[VanHans]

Hi,

sorry for my English i'am French.

I contact you for resolve problem with rotation of Dome.

In the earth we can observe 2 points of rotation in differents flat earth regions in the same time.

The first point of rotation is around Polar Star in constellation Ursa Minor:

(Timelaps picture from Mauna Kea observatory) : https://i.pinimg.com/474x/11/b9/90/11b990bf46415dba04c20015b61e8502--star-trails-long-exposure.jpg

The second point of rotation is around Beta Hydri in the southern circumpolar constellation:

(Timelaps piscture frome Australian Observatory): http://oldweb.aao.gov.au/images/image/aat006_6x6.jpg

How it's possible to have that in the same time?

Also this observation invalid this model with standard Dome rotation: https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png

Because the the southern circumpolar constellation (can be view in Australia) must be viewing in North Europe or North America with typically Dome model, like that: https://ibb.co/kg3X46

Or we can't view southern circumpolar constellation in North Europe or North America.

This altmap or Dome model rotation is wrong.

How to have 2 observable differents skymap constellations with 1 Dome?
https://preview.ibb.co/nnFOSR/sm_representation.png

Thank you.

[Tom Bishop]

We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions.

As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.

[StinkyOne]

We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions.

As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.

Thanks for linking the new book. Do you find it to be accurate in its assertions?

[VanHans]

Thank you very much Mr Tom Bishop for you answer.

We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions.

As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.

I read the Zetetic Astronomy i' have been to find the Chapter reference:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Zetetic%20Astronomy%20(Lady%20Blount%20and%20Albert%20Smith).pdf

C h a p t e r IV.
TWO “ PO L ES ” AND TWO VORTICES.
We have seen, from the foregoing evidence that _ there
must be TWO “ poles ” ; but while we as Zetetics admit this
fact, we still deny that these “ poles ” are such as would be
required by a globe at each end of its supposed polar axis.
They are simply magnetic poles like the “ poles ” of an
ordinary magnet, and not the poles of a rotatory sphere of
any kind.
It may be objected that the earth’s magnetic poles do not
quite correspond with the celestial poles. True ! but this
may arise from the fact that the celestial and terrestrial fields
of magnetic operation, though generally the same, are not
quite coincident. But this difference may be easily accounted
for. There are two celestial poles and two terrestrial poles,
and the fact that these poles are alike magnetic, will account
for their slightly different positions ; as also for the fact that
these poles gradually alter their geographical areas. But
we cannot at present enter further into this interesting
question. Nature seems to work in pairs. We have heaven
and earth ; the sun and moon ; man and woman ; positive
and negative

The article suggests that the author can not really answer the question without going through a purely speculative (Zetetic?)
alternative:

There are two celestial poles and two terrestrial poles,
and the fact that these poles are alike magnetic, will account
for their slightly different positions ; as also for the fact that
these poles gradually alter their geographical areas. But
we cannot at present enter further into this interesting
question. Nature seems to work in pairs. We have heaven
and earth ; the sun and moon ; man and woman ; positive
and negative

I admit that I am dubious about the relevance of this approach.

Know that I waiting forward to the continuation of the work of the Flat earth society on this subject.

I thank you for the attention you have given to my message, and believe that I encourage you to provide us with a model consistent with the phenomenon observed, I have no doubt that you will get there.

Thank you very much.

[Tom Bishop]

We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions.

As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.

Thanks for linking the new book. Do you find it to be accurate in its assertions?

I have been a proponent that the earth may have two poles, and we do speculate in the wiki that there may be two poles. Looking at the old models is interesting. At the moment I am looking at early Flat Earth works on the bipolar model and, while I do agree with the general assertion of two poles, I tend to believe that Lady Blount was wrong with her sun model that depicts two circles, one on top of  another, with the sun traveling on one circle around the North Pole for one half of the year and along the other circle around the South Pole for the other half of the year.

Although Samuel Birley Rowbotham is considered the father of modern Flat Earth Theory, before Earth Not a Globe there was a book called The Anti-Newtonian, written in 1819 an unknown author, which promoted a Flat Earth model with two poles. This is another book that is missing from our library.

Under this model there are two poles, and the sun switches to rotate around each pole for half of the year, but the two circles of the sun's rotation are illustrated to overlap rather than be separate from each other. I tend to like the overlapping sun model illustrated at the beginning of The Anti-Newtonian book over non-overlapping sun model depicted in Zetetic Astronomy. I feel it would bring things closer to observation of daylight and close some questions on the wildly different paths the sun would need to take over the year in Lady Blount's two pole model.

[xenotolerance]

Problem being, no model where the sun travels in a circle above a flat Earth matches any observable anything about the sun. Seasons, apparent size and position, horizon crossing, you name it.

That said, I'm genuinely curious what you mean by 'I feel it would bring things closer to observation of daylight and close some questions on the wildly different paths the sun would need to take over the year in Lady Blount's two pole model.'

What 'observations of daylight?' What questions about the path of the sun?

[rabinoz]

Problem being, no model where the sun travels in a circle above a flat Earth matches any observable anything about the sun. Seasons, apparent size and position, horizon crossing, you name it.

That said, I'm genuinely curious what you mean by 'I feel it would bring things closer to observation of daylight and close some questions on the wildly different paths the sun would need to take over the year in Lady Blount's two pole model.'

What 'observations of daylight?' What questions about the path of the sun?

Here is the book by Zetetes with his "bipolar" model: SEA-EARTH GLOBE, And Its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions; OR Modern Theoretical Astronomy, by Zetetes.
And an extract on the path of the sun around the two poles:

TWO POLES. Fig, 25 The question has been asked, If the sun crosses from the northern circuit to the southern, how is it so little difference is observable in its positions? The above diagram (Fig. 25) will help the student to understand this more intricate part of the subject; but we must remember that there is a great difference between the motions of the solar orb, and the motions of light which proceed in every direction away from it. The motions of the celestial bodies we have already explained in connection w ith Fig. 22; and we have also shewn that the equator is a broad belt of vertical rays, and not a mere “imaginary line.” We will refer to Fig. 25. A t the vernal equinox the sun is at E in the morning at 6 a.m. Its height travelling round with the etherial currents, is seen at the same moment by an observer at A. Now an observer always sees an object in the direction of the rays entering the eye; and the curve of about 6,000 miles from E to A is so great, that for the last few miles the rays seem to come to A in a straight line in the direction from H. Hence he sees the sun’s image rise “due east,” not north-east, proving that light travels in great curves. In the same way observers at a, and at M, see their dffferent sun images at I and at T ; but it is self-evident that the orb of the sun itself cannot be in these various positions at one and the same time. Six hours later the sun itself arrives from E to A, and it may happen that then its swirl outwards from N drives it into the southern current, and it goes round with that current in the direction of the arrow until it arrives at p, when its light, preceding it in a great curve, the sun’s image is again seen at H from A. It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at 23 1/2° S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl, electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards. Similar explanations apply to the moon, and to the planets, but with different periods, owing to their different altitudes, as already explained in a former article.

But, please don't ask me to explain it - you're on your own!

[AATW]

Problem being, no model where the sun travels in a circle above a flat Earth matches any observable anything about the sun. Seasons, apparent size and position, horizon crossing, you name it.

Sunset is a massive problem for FE. They say "perspective" but I proved elsewhere that for clouds to be lit from below the sun must be physically below the level of the clouds. Shadow angle depends on the physical relationship between light source and the item its light hits, not your perspective.

I'd be interested to know what path the sun is supposed to take in a bi-polar model and what forces make it travel in that path.

[VanHans]

Hello,

I find very interesting the discussion concerning the path of the Sun, however I would like, if you want it well, that we remain in the initial subject which is the points of rotation of the sky map (Dome and not the path of the Sun) because, we grant to say and to think that the path of the sun is independent of the dome.

Thank you very much.