I'm excited to discuss this! I just taking my daughter to daycare be right back.

@Flat Earth PhD Sorry for the delay! I know that argument: the dome creates an inverted image due to refraction in the southern hemisphere. Problems with that 1) this would create an mirrored image, which is not what you see - completely different stars and constellations. 2) a refracted image would create massive distortion, which you can clearly see in the image you posted. The stars would appear stretched and distorted, particularly at the celestial equator.
That second image seems to be a concave earth pic. The two celestial poles argument would work on that model because there's still a sphere involved.

Also, my other point seems to have been missed - The south celestial pole is visible from ALL POINTS in the southern hemi.

And the only way that can work is on a globe model (or concave, I suppose)

or somethings going on in the sky we dont understand

Does people actualy belive in this kind of $h!t

@everyone

@Lingen yes people really believe earth is a spinning ball

There's the possibility that the sky is doing *something* strange... But, how we observe the sky to move is 100% consistent with the globe earth model. So, that's why I still lean towards the globe earth.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/579033317312167955/615960922384760832/StarTrails.gif

globe earth model needs warping space time and dark matter

not really things we experience

That's GR, which has problems and needs correcting. I don't personally believe in dark matter myself. But globe can exist without it as long as a different model more accurately explains gravity.

which it doesnt

The galaxies spin 10x to fast

Here's the thing with GR - it very, *very* accurately describes the universe on most scales... except for quantum and macro scales. Which is why I think most scientists are more interested in finding bandages to fix things rather than scrap it with something that explains everything.

exactly, Z

Gravity model doesn't work without dark matter

exactly! it's a fudge factor

"But, how we observe the sky to move is 100% consistent with the globe earth model." is what you said

yes very fudgy

oh, chad, I specifically meant the rotation of the sky from our vantage point.

sorry for the confusion

so what are macro scales?

is that not rotation of the sky

rotations of galaxies like Z mentioned

galaxies are in the sky

yes, but we can't really SEE them rotating from our vantage point. We can see them "move" through the sky as the earth rotates, but that's not the same thing

by rotations of galaxies, I mean their spiral rotations.

not their traversal through our night sky.

something you'd need Hubble for haha

so do you think galaxies rotate?

I have never seen one rotate. But I'm open to the possibility.

seems you are hedging

youre mainstream or not

I try to remain unbiased and open to all possibilities as long as there's sufficient evidence.

It's why I have the Questioning role. I think it's a good thing to question everything.

no thnking for yourself

so are we in a spinning galaxy?