[Oami]

Here's one thing I didn't find in the Faq nor Wiki.

The flat theory usually claims that the south pole doesn't exist – despite the fact that tourist trips for public are being arranged there every year. Surely those trips are expensive, starting from several tens of thousands of euros/dollars, but still, they are being made.

While the exact position of the "south pole" (the Scott-Amundsen base with the nice shining metal ball and whatever there is) could be faked – assuming that the tourists cannot find their exact coordinates by themselves – the midnight sun is harder as it is not limited to the pole, but actually covers a large part of the entire continent. According to the flat theory, there is simply no place on earth where the midnight sun could be visible in December; and still it is clearly seen there.

Sure, the share of population that can afford tens of thousands for one holiday trip is surely small. Maybe it's possible to call all those part of the conspiracy. But... there is more than that: one does not need to travel to Antarctica. Ushuaia, Argentine is relatively south as well. It is possibly to visit Ushuaia with a reasonable amount of money, without visiting Antarctica – and actually tens of thousands of people live there to begin with.

Ushuaia is not south enough to experience midnight sun, not even on the day of the southern summer solstice, which means that the sun actually sets. However, it is possible to observe the sun as it sets. It doesn't set directly in the west: according to the flat theory, it sets somewhere in the northwest, and according to the globe theory, it sets somewhere in the southwest. Furthermore, according to the globe theory, there will be no "astronomical night" but a mere twilight. A certain section of the sky remains lighter (or "less dark") even after the sun has set: and that less dark section moves further towards to the south, never really disappearing, and being in the south by midnight; and after midnight, it moves further towards the east, until the sun rises from the southeast. (Or, according to the flat theory, it rises from the northeast.)

As usual, I'm open to speculations. At best, maybe someone has even been there. I haven't and unfortunately cannot afford right now.

[Tom Bishop]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

[TomInAustin]

Here's one thing I didn't find in the Faq nor Wiki.

The flat theory usually claims that the south pole doesn't exist – despite the fact that tourist trips for public are being arranged there every year. Surely those trips are expensive, starting from several tens of thousands of euros/dollars, but still, they are being made.

While the exact position of the "south pole" (the Scott-Amundsen base with the nice shining metal ball and whatever there is) could be faked – assuming that the tourists cannot find their exact coordinates by themselves – the midnight sun is harder as it is not limited to the pole, but actually covers a large part of the entire continent. According to the flat theory, there is simply no place on earth where the midnight sun could be visible in December; and still it is clearly seen there.

Sure, the share of population that can afford tens of thousands for one holiday trip is surely small. Maybe it's possible to call all those part of the conspiracy. But... there is more than that: one does not need to travel to Antarctica. Ushuaia, Argentine is relatively south as well. It is possibly to visit Ushuaia with a reasonable amount of money, without visiting Antarctica – and actually tens of thousands of people live there to begin with.

Ushuaia is not south enough to experience midnight sun, not even on the day of the southern summer solstice, which means that the sun actually sets. However, it is possible to observe the sun as it sets. It doesn't set directly in the west: according to the flat theory, it sets somewhere in the northwest, and according to the globe theory, it sets somewhere in the southwest. Furthermore, according to the globe theory, there will be no "astronomical night" but a mere twilight. A certain section of the sky remains lighter (or "less dark") even after the sun has set: and that less dark section moves further towards to the south, never really disappearing, and being in the south by midnight; and after midnight, it moves further towards the east, until the sun rises from the southeast. (Or, according to the flat theory, it rises from the northeast.)

As usual, I'm open to speculations. At best, maybe someone has even been there. I haven't and unfortunately cannot afford right now.

On the topic of the southern sky, how would it be possible for someone looking south in Australia to see the same stars as someone looking south from South America.  The would be looking totally different directions.  The geometry of every flat earth map in the wiki makes it impossible.  Anyone care to answer that one?

[Oami]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Thanks for the answer. Apparently some of the flat theory supporters disagree here. Quite a few times have I heard not only about the nonexistence of the south pole, but also about some armed forces guarding the whole Antarctica, making it impossible to even find out. There is no mention about South Pole in the Wiki, instead...

This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.

Honestly speaking, though, I don't even understand the meaning of the south pole on a flat earth (and thus, on what grounds it can be discovered). On a globe it is the other end of the rotational axis (the north pole being the other); but even if the flat earth does rotate (over which there also seems to be disagreement) its axis' other end must be down below, not within reach of humans.

Anyway, if the south pole does exist and even has been discovered, then you may probably confirm or deny the midnight sun there.

[3DGeek]

One problem I'm starting to realise about talking to FE proponents is that there isn't just one set of FE theories - for each question you ask, there may be several, quite different, sets of FE theory.

This can make discussing things like these very difficult - you'll hear discussions that go:

Sceptic         :  X can't happen.
FE proponent: X is caused by Y.
Sceptic         : But the wiki says Y doesn't exist.
FE proponent: Oh, well I don't believe in everything the Wiki says.

...later...

Sceptic: So what about Y?
different FE proponent: Didn't you read the Wiki?  Y doesn't exist.  Stop posting about things that are in the Wiki!

Examples of "Y" being "the south pole", "gravity", "the edge of the world", "the firmament vault"...the list goes on.

I can understand why there are different opinions about all of these things - but putting together a coherent picture of "What Flat-Earthers believe" is like nailing Jello to the ceiling...and for sure, the Wiki isn't comprehensive about the things it DOES discuss.

[3DGeek]

Ushuaia is not south enough to experience midnight sun, not even on the day of the southern summer solstice, which means that the sun actually sets. However, it is possible to observe the sun as it sets. It doesn't set directly in the west: according to the flat theory, it sets somewhere in the northwest, and according to the globe theory, it sets somewhere in the southwest. Furthermore, according to the globe theory, there will be no "astronomical night" but a mere twilight. A certain section of the sky remains lighter (or "less dark") even after the sun has set: and that less dark section moves further towards to the south, never really disappearing, and being in the south by midnight; and after midnight, it moves further towards the east, until the sun rises from the southeast. (Or, according to the flat theory, it rises from the northeast.)

There is a very fundamental problem with the entire southern hemisphere in FE theory.

In RE terms, the apparent rotation of just about everything in the sky is the reverse of the direction the Earth rotates in.   The sun, moon, stars and planets all rise above the horizon in the East and set again in the West.   In the Northern hemisphere - close to the north pole, this means that things like the "midnight sun" describe circles around the sky and they move clockwise around the pole star - which is vertically above your head.

FE theory seems to be able to reproduce those effects by rotating the firmament and moving the sun and moon around appropriately.

But at the south pole, things get decidedly squirly.  In RE terms, the celestial bodies still rise in the East and set in the West in the southern hemisphere - but if you're at the south pole, that means that everything is moving in COUNTER-clockwise circles around you at a point above your head.

In FE theory - that simply can't happen.   In the version of FE theory shown in the maps on the Wiki, there is no south pole - there is an infinite plane of icy nothingness that surrounds the known world.

In FE versions that DO have a south pole, you should be able to see polaris from there - and the firmament doesn't rotate counter-clockwise around a point above your head.

But what a lot of people are missing is that you don't have to be right at the south pole to see this. (Which is just as well because it's forbidden by massive amounts of UN patrol ships/planes/drones/whatever).

Anyone who's been to Australia or NewZealand will tell you that the night sky looks NOTHING like FE descriptions.  You can see the point that everything is rotating around - and polaris isn't it!   There is no actual bright star at the south pole of the sky...but if you watch long enough - you can see that the firmament is rotating in a counter-clockwise direction about a point with no star.   If you stand reasonably far north in the northern hemisphere - you see the firmament rotating in a clockwise direction about a point with that bright star called "polaris".

It might be tempting for FE'ers to claim an outer ring of the firmament that rotates counter-clockwise - but that doesn't reproduce what you see in the southern latitudes...the rotation would still have it's "center" at the pole star - and it simply doesn't do that.

The ONLY (very half-assed) explanation I've heard is that people in the southern hemisphere are confused and are actually looking North when they think they're looking South!!

Well, I have a cousin who lives in NewZealand and on the couple of trips I went there - I saw with my own eyes how the sky looks - and for 100% sure it doesn't match any of the FE descriptions of it...and yes, I knew full well which way was North.

The fact of the rotation's center being a blank patch of sky - the fact that the direction of motion is counter-clockwise - and the fact that the constellations are completely different there - totally busts the idea of a simple rotation of a fixed firmament.

But I don't expect to hear any good explanations for this...it's a helluva stretch for FE'ers to explain any of these southern-hemisphere phenomena effectively.

(And I still have no credible answer as to how the FE moon produces TWO high tides each day.)

[Oami]

But I don't expect to hear any good explanations for this...it's a helluva stretch for FE'ers to explain any of these southern-hemisphere phenomena effectively.

I have heard that there are three separate rotation axes on the southern sky: one directly south of Australia, one directly south of Africa and one directly south of South America. This way, people in each of these can see rotations in a somewhat logical way. (And they all have the same stars.)

Between these, there are apparently areas where these rotations overlap, but they are in the middle of the ocean so no one sees them anyway.

I have no idea whether this idea is popular here, though.

[TomInAustin]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

[3DGeek]

I have heard that there are three separate rotation axes on the southern sky: one directly south of Australia, one directly south of Africa and one directly south of South America. This way, people in each of these can see rotations in a somewhat logical way. (And they all have the same stars.)

Between these, there are apparently areas where these rotations overlap, but they are in the middle of the ocean so no one sees them anyway.

I have no idea whether this idea is popular here, though.

That would be a real mess - you'd be able to see some stars going one way and some the other - nowhere on the Earth does anyone report seeing that - and (again) because sailors in the 1700's and 1800's travelled the Southern Hemisphere oceans using celestial navigation - we'd know about it for sure.

That's not a solution.

[Oami]

That would be a real mess - you'd be able to see some stars going one way and some the other - nowhere on the Earth does anyone report seeing that - and (again) because sailors in the 1700's and 1800's travelled the Southern Hemisphere oceans using celestial navigation - we'd know about it for sure.

That's not a solution.

I don't believe there is a solution, there are just attempts that people come up with. But that's just one of the best I have heard. It doesn't require the entire population of the southern hemisphere (or southern three-quarters-of-plane) be either conspirators or idiots.

[Tom Bishop]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

I mentioned a source in my post.

[Oami]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

I mentioned a source in my post.

That source doesn't contain a world map. The Wiki and the Faq both do, but that map doesn't have a south pole.

Doesn't it bother that there is a dispute like this within your own community?

[TomInAustin]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

I mentioned a source in my post.

Your source only mentions star rotation.  This in no way settles the question.   Where is the south pole?

"At the same time it was shewn that these so-called “ poles ”
are not the two termini of the earth’s imaginary axis; but
rather the north and south centres of solar and stellar celestial
motion. Stars with north declination revolve daily around
a central star in the north called “ Polaris,” and stars with
south declination around a southern centre near Sigma
Oct antis.

[Tom Bishop]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

I mentioned a source in my post.

Your source only mentions star rotation.  This in no way settles the question.   Where is the south pole?

"At the same time it was shewn that these so-called “ poles ”
are not the two termini of the earth’s imaginary axis; but
rather the north and south centres of solar and stellar celestial
motion. Stars with north declination revolve daily around
a central star in the north called “ Polaris,” and stars with
south declination around a southern centre near Sigma
Oct antis.

Read the source material. The South Pole was discovered, and it's under the area near Sigma Octantis.

[TomInAustin]

The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

I mentioned a source in my post.

Your source only mentions star rotation.  This in no way settles the question.   Where is the south pole?

"At the same time it was shewn that these so-called “ poles ”
are not the two termini of the earth’s imaginary axis; but
rather the north and south centres of solar and stellar celestial
motion. Stars with north declination revolve daily around
a central star in the north called “ Polaris,” and stars with
south declination around a southern centre near Sigma
Oct antis.

Read the source material. The South Pole was discovered, and it's under the area near Sigma Octantis.

Ok, so it's south of Sydney as in this picture?





Please explain how these same stars can be seen from south Africa and South America?  I truly don't get it.

[Oami]

Read the source material. The South Pole was discovered, and it's under the area near Sigma Octantis.

A star, that is. Why can it not be explained in relation to the known continents (I assume we all agree on the fact that Australia, Africa and South America exist)? Why can it not be shown on the map?

The source is 99 years old. Why hasn't anyone drawn a decent map that includes the south pole during all those years? Not even those who have written the Faq and Wiki, that actually claim that there is no south pole?

[TomInAustin]

Read the source material. The South Pole was discovered, and it's under the area near Sigma Octantis.

A star, that is. Why can it not be explained in relation to the known continents (I assume we all agree on the fact that Australia, Africa and South America exist)? Why can it not be shown on the map?

The source is 99 years old. Why hasn't anyone drawn a decent map that includes the south pole during all those years? Not even those who have written the Faq and Wiki, that actually claim that there is no south pole?

I know Tom has said that star systems are like gears,  rubbing up against each other, causing the other to move in the path of least resistance.

Using google earth, it is obvious that given the time of night,  south facing viewers in South America and Australia could see many of the same stars at the same time in the globe model.  Looking at the FE maps in the WIKI the same viewers would be looking almost 180 degrees apart.   I have asked this question several times and gotten no response but I'll try again.  How is this possible?



   

[3DGeek]

I know Tom has said that star systems are like gears,  rubbing up against each other, causing the other to move in the path of least resistance.

Using google earth, it is obvious that given the time of night,  south facing viewers in South America and Australia could see many of the same stars at the same time in the globe model.  Looking at the FE maps in the WIKI the same viewers would be looking almost 180 degrees apart.   I have asked this question several times and gotten no response but I'll try again.  How is this possible?

This is one of several very fundamental issues that FET simply cannot adequately answer.   If you watch the stars continuously on a long boat trip from (say) UK to Australia (as many unfortunate criminals were forced to do from 1787 until 1868) - you'd see a continuous change from stars rotating around Polaris - to stars travelling from east to west overhead - to stars rotating around an empty space in the sky to the south.  Those ships used celestial navigation - so what they saw and how they used the motion of the stars is extremely well recorded...and cannot be explained away with "conspiracy theories".  Whaling ships, pirate ships, commercial ships of all kinds - repeated this "experiment" and arrived at the same answers.

There is simply no way whatever to explain this other than with an Earth that is at least topologically spherical.

In mathematics, the "Hairy Ball Theorem" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem) says that only things that are topologically similar to spheres can have this property.   You can argue with physics - and demand experimental evidence that's hard to obtain - but you can't argue with mathematics.

So failing to describe how the stars do what they VERY evidently do in the Southern Hemisphere - is the nail in the coffin for FET.

This is why proponents of FET either duck your question (if you probe carefully enough) - or come up with a bullshit solution (if they think the can get away with it).

They simply cannot answer why the stars rotate around different points in the sky in the two hemispheres without producing a zone where some stars are moving the opposite way to others - which NOBODY has ever seen happen.