it to Coptic Christians and they had a meltdown when they saw it. One of the oldest books about the “stereoma” in their own coptic language, why the horror? Who says that only those who spin at 1000 mph can ascend to heaven? I will stop ranting shortly, but one of the hardest concepts for me was wondering where exactly we were ascending to if we were on a globe?
I would think that most people in this forum probably agree that there is a Fabian Socialist Agenda for a NWO. Irrespective of the true model, since I lack evidence of the definitive cosmology, I am reluctant to adopt a model that facilitates this NWO.
One other perspective, if you have kids in the USA, as I do, you notice that they are targeted with the globe, aliens, rocket ships, dinos etc… Since popular culture and mass media target kids spending tons of money to keep kids engaged with media - of all the things they could brainwash kids with the focus on things like naming pets Pluto and toys Buzz Lightyear etc. - and this has been constant beginning with Jules Verne who invented the idea to fly into space.
At any rate, If it weren’t for people debating the FE, I would not be aware of how vitally important it is to the point that Baptist preschools of all places explain the solar system to a 3 year old. But what interests me most is how things got this way, where 60 year old women felt the need to explain how orbits work in a church to a 3 year old. There are many more bizarre examples like this. Anyway, my apologies if I repeated anything in this thread… it’s a long one.
Every other planet in our solar system, which anyone can view with a telescope and some knowledge of astronomy, is spherical.
I would need a reference for this one, as to how a telescope proves sphericity. Having “knowledge of astronomy” is not a proof in it of itself because astronomy (and other disciplines) operate on fundamental assumptions already discussed here.
While I have to review how flight paths prove sphericity when 90+% of flights concetrate on the northern hemisphere, I certainly would like to dispute the popular statement that NASA is underfunded. NASA is organized crime in the way that they make new consultants millionaires everytime they contract outside. They spend tax dollars, thats it.
Last,
Finding examples of people believing the Earth is flat is not evidence that the Earth is flat. It is evidence that people believe the Earth is flat.
I hope I proved that believing in a globe isn’t an achievement, because it is agenda no. 1 in the targeted western upbringing of children. And that is not proof of a spinning globe.
If I were to argue, let’s just say, against heliocentrism, I would do so because I have found even “great” scientists manufacture arguments in the vain attempts to prove their belief system.
Einstein: “But all experiments have shown that electro-magnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the Earth as the body of reference, are not influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth. The most important of those experiments are those if Michelson and Morley, which I shall assume are known. The validity of the principle of special relativity can therefore hardly be doubted.” Page 29 Special Relativity.
Einstein and others assume the Earth as a Globe as scientific fact, allowing them to prove that the earth doesn’t spin. Most people do not argue for geocentrism, so they must reconcile these fallacious arguments and ignorance of basic physics history in developing a cosmology of theirs.
Einstein: Life and Times page 110: “ For there seemed to be only three alternstives. The first was the at the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable”.
Stephen Hawking, the Grand Design, page 31-42 “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican System? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming the earth or the sun to be at rest.”
Einstein has admitted that Ether drift “appears decisive” p. 58, general relativity.
Since the globe theory relies on the big bang theory, numerous foundational contradictions are revealed in the books of all of the great scientists of the fields of astrophysics. For example, Hawking in a brief history of time admits that the universe is far younger “…It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appear red shifted…” p.39
George Ellis (who had coauthored with Hawking), stated in scientific american, 273(4), 1995:55 “People need to be aware that there id a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetric universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmologytries to hide that.”
I dont know if you ever read what George Ellis admitted there but he is basically stating that modern astrophysics is not as scientific as you think- right in their peer reviewed journal.
Having seen that paper, and all of these admissions from the fathers of this cosmology, how could one not be a skeptic?
and there are so many more physics authors who have to quietly admit the flaws and fallacies in logic- in their books and in random statements that go unnoticed.
“Cosmic microwaves Show The Earth Is The Center of The Universe”. See Sungenis, R. Geocentrism 101, pp. 189-195, re. schwarz et al., , “Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?” (2004), “Since the dipole axis lies so close to the equinoxes, this may be viewed as an alignment with the equinoxes”.
“…In other words, if a line were drawn connecting the center points of the universe, it would cross the Earth’s equator.” P. 193. Sungenis
Thanks for hanging through this long reply, but as you can see, I don’t have to craft my own arguments for you to try to disprove, all I have to do is cite physicists who have created your cosmology, and you can see that even the physicists cannot agree on their own model that everyone takes for granted.
The Earth appears as the center of the cosmological microwave background radiation, see Kothari et al.(2013, “Dipole Anisotropy in flux density and source count…”) In other words, “the universe is physically divided in two hemisphere’s along the Earth’s equator” (cf. Sungenis p. 197)
How is that possible? So for me, I can follow the papers and say, there is much more going on than this globe model that they want everyone ti believe in.
I leave you with the title by Ashok K. Singa in 2013 ,”Is there a violation of the Copernican Principle in Radio Sky?”
He says, “There is certainly a cause for worry. Is there a breakdown of the Copernican Principle as things seen in two regions of sky divided purely by a coordinate system based on earth’s orientation in space, shows a very large anisotropy in source distribution?”
