“Even though it is circling across your field of view, it is still going to be converged at one point.”
That is not the way he explains it in the video. “Converged at one point,” is in reference to it circling at one point, NOT it being stationary in the sky. He specifically says it will move across your field of view a couple times in the video.
At 17:17 he says,
“Well the stars move around at each other’s night time.” (Actual quote, he talks funny)
That is in reference to how different people looking south at different parts of the equator would see the same stars (but at different times).
The video you presented SPECIFICALLY says the southern stars will move across the field of vision and throughout the night so that people anywhere south of the Equator will see the same stars, but at different times.
If that was true there should be lateral movement throughout the night. That movement would get picked up in time-lapse photography. So, show me the movement.
Why are you foaming at the mouth to argue with me? Seems like a waste of time.
And in none of my comments did I “foam at the mouth.”
I didn’t name call, belittle, use sarcasm, or profanity. Even though I was the recipient of such. I was respectful to everyone who responded. I respectfully disagreed with several and stated my position.
In the video you sent, at the 18:38 mark, he claims that Octantis is circling the southern rim of the flat Earth. But due to perspective, it converges at one point.
“Even though it is circling across your field of view, it is still going to be converged at one point.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE
IF, the SCP circles across to the whole southern rim of the flat Earth, THEN we would see considerable movement throughout the night.
So, show me a time-lapse that shows Octantis (SCP) moving across the field of view. Just one.
“Debunkers really don't touch why NASA fakes things, do they?”
Why do they have to? Just because one thinks the flat Earth model is wrong does not mean they think NASA never lies.
“why are you foaming at the mouth to "prove" one?”
When did I ever do that? I never once tried to “prove” one. I simply pointed out that the existence to two celestial poles DISPROVES the flat Earth model. And it does.
What you are saying is demonstrably wrong.
The stars around the SCP are not random stars that change shape or size. They are well known. The SCP is in the constellation of Octans. Octans is visible from ANY point in the southern hemisphere. When you get north of the Equator you can not see it anymore.
The constellation Octans is what makes up the inner circles in time-lapses of the SCP. Octans DOES NOT get smaller and smaller the farther north you go until it is imperceptible, as you claim.
The North Celestial Pole is the same way. You can view the North Star from anywhere from the Northern Hemisphere. Once you go south of the Equator, you can no longer view it.
You can’t find any star that is north of the North Star, because all other stars in the Northern Hemisphere revolve around it. The stars that are on the “north” side of the North Star will eventually be on the south side as they revolve. That is how we know it is the northernmost star.
No star is south of the SCP, because all stars in the Southern Hemisphere revolve around it. Any star you see on the “south” side of the SCP will eventually be on the north side as it revolves. That is how we know it is the southernmost star.
Regardless of whether you believe in flat Earth or globe Earth… the NCP and SCP are the ONLY two celestial poles visible from anywhere on Earth. The poles NEVER revolve around any other point REGARDLESS of our perception on earth. Both poles function IDENTICALLY. There is NO fundamental difference between the NCP and SCP when it comes to their movements or how we perceive them from Earth. At the Equator you can view both Celestial Poles at the horizon north and south of you. The SCP is not just an illusion caused by perception. It is a tangible, consistent, measurable, testable, provable point in space… just like the North Star.
No matter how far south you go, you will NEVER find a star south of the SCP. No matter how north you go, you will NEVER find a star north of the NCP.
Prove me wrong, find ONE star that is south of the SCP.
“(NOT of things that are NOT it, and/or are in the opposite direction of it - like the sky)”
Do you also not believe in algebra? Algebra is the process of determining the value of “X” by comparing “X” to the known values of things around it.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
We can all see and test this. It does NOT fit into the flat Earth model.
“South America, South Africa, or Australia, it is all the same latitude. As long as you are on the same latitude, you will see the same stars circles in the sky, just at different time in the night.”
At ANY latitude line south of the Equator you will see the Southern Celestial Pole… EVERY night. Look it up. Test it. If you could find ONE instance where the Southern Celestial Pole (SCP) revolves around any other point you will prove me wrong. If you CAN’T find an example of that or demonstrate it, wouldn’t that mean I am right?
“We can not see the Southern Celestial Pole in the northern hemisphere, as it is to far away, and would be below the horizon.”
I thought both of you said the SCP was the result of perspective, not an actual point. IF that was the case, THEN we would see the stars revolving to the south too… at any latitude. By saying the SCP can disappear below the horizon, you are ADMITTING that the SCP is a tangible spot and not just a spot from our perspective.
“as the north star stands stationary in the sky, always”
The North Star is not perfectly centered. It also circles slightly, as seen in the time-lapse video I sent. The North Star also changes every so often.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
Anyone with a smartphone or time-lapse camera can test and duplicate the results.
I looked into FE and found a huge flaw. One I haven’t seen a good explanation for. The closest thing to an explanation I was presented is “perspective makes it look that way.” The problem with that explanation is, the southern celestial pole wouldn’t consistently revolve around the same point if that was the case. The southern celestial pole ALWAYS revolves around the same point REGARDLESS of perspective.
As far as other problems that may or may not be with any other theories, that is another debate. My infographic demonstrates that 2 celestial poles do not fit into the flat Earth theory.
If you care to present another explanation as to how “2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth,” could fit into the flat Earth model, I am VERY interested in hearing it.
A secondary thing to explain to me, why is the Equator the only place on Earth where you can see both spirals?
)))III((( <- like this
Whether you are in South America, South Africa, or Australia… if you take a time-lapse photo of the stars at night, you will see the Southern Celestial Pole. In ALL THREE locations, EVERY NIGHT. In all three places, the stars will be revolving around the same point. No matter what latitude you are at in the Southern Hemisphere.
His explanation does not come close to explaining that.
Why can’t we see the Southern Celestial Pole in the northern hemisphere? By his explanation, we should be able to see it at any location (or at least some type of southern circular movement).
Why is the Equator (at ANY point) the only latitude we can see both circles? )))II((( as seen in the Equator time lapse.
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
IF his explanation is true, THEN we would expect to see different “celestial poles” (what we would perceive as such anyway) circling different locations as our perspective changes. But regardless of your location in the southern hemisphere, the southern celestial pole is alway in the same location (compared to the stars around it).
IF his explanation is true, THEN the center of the celestial pole would converge on the horizon at the point our field of vision ends, just like the SUN’s rays do in his example. In other words, we wouldn’t see full circles up in the sky, we would see half circles at the horizon. But we don’t see that. What we do see… the farther south you go, the higher the south celestial pole gets in the sky. The farther north you go, the higher the north celestial pole gets in the sky… but they both ALWAYS revolve around the same point regardless.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
ANYWHERE on the Northern Hemisphere (N. American to Russia) you can see the northern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, the North Star.
ANYWHERE on the Southern Hemisphere (S. America to Australia) you can see the southern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, that just so happens to not have a star.
These results NEVER vary and anyone can recreate the results.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistent, disproves the flat Earth theory.
And anyone can track the stars with time-lapse photography.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistent, disproves the flat Earth theory.
That is an interesting explanation for why we perceive star trails the way we do, but it falls WAY short of explaining away the 2, and ONLY 2, celestial poles we can see from Earth. They DO NOT vary based on our position on Earth, other than only seeing the N. Pole in the N hemisphere & S. Pole in S. Hemisphere.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
IF the celestial poles are caused by us perceiving the stars getting farther away, THEN we would expect the poles center point to vary based on how far away we are… but we do not see this.
ANYWHERE on the Northern Hemisphere (N. American to Russia) you can see the northern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, the North Star.
ANYWHERE on the Southern Hemisphere (S. America to Australia) you can see the southern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, that just so happens to not have a star.
These results NEVER vary and anyone can recreate the results.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistent, disproves the flat Earth theory.
We should all make predictions based on our hypothesis and test to see if those predictions are correct.
Depending on where you are on the Earth (north, south, or equator), the time-lapse celestial image will consistently reflect your location. These results are recreatable by anyone with a time-lapse app or camera.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
What other shape could have the same results? https://imgur.com/a/kfnyqUN
A)ANYONE with a time lapse camera can find the celestial pole (center).
B)Depending on where you are on the Earth (north, south, or equator), the time-lapse celestial image will consistently reflect your location. These results are recreatable by anyone with a time-lapse app or camera.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
C)Will you ignore the time-lapse evidence that anyone can recreate?
D)It implies we live in a world of three dimensions.
There are several examples showing the same results. Anyone can recreate the results themselves. And the results DO NOT fit into the flat Earth theory, but works perfectly with the globe model.
NASA might lie about a lot of stuff, but the northern and southern poles are real. Their existence disproves the flat Earth theory.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
There are several examples showing the same results. ANYONE can recreate the results themselves. And the results DO NOT fit into the flat Earth theory.
The absence of a southern star does not disprove the southern celestial pole.
NASA might lie about a lot of stuff, but the northern and southern celestial poles are real. Anyone can look for themselves.
Please tell me what part is wrong so I can learn.
- The data you used is from 14 Dec 2020.
- That data does NOT adjust for vaccination rate over time.
- Without accounting for vaccination rate over time, the data can’t accurately compare the two groups. For the 1st few months close to 100% of the population was unvaccinated.
As you said in another comment, “You don't understand the math. Take for example, if 100% of the population were vaccinated, a very small number would still die. In that case ,100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people.”
You tried to use the totals to prove something that it couldn’t… I called you out for not accounting for the vaccine rollout… you moved the goalpost.
You were wrong to try to use the totals to prove your point. You did not account for the vaccination rates over time.
“I can go by either totals back to dec 2020…”
NO YOU CAN’T. Not with the available data. I’m not saying you couldn’t potentially find additional sources of data to make your point… I’m saying, using the available data in this source, you CAN’T because it doesn’t account for vaccination rate over time.
“…or take the last month.”
You CAN do that… and the guy you responded to CAN use the last week of data.
You have to admit, the last reported week’s data is interesting. I for one want to see if a trend develops.
You are wrong. The numbers you provided are from 14 Dec 2020 to 17 Apr 2022. Move the goalpost all you want.
What part of my argument is wrong? Are you claiming that the totals DON’T date back to December 14, 2020… it does. Or are you claiming the vaccination rate wasn’t very low in the first few months of the vaccine rollout... it was.
You are arguing as if they pulled a random week out that showed the data they wanted to see. They used the last reported week. The data is following a trend showing lower and lower efficacy over time.
Is this one week’s data the strongest evidence ever? No.
Is it note worthy? Yes.
Is it in line with several other sources showing a decline in efficacy over time? Yes.
“Detailed case information received by PHAC from provinces and territories, since December 14, 2020”
What is that? 3 days after the vax was offered to the public. What was the vax rate for the 1st few months to year? Don’t you think that can skew the “totals” drastically?
“It leaves out totals. Let's compare totals:”
Anyone with basic math skills and reasoning would know that the “totals” date back to a time when the mass majority of the population was unvaccinated… making the totals completely unusable without adjusting for vaccination rate over time.
Surprised someone with your math skills could overlook something so obvious
I don’t own rentals… so that doesn't apply to me.
But fyi, I have friends that got fucked over by the tenants not paying rent thing… I was/ am against it.
The property taxes on my first home are almost nothing (because I qualify for a homesteads exemption for my state. And what LITTLE I do pay is MORE than made up for with the crops and animals I can raise being a property owner.
My 2nd property is an emergency / investment property. I wanted a property/ home I owned in cash, so I paid for 2 acres of land that had no zoning and built an off grid home all in cash. Being in an unincorporated area taxes are minimal (less than $50 a year).
So… I’m good. But if you think property tax make home ownership not worth it… why are you bitching about how hard it is to own a home?
FYI, TONS of assets require annual payments… cars, planes, trucks, boats, RVs, most animals, and trailers. Not to mention almost ALL assets require a place to store them… so you’ll need to rent or own a place to keep all your assets.
Enjoy paying for your landlords property taxes, chump.
At the 17 minutes mark he specifically says otherwise. Perhaps he is just contradictory.
Stand on railroad tracks and you will experience the same optical illusion as anticrepuscular rays. As the railroad gets further away, it will appear to get less wide and eventually converge at a point. Like a football shape, with the widest part being where you are standing. But in reality, the road is parallel. The same thing happens to the Sun’s rays. The rays are not actually spreading out and then coming back together. They are parallel.
If the Sun’s rays are not parallel, find me ONE example where the observer is not right underneath the widest part. Just like standing on railroad tracks, the perceived widest part is at the observer and it gets narrower in either direction.