Hello, world. Christian Truther here
again, and I've got another video for you.
This is part 8 in my series on the shape of
the world. Is it round or is it flat? Can
we determine what the objective truth is
about that shape, because the shape is
what it is, regardless of what we think
about it. Now, before I get into the topic
today, again, here are my ground rules.
Very important to me, but I don't read
them aloud, so I expect you to read them. But the top two are my promise to you and
the bottom two are what I hold you guys
accountable to in the comments section. As
always, this is unscripted. No
green-screen or anything like that. I'm
not trying to improve my arguments
through that sort of technological
polish. And I also always recommend
watching my first video on this topic,
because in that video, I discussed why
I'm doing this and what my methodology
is gonna be. I do tackle other topics
in plenty of the other videos on this
list. Like I said, this is part eight of
my series. This is gonna be the second
part on a celestial body movement. So I'm
gonna aim arguments from each side at each
other and see which one stands. Now,
originally I was not intending for this
to be a debunk video, but it kind of
became that as I encountered some, some,
well, some thinking that's not accurate
out there. So, let's start off. We're
looking at star movement. So, we're gonna see this is what reality is. And someone
was kind enough to do a time lapse with
a 360 degree rig, so you can see
simultaneously, both hemispheres' movement.
They're a little bit north of the
Equator...you can tell that through how
the stars move and what stars are
visible and everything like that, but
this is going to be what is reality as
far as what we see of star movement. So,
let's take a look here, as soon as YouTube
loads up.
Okay, so I think that gets the point
across clearly. As I said, they're a
little bit to the north of the Equator.
You can see Polaris here and star trails
because it is a time-lapse sort of shot.
We do see a good portion of the southern
hemisphere. Now, a couple words about; like I said, this is reality. This is what's
what's actually happening in the sky.  I've
heard one person say that modern
astronomy claims that the stars move
counterclockwise in northern hemisphere
and clockwise in the southern
hemisphere, but that would mean that it's
rising from the east to the west in the
northern and going from the west to the
east in the southern. No, it's not. It's
all coming from...
That's what modern astronomy is claiming, so please, don't don't say that anymore.
Modern astronomy is not saying that in
the southern hemisphere stars are claimed to
be rising in the west and setting in the
in the east. You just misunderstood what
clockwise and counterclockwise were. So,
let's, let's take a look, though, at what
some other ideas are as far as what is
causing the star movement. I have here a
very popular video by Eric Dubay, and,
yeah, let's see what he says. First of all,
he says "Polaris is the only motionless
star in the heavens." No, it's not
motionless. Actually, it wobbles. If you
take a...you're gonna need some
magnification. You need a long, you know,
video time-lapse of it, but you will see
it wobbles. Also, you're making this
claim thinking that Polaris doesn't
move period, but it does. It in fact did.
We used to have a different North Star.
Back when the Egyptians were raising
pyramids, they described a star called
Thuban,
and it's in the constellation Draco, as
the North Star. Polaris was out on the
outer ring. So, there is some wobble and it's, it's not
immovable. "Their relative positions if
Earth was truly a tilting, wobbling,
spinning ball..." so he's, he's saying,
basically, that the stars stay still
in their positions, despite the fact that
we're moving. And to expound on that, he
says "If the earth is spinning at 1,000
miles per hour as it revolves around the
Sun at 66,600 miles per hour while the Sun shoots
through space at 450,000 miles per
hour, why haven't the constellations
changed in thousands of years?" So again, they have. We have a different North Star.
Also, we occasionally lose stars through,
like, supernova events and stuff like
that. And then, poof, they're gone. We don't see them anymore. But I understand what
you're saying! And the basic premise
falls short, because you're not really
taking distance into account here. The
distances involved are massive, and the
best I can explain it would be is if you
were at the dock side of Seattle. And you
look over your, your shoulder to your
left, and you saw the Seattle needle. Okay,
and it's an easily recognizable landmark.
Now, if you moved quite quickly 20 feet
forward, and look left again, the Seattle
needle basically wouldn't look
like it have changed position at all. But,
yet, the shops around you have. And you
move forward another 40 feet. Same story. And a hundred feet, same story. You would have
to travel for a very, very very long time
in order to be able to see any
perceptible movement of the Seattle needle, and it would be very small. It's
because distance relative to you; things
close by will change a lot, things that
aren't close by don't change. So, that's
why the Sun changes rapidly, the moon
changes rapidly in its position in the
heavens, but these stars are so very far
away that, relative to us, we haven't
moved hardly at all. And most of them are
caught, actually, they're in the same
galaxy we are, so they're actually
spinning with us. It's not like we're
the only things moving. They're moving as
well, and so it's, it's kind of... most of
the stars we see that are visible in the sky
are in the same part of the galaxy we
are in. And they're all moving, basically
in the same direction and roughly the
same speed. So, the earth is rotating, and
that's why the stars are wheeling in the sky, night after night. We see this. So, this is,
this is flawed thinking. But, moving on, we
then begin the perceptual basis
arguments, which is false. He's basically
making the argument that you can't see
infinitely far. You've got a visual range,
and you can't see infinitely far. You
can't see distance, really, at all! What
you see is light striking your eyes.
And then, you brain is processing that information. So,
we see light at great distance. An
example of this would be lighthouses.
You don't see them, but you see the light
flashing first, okay, as the ship is
approaching, they would see the light
flashing first. The light was striking
your eyes, so even though we couldn't
resolve the object out there, we could
have seen the light. And that's what you
see. You see light striking your eyes and
it doesn't matter from what distance it's
coming, as long as the light comes to
your eyes in sufficient quantity to be
registered, you will see it. Okay, so, light
doesn't just stop working that way. Our
eyes don't just stop processing because
it's a certain distance away. They don't
know that. It's the light, it gets to our
eyes, and we see it. Okay, so there's not a
perceptual range challenge here. The
vanishing point is not an issue if light
is getting to our eyes in sufficient
quantities. We will see it, period, end of
story.
And then he goes on to say, well you know, South is on these edges, and this is
gonna be a real problem. Because, remember reality, all right? Um, I'll just back up
there real quick. Tight arcs. Shallow
arcs.
Polar tight arcs. Okay, and I'm going to
show you a video real quick of the
Southern Cross, as well. All right, I'm
gonna trace the Southern Cross here.
It's right here. Okay,
and it's pointing south for us... that's
why they call it the Southern Cross. Not
just because it's in the Southern
Hemisphere. So, there's a lot of problems
with that. You've got polar movement.
You've got the fact that no matter where
you were, those four guys facing south,
and facing vastly different areas of the
south, but for most of the night, most of
the night, again, I'll grant you not
necessarily all the night, but for most
of night, all four of those guys see the
same Southern Cross. That shouldn't be
possible on a flat disc, with south being
all the way around the rim. But, whether
you're in Chile, or Australia, or South
Africa, you can see the Southern Cross
for most of the evening.
That's just reality. Now, this guy had
what appears to be a fairly ingenious
setup. And I took a shot of him from, from
the top first. So, he's got the su... South
American, South American, sorry, southern
constellations on the top disc, and the
northern constellations on the bottom. He
put the camera right about the
equatorial point, similar to what we saw
in that shot, and his argument is that
the this disc is inside a dome. The dome
creates a reflection event at nighttime,
and what we see are the stars on the
southern being reflected down. It's a decent argument. And let's take a look at what
it looks like. He zoomed it in so you can
see it better, but certainly, as this
spins this way, this will spin this way.
And it does kind of mimic what we see as
far as star patterns, and you get a polar
event.
Great job! Oh, by the way, we do have a
South Pole star, but its magnitude is so
dim that it's very difficult to see
without without visual aids. Certainly, a
long exposure shot would be able to see
it. There is a star currently
occupying the South Pole. I do want to
cover that before we get too much
further. It does exist, though. But here's
what you don't see. The stars that were
in the center on both. You would have,
absolutely and necessarily, you would
have divergence points with this sort of
setup, and we don't see that in reality.
So, again, this isn't, this is not accurate.
It was,
I mean, it's a clever enough little
contraption you put together there, but
it doesn't match reality. Then, someone
said, "Well, you know, what if you put a
dome over, and the lights are on the outside...
it can create polar sorts of events." The
problem with this: Not only do we not see
trails all the time, as this is kind of
showing, but more importantly, the poles
are at either side of this. But what do
we ,see supposedly, on the Flat Earth map? You'd see a pole here, and then, somehow, a
polar event occurring simultaneously on
all sides of it. And that doesn't work
out. Not with this. So, not even a dome
magnifier is answering the question of
how we see the reality of how stars move.
So, the truth is that the world is round,
and that's why we see the stars revolve
the way they do. And the reason they
don't seem to change very quickly; you're
hardly at all as far as the relative
positions of the constellations to us, is
because we're all moving at roughly the
same speed, in roughly the same direction. Night after night, year after year. But
things do change, things have subtly
changed.
We've got a new North Star. We expect in
a little while longer, it will be
actually a great while longer, we expect
another North Star to take that one's
place. Supernovas happen, and stars
disappear. These things happen, and it's
not completely unchanging over time. The
truth is, the world is round, and it will
set you free.
This is Christian Truther, signing out.
