Відео

What about the south celestial pole?

Two different celestial poles. The pole stars are just the bright stars that happen to be closest to each pole. In the north that's Polaris, and in the south the best we got is Sigma Octantis

I think those are long exposure shots

@@FFC231 like solargraphy?

You can achieve this with lots of patience, if your phone has pro option in camera app it allows shutter to stay open for 30secs, or actually has a star trail option. Time-lapse will work, but no trail. You will atill see the stars spinning circular.

Willst du damit sagen, dass sich der Nachthimmel nicht bewegt? Oder glaubst du nicht, dass sich der südliche und nördliche Nachhimmel nicht in zwei verschiedene Richtungen drehen? Weil das ziemlich einfach selber zu Filmen ist. Die Drehung des Himmels lässt sich als einzelne Momentaufnahme vielleicht noch mit einer flachen Erde erklären, aber mehrere simultane Beobachtungen des Himmels auf Nord-, Südhalbkugel und am Äquator mit den entsprechenden Sternenbewegungen... das macht leider nur auf einer Kugel Sinn.

Read the description of the video Unless you meant when in the video and not where on Earth, in which case listen for the kookaburra calls lol

2:44 Are you sure about that

@@javierlatorre480 since the video doesn't indicate in words which one is north and south I don't really know anymore but it all works on a flat earth

​@@FlatEarthJayNo it doesn't. The Flat Earth can't have two celestial poles. It 's not geometrically possible. And sure, the video itself doesn't specify filming locations, but it does name them in the description, and it changes the ambient noise from one location to the other to let you know when it has changed. Do note that the one in the north is the one that rotates anticlockwise, and the one in the south is the one that rotates clockwise.

@@javierlatorre480 you don't have to believe me, but I've seen it done in stellarium. The stars will rotate different directions based on perspective and maybe dome perspective and which direction you're looking while on each side. Have a nice day

@@FlatEarthJay The Flat Earth dome is ill-defined in how it looks, in any case, but it is pretty telling that it has to be incredibly complicated for the Flat Earth to replicate something that's much simpler on a globe. Either way, the south celestial pole always looks the same to everyone south of the equator and it's always due south. I really don't see how this could be replicated with a simple hemispherical dome, especially if the north celestial pole is at the very centre, and the dome rotates around THAT.

Nope

Why would they be oval?

@@JohnHazenhousen Well, they'd be oval if they were on a ceiling a few thousand miles up. Unless you were directly underneath them, you'd be looking up at them at an angle. The fact that they are not oval suggests that they aren't on a ceiling, but in space.

Still to complicated for your two working brain cells to understand we area not living on a pizza?!

Man you are fucking lazy, both if you're for real and if you're a troll

Yeah southern stars don't really move like that. Every astronomy book ever written is lying. It's obvious the entire southern hemisphere is in on a huge conspiracy. And anybody who has ever visited the southern hemisphere and looked at the stars is also in on the conspiracy. And nobody has ever taken video footage of what southern stars really do, either. You flatties really amuse me.

What about the south celestial pole? It shouldn't exist if the Earth is flat.

Dumbass

Nope, roof that the earth rotates. No matter how often and desperately you flattards claim otherwise. Earth is a globe, was a globe, and will be forever a globe. You can't change reality.

To answer your questions: - no it wouldn't, you're just facing the other way. - no it wouldn't, clocks don't magically mirror when you cross the equator - yes that is what you would see

🤡🤡

Show your work.

What is supposed to be happening in the sky under the heliocentric model is a tiny amount of stellar parallax throughout the year. Which is exactly what we observe

What would "falling backwards on a spinning ball" look like to you?

Still waiting for an answer

the sky literally rotates in the opposite direction in the south than it does in the north. makes no sense on a flat earth. makes perfect sense on the ball earth.

What is this, 15th century?

There is absolutely 0 proof of any sort of god existing lol Cant believe we still have cultists go this day

I mean, if you sit on an office chair and spin yourself around, you'd be seeing pretty much the same thing.

Where does the Bible say we are at the center of the universe with everything orbiting around us?

The bible is a fairy tale book of absolute fantasy. Whoever believes this book has lost every grasp of relaity.

Nah, thats just what it appears to be when u r constantly spinning. The universe has no real center.

True... although nobody is allowed on Antarctica... how the f did this person make a timelapse as if it was all rotating around a single point like polaris... and when he does that there are trees in front of it? Is this what it looks like in Australia or Argentina then?

@@ieder1een175 you don't have to be in Antarctica to see the south pole. you can simple be on a boat facing the "ice wall". if you are on the "east" side of the flat earth you would see the south pole on top of the "ice wall" rotating to the right. If you go on the west side, you would still see it on top of the "ice wall" rotating in the same direction... but you are facing in the complete opposite direction having a flat earth point of view... so they would appear to rotate in opposite directions if you are looking at things from above the dome, which is impossible with any kind of projections.

Basically you can have an infinite amount of locations along the "ice wall" and have an infinite amount of locations for the south pole on top of the "ice wall" around which the stars are rotating. So basically it's check mate FE.

false, this actually proves it's flat. if the Earth is moving thousands of kilometres per second through the universe as you guys claim this means we should be seeing new stars everyday and not the same ones

@@abcdefxyz1239 you only see stars in the local cluster which are pretty close, and they move together in the same direction just like a stream in a river. They do tend to move slowly apart, but you need thousands of years to see a difference.

The stars appear to remain where they are in the celestial sphere because they are really far away. But the reality of the situation is that they have parallax throughout the year, and we can measure that parallax to determine how far away they are. We also have ways of determining how fast they move in space. And this is not mentioning supernovae, in other words, the fact that stars can die.

When stuff is so far away, it doesnt appear to move. If that effect is visible on mere mountains here on earth, itll be much stronger on stars that are literal lightyears from us

@@doodoo2065 Nonsense because they have not changed one iota for millennia. That's why we still have multiple temples in perfect alignment with stars and people still practising astrology. The stars are for signs and seasons says God. Nothing changes. Believing you can see something measured by light years just proves your imagination has been cast into outer darkness by the mass weapon of deception that is NASA. Which means to deceive or lead astray.

@@PropertyofJesus777 People knew all this stuff way before NASA was established in 1958. Barnard's star, discovered in 1916, moves so fast you can see the change in position every year. The pole star in the time of ancient Egypt was Thuban, not Polaris. In the centuries before and after the birth of Christ, there was no pole star. This was documented by the Greek navigator Pytheas in 320 BC, and later by the Romans. NASA has nothing to do with any of this.

@@stephenh5944 The 5 armed services pillars say you're wrong. And there are people still alive who were taught flat earth in school. Before the occult came along and rolled out their past perversions into mainstream. If you are COVID jabbed then don't argue about anything. It sounds like you only believe the narrative.

Nope. Der Himmel sieht aus wie eine Kugel, und dreht sich wie eine Kugel

Die zwei verschiedenen Nachthimmel werden durch holographische Interferometrie dargestellt. Diese hat Dennis Gabor entdeckt. Polaris gegen den Uhrzeigersinn direkt über der Axis Mundi und durch die holographie in Afrika, Amerika und Australien im Uhrzeigersinn.

​@@johnpurefeeling6258 Dennis Gabor würde sich im Grab umdrehen, wenn er wüsste, dass seine Entdeckung von Flatearthern verschwurbelt werden würde... Einfach mal "holographische Interferometrie" sagen und ab dem Zeitpunkt ist jede normale Person aus der Diskussion ausgestiegen, was ihr dann für einen klaren Sieg haltet. Nur erklärt das genannte Phänomen leider genauso wenig die Beobachtung vom Nachthimmel wie die Erklärung "Salatdressing".

Where though

11 comments and none that contain anything of substance. NASA is an acronym, and if they were indeed trying to fool you, they wouldn't clue you in with their literal name. Use your brain here, Wendy. And look at the stars and tell me that doesn't look like two different celestial poles.

@@javierlatorre480 If you want to defend a lie- you are welcome to do so. But do so in such a way that you do not verbally attack someone.

@@wendyhughes2234 Understood. As shown in the video, there are two points of rotation in the sky, one directly north, one directly south. Overall the sky seems to behave like a giant celestial sphere rotating around an axis that cuts through the northernmost and southernmost points, which correspond directly to points on Earth's surface. The Earth is not flat. Additionally, it does not make sense that an organisation hypothetically lying about the shape of the Earth would ever be obligated to tell you they are lying by basing their name on a word that means to lie or deceive.

@@javierlatorre480 You believe what you want to and let me be.

@@javierlatorre480 You can be happily sitting on a ball- hurtling into a neverending vacuum of [space] if that makes you happy.

Lmao what?