It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Star trails prove that the earth does not move?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by eriktheawful

Thanks, your first answer is by far the closest to understanding my problem, and probably solving it. I'm still not 100% clear as to why a long exposure shows no orbit at all but does show rotation, but that must be my mental problem as you seem to have it sorted

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by sinthia
reply to post by eriktheawful

Thanks, your first answer is by far the closest to understanding my problem, and probably solving it. I'm still not 100% clear as to why a long exposure shows no orbit at all but does show rotation, but that must be my mental problem as you seem to have it sorted

The problem is the exposure time.

Your eyes at night can see the stars, but the slowest exposure your eyes can do is about 1/5 of a second.
When I do astrophotography, using a SLR film camera, I expose my frames for about 15 seconds. this brings out not only the stars very well, but their colors too (which is why when you look at say Orion's nebula with your eyes it looks bluish grey, but on film that has been exposed for many seconds it's pinkish red.).

The stars are very far away, so even though we are spinning at 1,000 Mph, it takes awhile to see that movement, even with film, we have to expose the frames for many minutes before we see that movement quite well (the streaks).

Even if you were to use a camera, and expose the frame all night long, it's still not enough time to see the movement of the stars due to the Earth's orbit around the sun. You would need a night that lasts several days to do that, but we don't have that. But like I said in my earlier post, what we can do is observe the same spot in the sky at the exact same time each night, and note the position of the stars. You will see them shift, and that shows the Earth's movement around the sun.

Another good example of this is the moon. It would leave a streak too, but from the earth's rotation. Yet we know that the moon is also moving around us in it's orbit, faster than the earth spins. BUT, the moon has to travel a lot longer distance around the Earth, than the Earth is round. Because of that, it does not look like the moon is really moving when we take pictures of it either.

Just keep in mind this: light goes 186,000 miles per second. That's FAST. Yet, it takes 8 minutes for it to get from the sun to us. Your finger, if you move it 1 foot from left to right as fast as you can, is much, much, much slower than the speed of light. Yet it takes a LOT less time for your finger to move 1 foot than it does light to go 93,000,000 miles!

So it's all about how far away something is, not the speed actually.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by sinthia
reply to post by eriktheawful

Thanks, your first answer is by far the closest to understanding my problem, and probably solving it. I'm still not 100% clear as to why a long exposure shows no orbit at all but does show rotation, but that must be my mental problem as you seem to have it sorted

Going back to my post from the previous page about Summer constellations versus Winter constellations:

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The fact that we have "Summer constellations" and "Winter constellations" shows were are moving around the Sun.

For example, the constellation of "Orion" is visible only in the late fall/Winter/spring. That's because the part of the earth facing away from the Sun at that time (the night side of the Earth) is facing toward Orion. During the summer, when the Earth has moved around to the other side of the Sun, Orion would then be on the side of the Earth facing the Sun (the daytime side), and thus would not be visible, because Orion would be in the daytime sky

If there was a total solar eclipse during a summer day, and the sunlight was blocked, the stars we would see in the sky during that summer daytime eclipse would be the same stars we see on a winter night.

Image Source

The stars are so far away from earth that the small changes in the point-of-view of these stars from the earth as it orbits are extremely hard to notice.

However, with the right equipment, we CAN see the small changes in the position of a star as the earth orbits around the Sun. In fact, astronomers use this concept in trying to determine the distance a star is from earth. They use a method called "parallax" to look at the tiny differences in the position of a star during different times of the year. Those tiny differences can be used in a calculation that can determine the distance, as explained in this link:

How do astronomers measure the distance to stars?

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Brilliant!! (no pun intended).

This post of yours, and the link, is what I attempted to explain back on Page 2.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by intergalactic fire

Depending on what you are talking about.
But normally speaken, rotation is the cicular movement of an object around it's axis or around another object.

You are correct....but, the problem ( in the English language, anyways ) is with the 'baggage' that certain words and terms carry.

Depends so much on the context.

Example (if I may digress?):

'rotation' the context of this discussion, i.e. the Earth....means, a spinning orb in space. Another "context" of 'rotation' (or 'rotate') might refer to one's car, and the tires....being moved. Or, to stock in inventory, for a business...or....etc, etc..


The word "revolution" is equally rife with possible other interpretations. (I think we can all, with a bit of reflection, begin to see why?).

So, the context is key, in any conversation. This is usually not difficult to discern, when speaking face-to-face...but in Forums such as this, it can lead to confusion.

Just sayin'...........

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by eriktheawful

Been thinking about this, and can we modify your example?
If your skyscraper is 2 miles high with the mother of all light beacons on top, your flat bed truck travelling a 67mph and the carousel revolving at 1mph, and by chance the road we have is straight.
We know that the beacon is not moving as it is attached to the earth via the skyscaper. We have an excellent camera with a 3 hour exposure, surely the movement along the road will have a more visible effect than the rotation of the carousel?

(not ignoring soylent, but my mind can only boggle one thing at a time)

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by sinthia

I really hope the few of us who are trying to help will be able, collectively, to aid your understanding.

One thing is, a question: Can you re-assure everyone that you are able to think in three dimensions?

Because, this is vital!

Being able to think and visualize in "3D" is particularly important in understanding the complexity of the motions of the stars, and planets in our Galaxy!

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:45 AM
reply to post by ProudBird

The illustration under discussion is 3d. What I don't understand in the illustration of the modified flatbed truck is why a 1mph rotation of the carousel on the flatbed truck is visable, but the 67mph straight line of the truck is not visable, all from looking at the same object (the beacon on top of the skyscraper). Thinking in 3d has little to do with the photograph produced, which I doubt would be startrail like. I could understand a startrail being produced by the 1mph carousel rotating over 3hours and the truck being stationary, but not when the truck travels at 67mph.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:54 AM
Maybe this yt can show the 3d perspective.

edit on 6/5/12 by D.Wolf because: typo

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by sinthia

Different symptoms of the orbit and rotation of solar entities are observable over different periods of time. For instance, the rotation of the earth produces star trails that are observable over 24 hours. Near the other extreme, precession causes changes in the way constellations are perceived on the horizon (plus maximum 'height' in the sky) over a 26,000 year period - that is a very small percentage change per night and so not directly observable via the naked eye or the average photograph set up to capture star trails.

It is worthwhile getting an astronomy program that displays the night sky at different points in time. The changes are then obvious and it will probably 'click' as to why you can't see the changes on a star-trail photograph.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by sinthia

Okay, while I like the videos posted, they are not showing you from your perspective (IE standing on the Earth looking up).

So I'm going to take my example (carousel on flat bed truck and building) and I used 3ds Max to make the animation for you.

Here is the set up. The blue box is the flat bed truck. I have it moving to the left at 100 feet per second. The purple cylinder is the carousel with a fixed camera attached to it, always looking out. The carousel is rotating at 1 turn every 10 seconds, so you will only see the building for half of that.

the view:

I made a hot pink skyscraper that is 2 miles away from the truck:

Now here is the video with everything going. As you can see, the pink building moves across your FOV quickly, yet movement of the building due to the truck moving is hard to see, except when the building comes back into view. This is exactly what I'm talking about:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by eriktheawful

Wow, thanks for going to so much effort! I see the movement, but am still not convinced it explains what is in effect a single albeit long exposure. Maybe I should look into 3d max

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 02:54 AM
just seen price of 3d max......perhaps not lol

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by sinthia

You can always try Blender, it's free (but a little strange).

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:48 AM
Is this thread real life?

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:49 AM
Yah, Autodesk has some rather high prices for their 3D software, heh. This is an old student copy (version 7.0).

Okay, instead of trying to show you that we are moving around the sun in an orbit, let's take a look at what the blog/website author is saying:

The supposed rotation of the Earth is said to produce a 15 degree arc every hour (360 degrees divided by the 24 hours). At the North pole virtually no distance is covered (more like standing on a revolving platform). At the equator the distance 'travelled' in one hour in meant to be 1670 km, (40080ish Km of the equator / 24 hours). This movement of up to 1670km/hr is the explanation given for the star trail. Yet, in this same length of time (1 hour) Earth is also meant to have travelled 108,000 km on its journey around the Sun! That is more than 64 times the distance that is said to be photographed on a star trail picture. Why is this far greater movement not reflected in the star trail photograph? Answer - simple, because the movement does not take place.


Now, several of us on here have shown you that the reason you will not see any movement other than the Earth's rotation, is because of how far away the stars are, yet you do see the movement if you look at the other planets in our solar system, because 1) they are a LOT closer to us and, 2) They themselves are orbiting the sun too.

Notice how in his document, the author skips the motion of the other planets. No mention of them at all.

The author of that document would have people believe that the universe as we know it rotates around us, that the Earth is stationary.

Think about that for a moment. If that were true, then we'd have to throw the laws of physics out the window. Orbital Mechanics and Gravitation would be false and not work at all.

There would be no satellites. No cell phones, no GPS.

The stars that are so far away from us, in order to "go around and orbit us" would have to exceed the speed of light, due to the distance they are at, and the distance they would have to travel.

We've had space probes going out to the other planets and the sun itself since the 1960's. We know that the Earth orbits the sun, as do the other planets. We know their size and mass. There is NO way that objects that massive can orbit the Earth.

This person would have you disregarding everything we have learned going back to Nicolaus Copernicus. To go back to believing things that were thought prior to 1543.

There is a really good reason that the author of that website has posted what they have. They do not believe in science nor the scientific method, but instead believe in religion. From their document:

The universe did not spring out of nothingness, all by itself, 4.6 billion years ago. Life did not 'happen' all by itself. Humans were not primates, fish, or pond scum at any point in their lineage. The Earth and Universe was formed exactly like the Word of God says it was in the Holy Bible.

The universe is over 13 billion years old (not 4.6), and even science does not say it sprang from nothingness. It sprang from a super dense point: Big Bang.

They are also saying that Biology and Evolution is false.

Instead, they want you to completely disregard science completely and instead embrace the Holy Scripture of the Christian bible as the final word on everything.........

:shrugging: You can do that if you want, and live with blinders on your head. Simply forget how everything around you, your cell phone, your GPS in your car, your car itself, your freezer, your computer, the medicine your doctor prescibes you, the biology of medicine, etc, etc, etc was discovered and works because of the scientific method, and instead embrace religion as your answer for everything.

However, IMHO, the only thing religion has ever given human beings is: war, hate, and oppression of mankind's progress. Just think of how much more advanced we'd be if western culture had not suffered over 1,000 years of being oppressed by the Holy Church (deviate from scripture, and you're burned at the stake for being a heretic).

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 08:35 AM
Check out what Nassim Haramein says about the orbit of the earth. He says there is not evidence tha we even orbit the sun.

Earth Is Not Orbiting The Sun in the way we were taught More to do with Something Wrong With The Sun Moon & Earth series. STOP PRESS !! !! ..... View New OFFICIAL Info: 4 Magnetic Poles Forming On The Sun In May 2012 PLEASE Click Here

Here we find an understanding of Why the Earth & our solar system do not actually orbit the Sun as taught, "Rather", We follow or better still, are dragged by the Sun in a Spiral Pattern through the universe & time.

This video offers explanations how, besides spinning on its axis and rotating as if going 'Around' the Sun, the Earth is shown to 'Follow' the Sun's movement through the Milky Way galaxy, in a continuous Spiral, not a Flat elliptical plane, thus we find a 3D universe as opposed to the accepted 2D.

** Believe it or not, there is no empirical evidence that the Earth actually orbits the sun ! **

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 08:58 AM

Okay, first, the sun does NOT move "thousands of miles per second" around the center of the galaxy.

It moves at about 220 km per second.


I'll give him this: he is right, in that the Earth's position in space, in reference to where we are in the Milky Way changes because the sun moves around the center of the galaxy.

However, our position relative to the sun is an elliptical orbit. You can think of our position in the galaxy as a spiral, in relation to where we are and the center of the galaxy.

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:10 AM
Here is a distance reference that you might be able to get your brain around.
Distance from the Earth to the Sun is 93 million miles.

Convert that to inches.
Distance from Earth to the Sun is now 93 inches. (Less than 8 feet)
At the same scale.
Distance from Earth to the NEAREST star is 400 miles.
Distance to the 50th nearest star is 1500 miles.

The wobble the Earth does around the Sun

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:14 AM
What a silly topic. Stars that are so far way seem to be not moving at all.

<< 1  2   >>

log in