Time Lapse Of The Stars

[Brownsfan77]

I was trying to duplicate our solar system because the stars move at certain speeds and can be predicted using math. All the planets and earth are magnets with north and south poles. So I was studying the stars and their movements.

 

After studying many time lapses of the stars it hit me that the stars are forming complete perfect circles and only above. If earth were a spinning ball on a wobble it would be impossible for the stars to make circles, the stars should be moving from west to east like the sun. This put a halt on my model, now I'm going to have to really start considering making the model with a flat earth and see if it can produce the same effect as the time lapse.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Brownsfan! :) Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

After studying many time lapses of the stars it hit me that the stars are forming complete perfect circles and only above. If earth were a spinning ball on a wobble it would be impossible for the stars to make circles, the stars should be moving from west to east like the sun.

The Sun doesn’t move from the west to the east, it moves from the east to the west. The stars move in the same direction, a tiny bit faster than the Sun.

 

If you rotate a telescope at a rate of precisely 360^o each 23 h 56 min 4.09 s, on an axis aligned with the Earth’s axis of rotation, the stars appear stationary in it. Most high-quality telescopes have just such a system, known as a motorized or clock drive equatorial mount.

 

This is intuitively obvious to people who have watched stars as long as there have been telescopes, or simple sighting devices, and likely even before, predating history. If I may offer a friendly suggestion, you should get outside at night with a telescope (and ideally at first, some people who have telescopes and know how to use them), rather than studying long exposure photographs or time-lapse videos, which can be confusing. There are astronomy clubs almost everywhere, and in my experience, they love to introduce people to astronomy. It’s a lot more fun looking through telescopes than looking at images in books and on the internet, too.

 

You mention the Earth “wobbling”. While it’s true that the Earth’s rotation is slightly irregular due to such things as the gravitational tug of the Moon and shifts in the oceans’ water, and it’s axis precesses through about 47^o every 26,000 years, these effects are so small compared to the about 360^o/24 hr rotation of the Earth that it’s practically unnoticeable.

[Brownsfan77]

I assure the stars don't move in the same direction of the sun. Just Google time lapse of stars. It will show the path they travel and they make circles. Is there any way to post images on here? It'll be easier to explain with images.

 

As you can see the stars take a very different path through the sky than the sun.

Edited January 16, 2017 by CraigD

[Mariel33]

I was trying to duplicate our solar system because the stars move at certain speeds and can be predicted using math. All the planets and earth are magnets with north and south poles. So I was studying the stars and their movements.

 

After studying many time lapses of the stars it hit me that the stars are forming complete perfect circles and only above. If earth were a spinning ball on a wobble it would be impossible for the stars to make circles, the stars should be moving from west to east like the sun. This put a halt on my model, now I'm going to have to really start considering making the model with a flat earth and see if it can produce the same effect as the time lapse.

Perfect circles seems very against the odds. What do you think it means?

[exchemist]

Perfect circles seems very against the odds. What do you think it means?

Not at all. If you point a camera at the point in the sky corresponding to the axis of rotation of the Earth (i.e. where the Pole Star almost is), that is what you get. But for every star and celestial body, including the sun, moon etc, which is not close enough to that point, we see their motion as an arc, because the Earth itself gets in the way of part of the circle they trace out as the Earth rotates.  

[Turtle]

As you can see the stars take a very different path through the sky than the sun.2297142898_8fae4627e7_o.jpganalemma.jpg

What you have pictured on the lower image -without reference- is a solar analemma, and it does not support your claims. While Earth orbits the Sun, Earth does not orbit the stars.

In astronomy, an analemma (/ˌænəˈlɛmə/; from Greek ἀνάλημμα analēmma "support")[a] is a diagram showing the deviation of the Sun from its mean motion in the sky, as viewed from a fixed location on the Earth. Due to the Earth's axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, the Sun will not be in the same position in the sky at the same time every day. The north–south component of the analemma is the Sun's declination, and the east–west component is the equation of time. This diagram has the form of a slender figure-eight, and can often be found on globes of the Earth.

...

The analemma is oriented with the smaller loop appearing north of the larger loop. At the North Pole, the analemma would be completely upright (an 8 with the small loop at the top), and only the top half of it would be visible. Heading south, once below the Arctic Circle, the entire analemma would become visible. If you see it at noon, it continues to be upright, and rises higher from the horizon as you move south. When you get to the equator, it is directly overhead. As you go further south, it moves toward the northern horizon, and is then seen with the larger loop at the top. If, on the other hand, you looked at the analemma in the early morning or evening, it would start to tilt to one side as you moved southward from the North Pole. By time you got down to the equator, the analemma would be completely horizontal. Then, as you continued to go south, it would continue rotating so that the small loop was beneath the large loop in the sky. Once you crossed the Antarctic Circle, the analemma, now nearly completely inverted, would start to disappear, until only 50%, part of the larger loop, was visible from the South Pole.[3]

 

See equation of time for a more detailed description of the east–west characteristics of the analemma.

...

Edited January 15, 2017 by Turtle

[Turtle]

...All the planets and earth are magnets with north and south poles. So I was studying the stars and their movements.

...

Planets are not permanent magnets, rather they [can] have magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are due to the dynamo effect which is electro-magnetic. Mars no longer has a dynamo and so no active magnetic field with N & S poles and Venus has no magnetic N/S field. (There are regional areas on Mars with magnetism due to minerals magnetized by the early dynamo.)

 

None of these magnetic fields have any effect on the star movements.

 

Planetary Magnetism

Until the middle of the 20th century the Earth's magnetism seemed to be a happy accident of nature. Too many factors had to fit just right--the fluid core of the Earth, its electrical condctivity and its motions, all had to satisfy the strict requirements of dynamo theory.

That was before other planets in the solar system were visited and examined. Now we know that among those planets, only Venus lacks any magnetism. The planets differ greatly in size and properties, and their fields differ too. Yet they all seem to have dynamo fields, or (in the case of Mars and the Moon) have had them in the past.

...

Mars and the Moon have permanently magnetized patches of rock on their surfaces, suggesting that even if they now lack a dynamo field, at some time in the past they possessed one. That would agree with the giant volcanoes (apparently extinct) observed on Mars, which suggest a hot interior.

The magnetized patches on that planet, first observed by the Mars Global Surveyor, are particularly intriguing because they seem to form strips, reminding researchers of the magnetized strips observed on the sea bottom on Earth, from which the idea of plate tectonics emerged. Magnetic observations on Mars, however, are not yet detailed enough to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn.

Magnetization of Mars: red in one direction, blue in the opposite one.

...

[CraigD]

I assure the stars don't move in the same direction of the sun. Just Google time lapse of stars. It will show the path they travel and they make circles. ...

I can see how these you’d find these images confusing, but don’t worry, they don’t overturn the model of the Earth as a rotating spheroid that’s been the best explanation for the movement of the Sun and the stars for the past 2600 years or so!

 

You’ve picked images of two very different photographic observations.

 

One is photograph of the night sky made by a camera pointed north. The shutter of the camera for this has been left open about 5 hrs – you can tell by measuring how far the trail of a star goes toward making a complete circle. If you were to take such a photo with a 24 exposure time (which is tricky, since unless you’re very far North in the winter or South in the summer, the Sun will spoil the photograph), the “trail” or each star would be a nearly perfect circle, ending where it started.

 

Most people who make and post long-exposure “star trails” photos like these point their cameras north to get the pretty circle look, but if you instead point your camera east, west, or strait up, the star trail lines in the center of the photo aren’t curved, but straight, like in this one:

from the beautiful work of Stéphane Guisard at his "Star Trail from the Equator" webpage. There are many more star trail images there, including a panoramic image and a movie you can control. There are many websites with guides to how to take star trail photos, such as this one.

 

The other image is of the anelemma. It’s made by taking a picture of the Sun at the same time of the day with a camera pointed in the same direction for an entire year. By counting the number and position of thedots in it, you can tell how many and how often the pictures were taken. The image you picked, looks like its pictures were taken about every 2 weeks. I find it a little too neat – this one

From Bob Urschel’s “Analemma” website looks more realistic to me, as you can tell the “dots” are actually photographs of the Sun.

 

You can get an anelemma image from bodies other than the Sun. I found this very pretty one

At Juan Carlos Casado’s “The World at Night” website.

[OceanBreeze]

Nice pics!

 

I like this one too

 

 

Bell Labs. I've been there

[Brownsfan77]

That image of the stars you posted is set at the corner, if it would of panned left or right it would look just like my image.

 

The figure eight made by the sun is made by taking a pic of the sun at the same time everyday. Using that image and math I was able to produce what it would look like from a top view. It's a big swirl starting from the outer ring then the swirl gets smaller the closer to the center then back again. It only would work on a flat model, could not duplicate the figure eight on a spherical model. Believe me I know it sounds crazy but everything experiment works out perfect on the flat model and never comes out even closer on the round ball model.

[Turtle]

...

The figure eight made by the sun is made by taking a pic of the sun at the same time everyday. Using that image and math I was able to produce what it would look like from a top view.

There is no 'top view' of an analemma. As I quoted in post #6,

In astronomy, an analemma is a diagram showing the deviation of the Sun from its mean motion in the sky, as viewed from a fixed location on the Earth. ...

'Fixed location on the Earth' is the key phrase here.

 

Out of curiosity, let's see your math and the image it produced anyway.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Turtle

[Brownsfan77]

no top view? If you would take a pic of the sun from above instead of from the ground would produce a very different pattern. @Craig D the image of the stars you posted is the corner, if you would pan to the left or right you would have the same image I posted showing the circles. In fact in your pic you can see to the left and right they are curving to make a circle.

 

If your standing on a ball you would be looking downhill, instead the horizon is eye level. No matter where you look the landscape appears to be going up not down. Even in an airplane the horizon is eye level, not possible is earth was a sphere. You could put a level on the horizon, but it should look like a frown if it were a sphere.

[Turtle]

no top view?

You earlier said:

... Using that image and math I was able to produce what it would look like from a top view.

So again, show us your math and image.

 

...If your standing on a ball you would be looking downhill, instead the horizon is eye level. No matter where you look the landscape appears to be going up not down. Even in an airplane the horizon is eye level, not possible is earth was a sphere. You could put a level on the horizon, but it should look like a frown if it were a sphere.

Here's a time-lapse view of Earth from the new GOES satellite.

Satellite's first views of Earth (and moon) are jaw-dropping

... After its launch on Nov. 19 atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, GOES-16 spent about two weeks getting to its final geostationary orbit about 22,300 miles above North America, near the equator. This type of orbit means that the satellite will always hover over the same part of the Earth, allowing it to continuously keep tabs on the weather. ...

[OceanBreeze]

no top view? If you would take a pic of the sun from above instead of from the ground would produce a very different pattern.

 

That may be difficult to do. Hmmmm. . . .maybe if you wait until the sun is setting on the horizon, with just the top showing, and run very fast you can catch up and take that pic? Why don't you give it a try and let us know how it turns out?

 

Do be careful not to fall over the edge!