Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« on: April 02, 2017, 06:54:35 PM »
This is a cross post from another Flat Earth forum, since i havent been able to glean anything useful there. Im hoping you guys can help.

The Flat Earth Theory seems to be a predominantly nothern/inner latitudes thing - most of its proponents live in North America. This is evident from the north-centric views of the Flat Earth.
Trouble is, from the perspective of someone who had lived most of their life in southern/outer latitudes, most of what is said doesn't really wash.
The prime example of this is Sigma Octantis, the southern pole star.

In the northern/inner areas of Earth, the stars appear to wheel around the star known as Polaris - it's brightness and proximity to the celestial pole make it perfect for determining true north. It is almost a fixed point in the sky, and this would be true in both Flat and Spherical scenarios.
However, in the outer latitudes of the Flat Earth theory, there would be no pole star and we would see the stars flying overhead much faster that near the centre of the disc.
This is not the case.

Instead, the southern latitudes have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, around which all the stars circle. They also circle at the same rate as those in the northern/inner latitudes - something that would be impossible if viewed from a disc.
An object with two poles is necessarily 3 dimensional.

So I would like to hear the Flat Earth explanation for this.
Diagrams and animations encouraged.

Offline pedant

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2017, 12:19:15 AM »
I also have this question, but it would appear that nobody has an answer.  Even Samuel Birley Rowbotham couldn't answer it.

(By the way, do the forum admins prefer muddying the forum by creating duplicate posts, or is the better practice of searching and replying to existing posts preferred?)

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1326
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2017, 01:14:49 AM »


Are you guys lazy or ignorant? Google is your friend no?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 01:17:03 AM by J-Man »
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2017, 01:36:07 AM »
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.

Offline pedant

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2017, 03:10:36 AM »
Are you guys lazy or ignorant? Google is your friend no?

There's no need for name calling.  Every place I look there is a bunch of nonsense and nobody ever clearly explains it.  Also, there are multiple hypotheses, so I wanted to know the answer from someone here specifically.

For RealEarth there is generally one, simple, clear model.  I'm sorry that we have to ask questions here in a manner that frustrates you, but maybe it would help to create a single, clear model that doesn't differ from one FakeEarther to another.

{EDIT}
I was able to finally watch that video and it doesn't address why Sigma Octantis stays still--in the South--with the stars rotating around it, it just talks about sun rays in the east and west.

Also, this doesn't match what Tom was talking about, and provides an example of why you guys make this so hard to understand for someone like me trying to learn this stuff.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 03:38:04 AM by pedant »

Offline pedant

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2017, 03:23:08 AM »
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.

First, where is the "official Flat Earth model?"  I'd like to see it in one place, and I'd like to know who forms the consensus.  This would make my research a lot easier.

Second, the Bi-Polar model has been debunked: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59769.0

What I'm looking for is an answer that matches direct observation.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2017, 04:14:24 AM »
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
You know as well as the rest of us do that there's no such thing as "the official Flat Earth model".  The Gleason map is the flat earth model most common among the FE who I encounter routinely.  Most of the FE who post here don't seem to hold to the bipolar model.  As far as I have seen, nobody has attempted to postulate paths for the sun and moon over a bipolar flat earth, and if you know of it I'm sure we would all be interested.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2017, 04:33:36 AM »
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.

Oh really?

How not?

Doesn't light travel in straight lines?  I believe you said so.

In that case, if you draw lines pointing from places in the Southern Hemiplane to the location of Sigma Octantis - they would be straight and southward (whatever direction southward is).

In the Northern Hemiplane, lines pointing towards the pole star would also have to be straight and northward.

Right on the equator, the line pointing North would not line up with lines pointing Southward.

The "bipolar" map utterly fails on those grounds.

The other ("unipolar") map fails because "south is everywhere".

There is no possible FE map that has:

1) A north pole.
2) A south pole.
3) Straight lines of sight to the two pole stars.

Sorry Tom...this is another concrete proof that the Earth isn't Flat.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2017, 05:47:24 AM »
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
Emphasis mine. You might want to update the wiki.  :P Almost everything there is based on the unipolar hypothesis.

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2017, 11:07:52 AM »
This is a cross post from another Flat Earth forum, since i havent been able to glean anything useful there. Im hoping you guys can help.

The Flat Earth Theory seems to be a predominantly nothern/inner latitudes thing - most of its proponents live in North America. This is evident from the north-centric views of the Flat Earth.
Trouble is, from the perspective of someone who had lived most of their life in southern/outer latitudes, most of what is said doesn't really wash.
The prime example of this is Sigma Octantis, the southern pole star.

In the northern/inner areas of Earth, the stars appear to wheel around the star known as Polaris - it's brightness and proximity to the celestial pole make it perfect for determining true north. It is almost a fixed point in the sky, and this would be true in both Flat and Spherical scenarios.
However, in the outer latitudes of the Flat Earth theory, there would be no pole star and we would see the stars flying overhead much faster that near the centre of the disc.
This is not the case.

Instead, the southern latitudes have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, around which all the stars circle. They also circle at the same rate as those in the northern/inner latitudes - something that would be impossible if viewed from a disc.
An object with two poles is necessarily 3 dimensional.

So I would like to hear the Flat Earth explanation for this.
Diagrams and animations encouraged.
I don't hold to this or anything, but I heard from some that the Earth with an ice wall has a firmament dome wrapped around the Earth, giving a mirror effect, with the concave nature of the dome, therefore all observers in the south hemiplane looking due south will see the same stars.
Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth.
In the Northern hemiplane, we see the north star rotation and Polaris as a barycenter, as we move south, the northern stars disappear below the horizon and the southern stars enter our field of vision. The north stars are the under part of the plate that we see directly, the southern stars are the other side of the plate (the top), which reflect off of the firmament dome and comes into view near the southern hemiplane. We are in reality looking up at a reflection off of the dome of the top of the dual astroplane, with sigma octantis being the center point star on the other side of the astroplane.
Here's an illustration on a video:

Now, concave mirrors, and any mirror surrounding you will reflect the same center point given that it's an equal distance away from it. So, all across the Hemiplane, all across the circumference of the ice wall and to the firmament, we will see the same stars because the top astroplate is reflecting.
The south star reflection will follow the same rotation of the north stars, but will appear to rotate in the opposite direction because it's mirrored.

I hope that makes sense, I don't hold to the ice wall model or existence of this firmament, but it sounds like an interesting theory to have given you grant those.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 11:15:06 AM by SuperSentient »
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2017, 12:58:08 PM »
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 01:00:28 PM by Ga_x2 »

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2017, 01:39:07 PM »
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2017, 01:46:27 PM »
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2017, 02:06:46 PM »
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.

Hmm,

Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night?  Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn?  If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2017, 02:17:28 PM »
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.

Hmm,

Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night?  Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn?  If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
The FE hypothesis would simply say you cannot because of perspective. How do we know it's perspective? Well the ancient Greeks never studied the limits of perspective, so obviously it has a convergence point closer than infinity. Thus the horizon, and how the sun and moon vanish. But that's just about all I recall seeing said on the topic. Oh, and the fact the reason we can't see across the ocean is because the atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, so it blocks the view of distant objects eventually, because of the accumulated particles etc.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2017, 02:35:19 PM »
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.

Hmm,

Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night?  Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn?  If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
The FE hypothesis would simply say you cannot because of perspective. How do we know it's perspective? Well the ancient Greeks never studied the limits of perspective, so obviously it has a convergence point closer than infinity. Thus the horizon, and how the sun and moon vanish. But that's just about all I recall seeing said on the topic. Oh, and the fact the reason we can't see across the ocean is because the atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, so it blocks the view of distant objects eventually, because of the accumulated particles etc.

Curious Squirrel,

Thanks for the highlights.  It can be hard to sum up the thoughts and ideas of others when you don't really get a consensus from them on any given topic so I appreciate it.  It would still be beneficial to know why you can see stars close to the horizon on a clear night, just not the right ones.  Is there a testable hypothesis somewhere in all of this perspective and atmosphere reasoning or just more unsupported proclamations of knowledge?  I would love to hear back from anyone in the FE community if they feel so inclined.

Thank You

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2017, 08:41:03 PM »
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
I'm not one for drawing precise 3d models, so, I'll just put up some pictures that may get you to see.
The first one is the astroplate above the Earth, the top is the other side seen in the south by reflection. The dome is concave and surrounds the Earth, so it reflects the same stars on top from all across, so anyone looking due south will see it even if in different directions due to the circling ice wall.
The astroplate may in fact be so that it curves around to the other side, but for visualization purposes, just think of it as a disc of stars above the Earth with two sides.
But to answer your potential objection, it seems the astroplate would have a thickness of stars curving around so that when it reflects, the stars curving to the top of the astroplate will reflect too, meeting the reflection and the actual stars seamlessly, shaped just like an alien flying saucer, so it's not completely flattened.

But yeah, think of a concave mirror circling you with a plate above you and when you look up at the mirror surrounding you, the top of the plate is reflected.

Damn, just realized my pictures are too large of an attachment. I'll try again with something else.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2017, 08:56:21 PM »
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
Alright, considering that attachments are all too large, i had to resort to image address links.


This is an illustration I found on this video:
It doesn't deal exactly with what I am talking about here but it shows an astroplate above Earth and it would contain two sides, a top and bottom. It could be shaped more like a flying saucer like I said earlier (not completely flat), but "plate" describes it accurately.
Here is something else I found that would do better than I could do:

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.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2017, 09:41:14 PM »
[...]
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.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2017, 10:21:03 PM »
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
Alright, considering that attachments are all too large, i had to resort to image address links.


This is an illustration I found on this video:
It doesn't deal exactly with what I am talking about here but it shows an astroplate above Earth and it would contain two sides, a top and bottom. It could be shaped more like a flying saucer like I said earlier (not completely flat), but "plate" describes it accurately.
Here is something else I found that would do better than I could do:

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.

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?  With the single pole model the existence of the south pole is difficult to explain as it would theoretically not exist as a single location despite multiple visitors each year that travel to it.  I was specifically questioning star visibility in the dual pole model where both poles were single physical locations.  At that point they should be close enough that being on a high point in one hemiplane would allow you to see constellations from the other hemiplane.

Thank you for the images,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur