[AstralSentient]

[...]
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.

I don't think it'd work as you think. If I get around it tomorrow I'll make you a 3d view (night time here...) but it's the same reason why old videogames had a separated "sky box" for the far scenery. Perspective messes things up. None of the options you cite would really work once you're a bit sideways. You'd see either far stars getting too close to each other, or close constellations deformed.

I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.

[AstralSentient]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

[Ga_x2]

I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.

That is precisely what I mean. Tomorrow I'll still try to make you a 3d view just for the fun of it, time permitting.

[J-Man]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

Nice looking but sun/moon are in the firmament.

[CriticalThinker]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why?  How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model?  People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.

Thank you,

CritcalThinker

[AstralSentient]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

Nice looking but sun/moon are in the firmament.

They are in the commonly accepted firmament model.

[AstralSentient]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why?  How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model?  People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.

Thank you,

CritcalThinker

In that case, the supposed 'south pole' would just be a location along the ice ring inside the firmament, with it just being deemed the "south pole" because we suppose the Antarctic is an ice continent on a globe.

The ice wall model has many problems regarding how large the Antarctic circle would be and the larger circumference of the southern hemiplane, but I figured this question could be given a hypothetical answer regarding southern star trails on a unipolar map (dome reflection).

[CriticalThinker]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why?  How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model?  People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.

Thank you,

CritcalThinker

In that case, the supposed 'south pole' would just be a location along the ice ring inside the firmament, with it just being deemed the "south pole" because we suppose the Antarctic is an ice continent on a globe.

The ice wall model has many problems regarding how large the Antarctic circle would be and the larger circumference of the southern hemiplane, but I figured this question could be given a hypothetical answer regarding southern star trails on a unipolar map (dome reflection).

And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously?  Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[AstralSentient]

And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously?  Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Got a great answer from my friend "CriticalThinker" for this one, here's a quote from them:

Douglips,

I'll save you the trouble for this one.  The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc.  If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake.  For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose.  24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake.  Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone.  The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence.  They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.

Thank you and welcome,

CriticalThinker

Link: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6819.0

There's the answer.

[CriticalThinker]

And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously?  Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Got a great answer from my friend "CriticalThinker" for this one, here's a quote from them:

Douglips,

I'll save you the trouble for this one.  The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc.  If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake.  For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose.  24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake.  Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone.  The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence.  They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.

Thank you and welcome,

CriticalThinker

Link: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6819.0

There's the answer.

Just to confirm exactly how much of my other post you agree with. Will you automatically dismiss an unedited continuous 24 hour stream from the Antarctic rim showing 24 hours of sunlight with a mechanical watch in the field of view as undeniable proof or will you dismiss everything off hand?  I provided two scenarios and it's incredibly important to know which one you fall into before continuing the discussion.

Alternatively, I'd accept physical evidence or live video from the rim that shows the dome where it meets the edge of the world as proof.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[AstralSentient]

Just to confirm exactly how much of my other post you agree with. Will you automatically dismiss an unedited continuous 24 hour stream from the Antarctic rim showing 24 hours of sunlight with a mechanical watch in the field of view as undeniable proof or will you dismiss everything off hand?  I provided two scenarios and it's incredibly important to know which one you fall into before continuing the discussion.

Alternatively, I'd accept physical evidence or live video from the rim that shows the dome where it meets the edge of the world as proof.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

No, I am not dismissive of footage there. I don't consider anything "undeniable" though.

I wouldn't know an explanation of the 24 hour Antarctic sun on the rim model as its been commonly dismissed as fake by advocates.
Considering that the dome would act like a mirror from what I explained about stars, they can attempt to claim and explain some mirroring effect around the entire rim possibly, though I can't say anything for them unless I wanted to get very speculative about it and I don't care a whole lot to try to explain it. I left behind the ice rim FE model because of how it was fraught with problems.

Never been far enough across the Antarctic (never stepped foot there in my life), I lack the resources to get an expedition across and try to find whats over there. That's why we got models and discuss them among ourselves to see what best fits what we do know.

[Ga_x2]

[...]
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.

I don't think it'd work as you think. If I get around it tomorrow I'll make you a 3d view (night time here...) but it's the same reason why old videogames had a separated "sky box" for the far scenery. Perspective messes things up. None of the options you cite would really work once you're a bit sideways. You'd see either far stars getting too close to each other, or close constellations deformed.

I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.

So, here are a few pictures from the model I've done.
I had to eyeball the proportions from your pictures, because no dimensions are given (figures...)
In the side view you can see the earth and the astroplane.
The darker area in the astroplan is a rough approximation of the visible sky from a point on earth ca. halfway "south" of the Astroplane center. From your map it would be like Florida? Egypt? beats me.
The other picture is a first person view from that point at ground level. As you can see, perspective has a massive effect.
I lack the time now to render the concave / convex alternatives, but, trust me, you'd get similar problems.
Crappy quality, but the attachment size costraints are crippling

[AstralSentient]

So, here are a few pictures from the model I've done.
I had to eyeball the proportions from your pictures, because no dimensions are given (figures...)
In the side view you can see the earth and the astroplane.
The darker area in the astroplan is a rough approximation of the visible sky from a point on earth ca. halfway "south" of the Astroplane center. From your map it would be like Florida? Egypt? beats me.
The other picture is a first person view from that point at ground level. As you can see, perspective has a massive effect.
I lack the time now to render the concave / convex alternatives, but, trust me, you'd get similar problems.
Crappy quality, but the attachment size costraints are crippling

Dimensions don't get to my point, whether you pick the standard FES dimensions or something else, the concept is the same.
Based on perspective assumptions, there is a ratio of around 1:2 (altitude : distance away from the ground that's perpendicular to the above object) at past the apex of perspective lines, which would be celestial bodies on this model. So, it may be about 3,125 mile high sun : 6,250 miles away from a ground point perpendicular to the sun with perspective in standard. Stars, wouldn't know all the altitudes exactly.
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.

[Ga_x2]

[...]
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

[AstralSentient]

[...]
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

[Ga_x2]

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that

[3DGeek]

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

Um...you do know that none of those words mean anything - and the math you quote is completely nonsensical...right?

These "biblical flat earthers" are even more batshit crazy than the regular kind!

[AstralSentient]

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.

[CriticalThinker]

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.

What factors do you believe are missing?  What evidence do you have to support their existence?

Thank You,

CriticalThinker

[Ga_x2]

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.

what factors? What are you talking about? I'm a layman, but perspective doesn't strike me as one of those esoteric fields of study at the borders of human knowledge...