Need a hand debunking please (regarding Polaris)

Hey Guys

I have been in debate with the author of this blog (link below)about His beliefs and hypothesis of a 'flat Earth'.

I am on the 'globe Earth' side by the way.I will copy and paste a reply He has given me regarding Polaris,He says it is "conclusive proof that the Earth is flat"

So would any one of the diligent members of ATS be able to counter His response with a decent explanation?

Here is His response:

"The stars revolve around the sky dome like in a planetarium, all the fixed stars maintain their relative positions and the constellations follow a 26,000 year procession. This is all movement of the stars, however, NOT a "wobble" from the "ball-Earth." The position of Polaris has been said to move very slightly over long periods of time, but it always remains right above the North Pole and all the other stars revolve around it as seen in star trail time lapses.

Just take a close look at the star trail photos shown in the article. For those to happen on a spinning ball-Earth, the Earth would have to be doing 360 degree loop-de-loops! If the ball-Earth is simply spinning on its axis, star trail photos should show all the stars moving fairly horizontally across the sky. For them to be filmed making perfect circles around Polaris at varying latitudes all over the Earth proves conclusively that it is the stars moving around the fixed Earth, and not the Earth spinning on an axis. Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac and Kantor's experiments also proved it is the stars moving relative to us and not the other way around. Their experiments are not debated or denied anywhere, simply suppressed and ignored."

Here is the blog as well,He does highlight some interesting points,but personally i am un-convinced.There are three articles relating to the 'flat earth' if you choose to read into this further and the comments are very interesting and a recommended read as well.

www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...

Thanks in advance

a reply to: EndOfDays77

LOL.
Thanks for the chuckle.
I've personally circumnavigated the globe on commercial airlines. I'd like to hear how that is explained if the Earth has edges.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

This should do it:
debunk polaris argument

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Always trust Krazysh0t to be quick on the debunking draw.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Heh. Luckily (or not?) most of the arguments from these pseudo-science topics have been argued forever so even if I'm not personally familiar with the argument, debunking it is a quick google search away (plus an opportunity to learn something).

a reply to: EndOfDays77

First of all, I don't understand how he came up with this point of contention:

"If the ball-Earth is simply spinning on its axis, star trail photos should show all the stars moving fairly horizontally across the sky. For them to be filmed making perfect circles around Polaris at varying latitudes all over the Earth proves conclusively that it is the stars moving around the fixed Earth, and not the Earth spinning on an axis."

He states (as if it is fact) that the stars should move in a fairly horizontal path across the sky, but he doesn't explain why. It seems rather obvious to me that it I were on a merry-go-round, and I was tracking the path (from my perspective) of an object above me outside of that merry-go-round, the object would appear to be moving on a circular path. Why does he think otherwise?

Also, if the Earth were flat, then why can't the people of Australia see Polaris? If we were all on the top surface of the disk, then why does (what we spherical-Earthers call) the Southern Hemisphere see a different set of stars than what we call the Northern Hemisphere?


As for the part of your link where the guy discusses Tycho Brahe's assertion about the parallax of stars, he seems to ignore that fact that we CAN IN FACT discern a parallax when viewing stars between 6-month periods as the earth moves around the Sun. The stars are too distant for Tycho to detect the parallax using equipment of his time because that equipment was not precise enough. However, the precision equipment of today (and even since the 19th century, although with less precision) enables us to detect the minute difference in relative star positions when viewed from different sides of the Sun.

Here is more information on how astronomers use parallax to determine star distances:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I'm not sure why the guy who wrote the blog the OP references implies that stellar parallax does not exist, because it does, and it is measurable. It seems like he is making strawman arguments.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

His theory can be debunked, by a man sending his sons toy train into space with equipment that cost no more than $500.

He should try it.

a flat earth would be super-neato. or a cube. sadly, all available evidence points determinedly to a spherical form.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Your'e welcome!

This gentlemen almost has an answer for everything.I have not been satisfied with His responses whilst debating and He has glossed over many valid points and evidence made to counter His beliefs.

If you fancy some humour? then maybe read the blogs of His about 'flat earth'..saying that, it is an excellent site (for the most part) which does uncover some sensitive 'real' exposures IMO.

I am of the thinking..either: He may have been riding high on His successes and gone off track in a delusion?..or it is an attempt to shamefully gain attention to sell books (He's not the first) or possibly He was 'approached' (as He has a large following in the critical thinking movement) and warned to steer people off coarse.I have seen a surge recently, regarding 'flat earth' speakers/beliefs and i truly believe this could possibly be an attempt by TPTB, to confuse the critical thinking movement to the existence of Planet X?

Crazy times hey?

Thanks for chiming in there!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lovely job! i'll have a peruse of the link soon thanks!

I will also provide this link to the author and see how He can manage His way out of that..

You're quick off the mark there Krazyshot or should i say quick shot!

Much appreciated!

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

After reading this post, i feel daft considering what i wrote to Krazyshot,your post mirrors mine..thanks for joining in though! the more heads the better!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Too true!

Like i said i am not a believer in this theory,but the Author has 'borrowed' some good data (aside from the polaris slant) i would like to see some presented on ATS by Him,maybe He can make a guest appearance lol? He'll need a thick skin perhaps.

One more thing that comes to mind,is 'the cannon ball experiment' in which it is claimed, when they are fired in all directions,there is no noticable difference? they even say that when fired upward,the balls would always land within 2 feet of the canon (even practically landing back in the cannon) so this He claims is proof that we are not rotating as such? what's your take on that Krazyshot?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yeah,that's a really good (first) point and you illustrated it perfectly..i did present actual evidence that was contrary to His and that was the response i received,He seemed to also suggest that Polaris was 'fixed' and what i provided suggested otherwise.

As for why He believes this?..well again i could say He may be high on previous successes or indeed pushing an agenda etc.I myself (of coarse) have a foot firmly placed in so called reality and laws of what we know..i do also accept that there is a lot of concealed info and grand secrets with regards to this reality and what is known(contradiction in terms really) i have personal proof that all is not what it seems..but the notion of a 'flat earth' is an exceptional jump in paradigm even for Me.

"Also, if the Earth were flat, then why can't the people of Australia see Polaris? If we were all on the top surface of the disk, then why does (what we spherical-Earthers call) the Southern Hemisphere see a different set of stars than what we call the Northern Hemisphere? "

Another great point right there (which i'll hit Him with) that in itself should cut the 'idea' in its' tracks.I assume He will have an answer,He relishes debate it seems,which i suppose He has to do in order to defend the content of His books and indeed credibility..i will be very interested on His response to this question I'll come back on here with that response (all being well)

Yep again a good point,a lot of this data is based on 'dated' info,i'll be honest i need to get my head around that example again,but i see your logic thus far and will trust it with regards to what you mentioned pertaining to Tyco Brahe's assertions.

A lot of this info as you say can be debated and debunked,have another peek at the blog (if possible) and see if you find anything that you genuinely think doesn't make sense i.e. data wise,it would be interesting to shoot this down some more.

Thanks for the detailed response..your a true ATSer!

a reply to: skyblueworld

Awesome video! i love the smiling and blinking the train makes, it's quite comical (fitting for the thread i suppose lol)

I can imagine the author saying that the curvature is not shown great enough in the video and therefore inconclusive? but it's all perspective i suppose? but the video is proof enough for Me..

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Too true!

Like i said i am not a believer in this theory,but the Author has 'borrowed' some good data (aside from the polaris slant) i would like to see some presented on ATS by Him,maybe He can make a guest appearance lol? He'll need a thick skin perhaps.

For a simpler version just tell him to ask an Australian to point the North star out in the sky while in Australia.

One more thing that comes to mind,is 'the cannon ball experiment' in which it is claimed, when they are fired in all directions,there is no noticable difference? they even say that when fired upward,the balls would always land within 2 feet of the canon (even practically landing back in the cannon) so this He claims is proof that we are not rotating as such? what's your take on that Krazyshot?

Well when things are set in motion they are set in motion in all the directions of motion that the object it left from is also moving. For instance if you fire a cannon west into the ocean while traveling south along the coast, not only will the ball be traveling west, it will also be traveling south as it flies through the air. Therefore if you extrapolate this out to a planetary level, the planet is spinning and traveling through space at hundreds of miles per hour. By the same token, so is everything on the surface of the planet. So when you shoot the cannon ball into the air in your example, it will continue to rotate at the same velocities and same directions as the planet. That is simple physics right there. Newton's laws of motion easily debunk that claim.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
a flat earth would be super-neato. or a cube. sadly, all available evidence points determinedly to a spherical form.

Indeedy!

I also highlighted (to the author) the fact that the Piri Ries map clearly shows Antarctica with precise detail illustrating it's form without ice..this was only 'officially' discovered in the 50s? if memory serves?...the map was a copy of much,much,much later versions and i contend this supports pole shift, as the Antarctic must have been in warmer more temperate climes for this to be notable surely?..therefore the mapping was only possible with a 'globe Earth'.. i also outlined other undeniable instances highlighting poleshifts in the past..He has yet to tackle that question..

Talking of maps..another contention of mine based on some curious info i have come by (at some point in the past) is that there are areas that are not officially on maps and there are suspicious indicators that all is not what it seems at the poles..and i'll put my neck on the block and say i do have suspicions regarding 'hollow Earth' one things for sure,i think maybe we can possibly all agree that there are lies afoot concerning 'the whole truth'..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Well when things are set in motion they are set in motion in all the directions of motion that the object it left from is also moving. For instance if you fire a cannon west into the ocean while traveling south along the coast, not only will the ball be traveling west, it will also be traveling south as it flies through the air. Therefore if you extrapolate this out to a planetary level, the planet is spinning and traveling through space at hundreds of miles per hour. By the same token, so is everything on the surface of the planet. So when you shoot the cannon ball into the air in your example, it will continue to rotate at the same velocities and same directions as the planet. That is simple physics right there. Newton's laws of motion easily debunk that claim."

Thanks for explaining that in further detail! of coarse this makes sense..a synchronicity of sorts no? He slammed Newton as it happens lol.

He also refers to "hegalian dialectic" being used by NASA and incorporated this into support His views,i must say, perhaps this term IS true of NASA? but most likely referring to their suppression of 'artifacts' and such shall we say, that are apparent on many planets/moons and indeed so called ETs?

He also claims that it is possible to see beyond the seeming horizon with a telescope..and what He says is the actual horizon is only as far as the eye can see and He claims the figures do not correlate with that of a 'globe Earth' and refers to it as more of a plane/plain? funny there was actually an ex-sailor that disputed this in the comment section,but this may have got 'conveniently' overlooked by Him.

It really is mystifying why He is vehemently pursuing this notion of a 'flat Earth' and with what yourself,the other members and I have brought forward,only confirms the 'globe Earth' more so.

Thanks again for adding some clarity!

Flat-Earthers always have a reason to explain away any contradictions to their belief system - "it's an optical illusion!"

So if the stars aren't visible at a particular position on the Earth - it's an optical illusion!

Isn't this just the holographic principle?


Oh, and OP?, what personal proof do you speak of?

I've found that a very simple way to posit that the earth is in fact, round, is to point to the multitude of rocket launches that have put satellites in orbit. A vast majority of rocket, upon leaving the pad, begin moving in an easterly direction. This is the most logical direction as this type launch utilizes the angular momentum of the spinning earth to add to the final orbital velocity of the satellite, thereby saving fuel.