The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: RazaTD on January 15, 2021, 05:43:13 AM
-
The existence of a Southern Celestial Pole is an easily observable fact and is not disputed anywhere. However, looking at the typical flat earth model with stars on the dome or something similar, I really don't see how it could ever rationalize the second pole.
Please don't troll and say the Southern Celestial Pole is fake.
I read the wiki and it is not satisfactory. The mono polar flat earth can't explain the second pole and the bi polar flat earth only explains the poles (I can't find information about other phenomenon on it)
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation
-
But as the OP says Tom, the wiki is far from satisfactory on this. The monopole explanation focusses on explaining the rotation direction, for example. Leaving aside whether or not that argument is credible, it misses the far bigger question of how a single celestial southern pole can exist at all on a monopole FE model with no south pole. As per another recent thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17568.msg229449#msg229449 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17568.msg229449#msg229449)) where we showed that FET cannot adequately explain how people at different longitudes can observe the southern pole star simultaneously on the same apparent heading, the wiki completely fails to explain this fundamental issue.
Offering up the bipolar model as an alternative does not help this argument either, as the bipolar model is riddled with issues as well - obvious errors in the relationships between certain countries and continents, for example (look at the west coast of the USA and the pacific islands - describe a journey from California - Hawaii - Solomon Islands - Australia), as well as an impossible relationship to 'North' or 'South' for most places on the planet - an inertially navigated journey North from anywhere other than 0 degrees longitude would not take you over the correct places on your way to the north pole.
Interested in your response.
-
Well you can't see the South Pole star. Not easily, anyway. You can more easily see the Southern Cross.
You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other. As JHelzer pointed out, there may be a time during the year where it's possible for both locations to see the same stars for a short amount of time for some hours. But that has yet to be demonstrated. You are merely claiming that they would see the same stars in that window. That's not enough for people to abandon the Monopole Model.
inertially navigated journey North from anywhere other than 0 degrees longitude would not take you over the correct places on your way to the north pole.
This statement is also full of assumptions, as if anyone has have ever traveled blindly to the North Pole in a "straight line" after making a single glance of the direction of North on a compass at the equator.
So if all we are offered are assumption why should anyone discard any of the FE models based on that?
"If I assume I'm right because I must be right, I win!" - That's how it sounds to me.
-
Well you can't see the South Pole star. Not easily, anyway. You can more easily see the Southern Cross, which points towards the South.
You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other. As JHelzer pointed out, there may be a time during the year where it's possible for both locations to see the same stars for a short amount of time for some hours. But that has yet to be demonstrated. You are merely claiming that they would see the same stars in that window. That's not enough for people to abandon the Monopole Model.
inertially navigated journey North from anywhere other than 0 degrees longitude would not take you over the correct places on your way to the north pole.
This statement is also full of assumptions, as if anyone has have ever traveled blindly to the North Pole in a "straight line" after making a single glance of the direction of North on a compass at the equator.
So if all we are offered are assumption why should anyone discard any of the FE models based on that?
"If I assume I'm right because I must be right, I win!" - That's how it sounds to me.
I wouldn't say these folks just pointed the nose of their jet North with one glance, but they seemingly performed a polar circumnavigation breaking the previous speed record set back in 2008. The One More Orbit venture. http://www.onemoreorbit.com/
Here was their route:
(https://i.imgur.com/joQTc0X.jpg)
-
...You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other...
You should check your facts: at this moment it is dark in Cape Town, South Africa and will be for another five hours. Sunset in Ushaia, Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America is in less than half an hour and it will be another seven hours plus before sunrise there tomorrow. That's about five hours' overlap of darkness for the two locations and in their summer when their nights are shorter.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia)
-
Thanks for the reply - nice to have somebody engage in the debate.
Well you can't see the South Pole star. Not easily, anyway. You can more easily see the Southern Cross, which points towards the South.
The difficulty of seeing it does not change the fact that it is there. Yes, it's not the brightest of stars, but it's still there. And it's almost exactly due south, viewed from anywhere in the southern hemisphere, and it's altitude angle remains constant, with the other stars and constellations rotating around it.
You would be arguing why someone can see the stars around the South Pole star at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other.
This is completely irrelevant. It only needs to be true for a millisecond for it to be a problem for the monopole FET map shown in the wiki, and several posters, myself included, showed quite clearly on the other recent thread that there are substantial darkness hours overlaps between continents. Furthermore, as I also pointed out, you don't even need to move continents for it to be a problem. Two people just a hundred or so miles apart (in longitude) will observe sigma octantis on the same southern heading despite themselves facing, according to the FET map, in slightly different directions.
As JHelzer pointed out, there may be a time during the year where it's possible for both locations to see the same stars for a short amount of time for some hours. But that has yet to be demonstrated.
We showed you some time data taken from Google which very clearly demonstrated the overlap - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17568.msg229449#msg229449 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17568.msg229449#msg229449). What level of proof are you demanding here? At some point you have to surely accept such widely available data - I'm sure the people of the southern continents would quickly complain if google was lying about the sunset and sunrise times. If you are challenging it, which part of it do you doubt?
You are merely claiming that they would see the same stars in that window. That's not enough for people to abandon the Monopole Model.
It's not clear which part of the argument you are challenging here. If you've agreed that sigma octantis is always due south, and if you agree that it's always visible in the southern hemisphere (light levels, cloud etc permitting), then there's little left to disagree with - grateful if you could expand on this please.
This statement is also full of assumptions, as if anyone has have ever traveled blindly to the North Pole in a "straight line" after making a single glance of the direction of North on a compass at the equator.
But you don't have to have somebody undertake the journey - you just have to look at the map to see the problem. If you look at, say Mexico City, at 100 degrees West, and consider the journey you would take if you followed the north star all the way to the north pole. You would expect to go over Canada, passing just to the west of Winnipeg at 98 degrees west. But the map we are discussing here has curved lines of longitude - that makes no sense at all, because, by definition, they should be straight lines to the north pole. If you go in a straight line from Mexico City to the North Pole on the bi polar maps you pass to the east of, for example, Winnipeg. And if you follow the shown line of longitude, and pass West of Winnipeg as you would expect, you won't be heading straight at Polaris as your path will be curved.
None of this requires an expedition - you can see it on the wiki maps.
So, all you have to offer are assumptions. Why should anyone discard any of the FE models based on that?
I think describing my points as 'assumptions' is somewhat inaccurate. They are clear, evidence based challenges to the proposed mono and bipolar maps. I note also you've chosen to not address my other point about the bipolar map, which was about the distances between various places - see the pacific islands example. Grateful if you could address this too.
Thanks again
-
...You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other...
You should check your facts: at this moment it is dark in Cape Town, South Africa and will be for another five hours. Sunset in Ushaia, Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America is in less than half an hour and it will be another seven hours plus before sunrise there tomorrow. That's about five hours' overlap of darkness for the two locations and in their summer when their nights are shorter.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia)
Tierra del Fuego is at the tip of South America. Here are the next three hours at one hour intervals from https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America is going to be in twilight, allegedly. You can't see stars in times of twilight.
(https://i.imgur.com/QQi4Ygb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/SMtQNAG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yyO0vyI.png)
The claim that these cities you listed are going to see the same stars at the same time is tenuous at best.
-
In those cities' defense though, again, it's the middle of summer. Would the same be true in July?
-
Here is what it looks like during the summer on June 21, with added green marker for "a star":
(https://i.imgur.com/KGGqBJt.jpg)
Translating it to a Flat Earth Monopole map, with relative location:
(https://i.imgur.com/2wymA7i.jpg)
Still seems like its close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.
-
Here is what it looks like during the summer on June 21, with added green marker for "a star":
(https://i.imgur.com/KGGqBJt.jpg)
Translating it to a Flat Earth Monopole map, with relative location:
(https://i.imgur.com/2wymA7i.jpg)
Still seems like its close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.
Which way is South on a mono-pole FE model from each of those locations?
-
Which way is South on a mono-pole FE model from each of those locations?
If you're talking about the positioning of the stars in the monopole model, the positioning of the stars to be more southward once they are in range is addressed by P-Brane's video in the link I gave. He has an explanation for why a wide range of stars seem to be moving around a southern point.
-
@Tom
Still seems like its close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.
Tom, from the sentence above and from the maps you've shown, you appear to have conceded that it is a) dark at the same time in different continents and b) possible to see the same star from those two places at the same time.
That's great - changing our understanding of things when confronted with new evidence is what good scientists do. Will you be changing the wiki to reflect this? It still says this:
Q. How can two people on opposite sides of the earth in Australia and South Ameirca both see the same South Pole Stars simultaneously?
A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.
-
You guys were talking about the tips of South America and Africa. What you quoted from the Wiki is talking about South America and Australia. Those are the furthest points on the Monopole Model.
Not sure why we've been talking about SA and Africa here.
-
It doesn't really matter which continents we're talking about, does it? The principle is the same.
-
Which way is South on a mono-pole FE model from each of those locations?
If you're talking about the positioning of the stars in the monopole model, the positioning of the stars to be more southward once they are in range is addressed by P-Brane's video in the link I gave. He has an explanation for why a wide range of stars seem to be moving around a southern point.
I watched P-Branes video. He just keeps going over and over and over again Crepuscular and anti-Crepuscular rays, blah, blah, blah, and at the end, "Ta-da! That's why stars rotate around Sigma Octantis..." It all literally made no sense. In any case, it doesn't really address my question.
Just picking Punta Arenas, Chile and Cape Town, Africa, in Stellarium, from each of those locations Sig Oct is due South. The two red arrows on the mono-poile model represent looking due South from each of those locations. How could both observers both be able to see Sig Oct due South when they are looking in very different directions? That's why I asked which way does South work on the mono-pole model.
(https://i.imgur.com/xI9E5VM.jpg)
-
I watched P-Branes video. He just keeps going over and over and over again Crepuscular and anti-Crepuscular rays, blah, blah, blah, and at the end, "Ta-da! That's why stars rotate around Sigma Octantis..." It all literally made no sense. In any case, it doesn't really address my question.
Just picking Punta Arenas, Chile and Cape Town, Africa, in Stellarium, from each of those locations Sig Oct is due South. The two red arrows on the mono-poile model represent looking due South from each of those locations. How could both observers both be able to see Sig Oct due South when they are looking in very different directions? That's why I asked which way does South work on the mono-pole model.
I completely agree. P-Brane's video doesn't explain the problem - it focusses on the rotation, and the issue we are discussing here, which isn't about rotation, is something of an afterthought, and his explanation of it makes no sense at all.
The really important thing to notice, which P-Brane himself shows in his video, is that sigma octantis is not only always due south, but it is also fixed in elevation / altitude - the other stars rotate around it. Your two observers in Chile and South Africa could look south in their respective evenings and, if they looked at the right piece of sky (given by their latitude), they would see sigma octantis slowly become visible as it got darker (light levels, cloud and equipment permitting). It wouldn't 'rise' - it would just appear. Later on, after sunset in both locations, there would then be a period of 3-4 hours or so when, simultaneously, both observers would see the same star, due south, stationary in the sky. When the sun starts to rise for our respective observers, they would in turn find it progressively harder to see sigma octantis, but it doesn't 'set', or move below the horizon, it just stays where it always has been and fades out as the light levels increase. This is strong evidence that, were it not for the sun and its light, they would both be able to see Sigma Octantis 24/7.
Tom - this doesn't make sense at all on the monopole FE map. How can our two observers be looking at the same object, at the same time (in that 3-4 hour overlapping period), in two different directions?
-
None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross. It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?
And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture. :'(
-
None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross. It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?
And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture. :'(
Are you quite sure about the star-navigating nations? Perhaps the Polynesians don’t count, but they had colonised as far east as Fiji by around 2,000 years ago and as far as Easter Island by about 700AD. They also colonised Aotearoa (New Zealand) by 1000AD. All of these south of the Equator and Polaris invisible below the horizon. Captain Cook records a Polynesian navigator who had a mental image of thousands of miles of the South Pacific in his head which Cook wrote down to aid his own explorations and found remarkably accurate.
The Polynesians certainly knew the Southern Cross: the Hawaiians called it Hanaiakamalama.
-
None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross. It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?
And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture. :'(
Regardless of who, when and where Sig Oct was first used in navigation or whathaveyou, the question still remains, "How can our two observers be looking at the same object, at the same time (in that 3-4 hour overlapping period), in two different directions (with the Mono-pole FE Model)?"
As for posting an image, it's simple. Get yourself an image hosting account. I use imgur.com. It's free. You upload your image to the hosting site. Then simply copy the generated BBCode and paste it into your post.
A side trick is if you find the image you posted comes through here too large or too small, you can quickly change it with a snippet of code. (I find that my imgur upload images are often massive so I usually minimize them to between 400-600 px in width)
In the BBC code, just add "width=000". Ex., img width=500]https://i.imgur.com/000000.jpg?1[/img]
-
Which way is South on a mono-pole FE model from each of those locations?
If you're talking about the positioning of the stars in the monopole model, the positioning of the stars to be more southward once they are in range is addressed by P-Brane's video in the link I gave. He has an explanation for why a wide range of stars seem to be moving around a southern point.
I watched P-Branes video. He just keeps going over and over and over again Crepuscular and anti-Crepuscular rays, blah, blah, blah, and at the end, "Ta-da! That's why stars rotate around Sigma Octantis..." It all literally made no sense. In any case, it doesn't really address my question.
Just picking Punta Arenas, Chile and Cape Town, Africa, in Stellarium, from each of those locations Sig Oct is due South. The two red arrows on the mono-poile model represent looking due South from each of those locations. How could both observers both be able to see Sig Oct due South when they are looking in very different directions? That's why I asked which way does South work on the mono-pole model.
(https://i.imgur.com/xI9E5VM.jpg)
P-Brane's mechanism has everything is squished together to perspective, and his mechanism has things squished to perspective opposite of the Northern rotation. He suggests that although you may be looking at a wide range of area very far away from you, it's squished to a small area due to perspective.
(https://i.imgur.com/9kGEoYR.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE&ab_channel=p-brane
-
Which way is South on a mono-pole FE model from each of those locations?
If you're talking about the positioning of the stars in the monopole model, the positioning of the stars to be more southward once they are in range is addressed by P-Brane's video in the link I gave. He has an explanation for why a wide range of stars seem to be moving around a southern point.
I watched P-Branes video. He just keeps going over and over and over again Crepuscular and anti-Crepuscular rays, blah, blah, blah, and at the end, "Ta-da! That's why stars rotate around Sigma Octantis..." It all literally made no sense. In any case, it doesn't really address my question.
Just picking Punta Arenas, Chile and Cape Town, Africa, in Stellarium, from each of those locations Sig Oct is due South. The two red arrows on the mono-poile model represent looking due South from each of those locations. How could both observers both be able to see Sig Oct due South when they are looking in very different directions? That's why I asked which way does South work on the mono-pole model.
(https://i.imgur.com/xI9E5VM.jpg)
P-Brane's mechanism has everything is squished together to perspective, and his mechanism has things squished to perspective opposite of the Northern rotation. He suggests that although you may be looking at a wide range of area very far away from you, it's squished to a small area due to perspective.
(https://i.imgur.com/9kGEoYR.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE&ab_channel=p-brane
P-Brane has some problems. If observers in Punta Arenas, Chile, Cape Town, S.Africa, & Sydney, Australia are all looking due South they see Sig Oct. In the diagram below, the red arrows represent looking due South for each observer. P-Brane has them actually looking following the yellow arrows somehow converging on Sig Oct? How does his "perspective" accomplish that?
(https://i.imgur.com/cwA0n3k.jpg)
-
Does this map help answer some questions presented in this discussion? Im still new at this topic and the map isn't completed but what I gather so far is:
The southern star or axis of rotation is very real. You can see the Milky Way and Large Megalluthic Cloud circling around it - as far north as Arizona I once observed. Why people can't see it further north, is because of the way light bends around a reflective dome like Tom's video on wiki points out - which also helps explain their circular spinning. And mix that with the sunset effect and how the earth is not parallel to a round dome or stars above it, you can imagine how much a persons viewing angle affects what they see in the sky.
The North rotation of stars is also addressed by the magnifying glass example in wiki and how light circles in two opposite directions. And lastly, people in the North in this model are facing the "north pole" above and between Greenland and Scandinavia during dark hours so the same set of stars viewed by everyone "passing by" in the night is possible.
-
P-Brane has some problems. If observers in Punta Arenas, Chile, Cape Town, S.Africa, & Sydney, Australia are all looking due South they see Sig Oct. In the diagram below, the red arrows represent looking due South for each observer. P-Brane has them actually looking following the yellow arrows somehow converging on Sig Oct? How does his "perspective" accomplish that?
(https://i.imgur.com/cwA0n3k.jpg)
You haven't shown that this is the case. Usually when it's night or dusk in South America it's day or dawn in Australia. Your claim that people see the the same stars around the celestial pole at the same time is questionable.
If the stars are on the night side of the earth, rotating around to different observers on the night side, when those observers see that set of night set of stars at different times they will see the same set of stars.
-
P-Brane has some problems. If observers in Punta Arenas, Chile, Cape Town, S.Africa, & Sydney, Australia are all looking due South they see Sig Oct. In the diagram below, the red arrows represent looking due South for each observer. P-Brane has them actually looking following the yellow arrows somehow converging on Sig Oct? How does his "perspective" accomplish that?
(https://i.imgur.com/cwA0n3k.jpg)
You haven't shown that this is the case. Usually when it's night or dusk in South America it's day or dawn in Australia. Your claim that people see the the same stars around the celestial pole at the same time is questionable.
If the stars are on the night side of the earth, rotating around to different observers on the night side, when those observers see that set of night set of stars at different times they will see the same set of stars.
(https://i.imgur.com/LnZ2DcG.jpg)
Here's a map I found from https://earthsky.org/tonight/solstice-brings-northernmost-sunset
It doesnt show twilight zones which is potentially an issue, but it does show that the sun would be below the horizon at all three locations simultaneously.
I saw a video on YT some time ago where two guys live streamed themselves filming star trails around sigma octantis which was the same direction for both of them, from perth and Cape Town. But I cant find it any more so the previous sentence was a waste of all your time I guess!
-
You haven't shown that this is the case. Usually when it's night or dusk in South America it's day or dawn in Australia. Your claim that people see the the same stars around the celestial pole at the same time is questionable.
Just as with the South America / Africa combination, it's entirely possible for it to be dark in both Australia and South America at the same time. Here's an example from timeanddate.com, showing 0930UTC on 21 June:
(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210621T0930)
It's a little further from Australia to South America than it is from Africa to Australia, so the overlap will be less, but it's still an overlap - the problem for FET doesn't reduce with less exposure, so saying it's 'usually' not dark at the same time doesn't explain it away (and the wiki still needs changing).
Moreover, it's actually possible, for a brief period of time during the southern summer, for it to be dark in all three continents at the same time. Here's 2142 UTC on 21st June - Africa is all dark, the western edge of Australia is still dark, and it's also just got dark on the eastern tip of South America. People in all three places will see Sigma Octantis due south, even though 'south' has them facing outwards from each other on the monopole FE map. Tom - how would you explain this?
(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210622T2142)
-
P-Brane has some problems. If observers in Punta Arenas, Chile, Cape Town, S.Africa, & Sydney, Australia are all looking due South they see Sig Oct. In the diagram below, the red arrows represent looking due South for each observer. P-Brane has them actually looking following the yellow arrows somehow converging on Sig Oct? How does his "perspective" accomplish that?
(https://i.imgur.com/cwA0n3k.jpg)
You haven't shown that this is the case. Usually when it's night or dusk in South America it's day or dawn in Australia. Your claim that people see the the same stars around the celestial pole at the same time is questionable.
If the stars are on the night side of the earth, rotating around to different observers on the night side, when those observers see that set of night set of stars at different times they will see the same set of stars.
What is due South on the mono-pole model for each of the 3 observers?
-
Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America is going to be in twilight, allegedly. You can't see stars in times of twilight.
The claim that these cities you listed are going to see the same stars at the same time is tenuous at best.
Actually you can, and the daylight charts you supplied give part of the answer, if you read the article on the different types of twilight:–
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html)
you'll read there that most stars are visible in astronomical twilight. Both horizon and the brighter stars are visible in nautical twilight - which is why it's called nautical twilight - and can be used by sailors for navigation. Civil twilight completes the picture. All three types and their extents are shown on the daylight charts:–
(https://i.imgur.com/wGSFCpR.jpg)
Ushaia and Cape Town at the time shown in the chart above are both on the transition from nautical to astronomical twilight so stars will be visible at both locations at the same time.
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis, it's quite useless for navigation, being on the limits of naked eye visibility even in full darkness. Sailors and other navigators used brighter stars for navigation, such as those of the Southern Cross (Crux) which has two very bright stars: Acrux, the 13th brightest in the sky, and Mimosa, the 20th brightest. Crux is visible from Ushaia and Cape Town simultaneously, and in June is visible from Ushaia and Perth, Western Australia simultaneously.
-
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis
'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.
The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.
-
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis
'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.
The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.
I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot 8)
I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge ;)
-
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis
'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.
The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.
I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot 8)
I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge ;)
I don’t think it’s possible in real life. What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross. It’s kind of like why north hemisphere compasses won’t work correctly in the Southern Hemisphere. But the compass will always point to north correctly in both hemisphere. You can make a compass with a bottle top and a paper clip. That will point correctly to the North and it’s opposite to the south. But for some reason in the Southern Hemisphere you need an additional part that points to the South. This makes no sense. If your going opposite of north you will be going south and someone in Africa going south will not end up in the same place as someone in South America going south. Unless one uses a Southern Hemisphere compasses. Which sounds like it gives a false southern direction to make all points going south end up in the same place.
So a person can be in Africa and one in South America and both looking south and thinking there seeing the southern cross but actually be looking at 2 different sets of stars.
-
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis
'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.
The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.
I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot 8)
I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge ;)
I don’t think it’s possible in real life. What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross.
Cut the stargazers a little slack: the False Cross is dimmer and has four stars, not five like Crux (Southern Cross). There are no Pointer stars like Alpha and Hadar/Beta Centauri (third and eleventh brightest stars in the sky) to guide the observer to the False Cross, instead of the small, very bright constellation of Crux. Furthermore, Crux is much nearer the Pointers already mentioned than Canopus, the second brightest star of all: the False Cross is much closer to Canopus than the Pointers.
Maybe you or I would pick the wrong constellation otherwise, but to assume people in the south don't know their own night sky is presumptious.
(https://www.constellation-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Southern-Cross-False-Cross-and-Diamond-Cross.webp)
https://www.constellation-guide.com/false-cross/ (https://www.constellation-guide.com/false-cross/)
-
I don’t think it’s possible in real life. What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross. It’s kind of like why north hemisphere compasses won’t work correctly in the Southern Hemisphere. But the compass will always point to north correctly in both hemisphere. You can make a compass with a bottle top and a paper clip. That will point correctly to the North and it’s opposite to the south. But for some reason in the Southern Hemisphere you need an additional part that points to the South. This makes no sense. If your going opposite of north you will be going south and someone in Africa going south will not end up in the same place as someone in South America going south. Unless one uses a Southern Hemisphere compasses. Which sounds like it gives a false southern direction to make all points going south end up in the same place.
So a person can be in Africa and one in South America and both looking south and thinking there seeing the southern cross but actually be looking at 2 different sets of stars.
Two separate issues there - compasses and stars.
Let's deal with compasses first. You are right, some compasses (not all though - some are universal) are optimised to work in particular hemispheres, or even particular latitudes of each hemisphere. This has nothing to do with north or south though, and everything to do with dip - the downward angle of the earth's magnetic field, which varies with latitude. To compensate for the dip, northern hemisphere compasses are counterweighted on the southern end of their needle, and vice versa in the southern hemisphere. Use one in the wrong hemisphere and it will still point north/south, and it will do so correctly, but its performance will be poor as it will be trying to dip down at an extreme angle.
As for the stars, I'm afraid that just a ridiculous claim. Firstly, as I've said elsewhere today in another thread, the issue that we've illustrated with the extreme case of different continents is equally applicable, albeit not as obvious, for two observers just a few hundred miles apart on the same continent. If you and I met in Australia, we could look south, then look up at an angle equal to our latitude, say 30 degrees, and we would be able to see Sigma Octantis. Then we could get in our SUVs and drive East and West respectively, keeping that star on our left or right as we get further apart. Go for an hour or two in opposite directions and then look at the same star. It will still be orientated true south for both of us, and yet the according to the monopole FET map we are now each facing in two slightly different outward directions. How can we be looking in a slightly different outward, radial directions and yet looking at the same star? You've brought in this idea of different stars, but that makes no sense at all - where, when and how do these different stars appear? Where is the join? How do the various constellations retain their continuity and conformance to all of the different star charts? It can't be mistaken identity - that doesn't align with centuries of successful celestial navigation across the southern hemisphere.
-
I don’t think it’s possible in real life. What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross. It’s kind of like why north hemisphere compasses won’t work correctly in the Southern Hemisphere. But the compass will always point to north correctly in both hemisphere. You can make a compass with a bottle top and a paper clip. That will point correctly to the North and it’s opposite to the south. But for some reason in the Southern Hemisphere you need an additional part that points to the South. This makes no sense. If your going opposite of north you will be going south and someone in Africa going south will not end up in the same place as someone in South America going south. Unless one uses a Southern Hemisphere compasses. Which sounds like it gives a false southern direction to make all points going south end up in the same place.
So a person can be in Africa and one in South America and both looking south and thinking there seeing the southern cross but actually be looking at 2 different sets of stars.
Two separate issues there - compasses and stars.
Let's deal with compasses first. You are right, some compasses (not all though - some are universal) are optimised to work in particular hemispheres, or even particular latitudes of each hemisphere. This has nothing to do with north or south though, and everything to do with dip - the downward angle of the earth's magnetic field, which varies with latitude. To compensate for the dip, northern hemisphere compasses are counterweighted on the southern end of their needle, and vice versa in the southern hemisphere. Use one in the wrong hemisphere and it will still point north/south, and it will do so correctly, but its performance will be poor as it will be trying to dip down at an extreme angle.
As for the stars, I'm afraid that just a ridiculous claim. Firstly, as I've said elsewhere today in another thread, the issue that we've illustrated with the extreme case of different continents is equally applicable, albeit not as obvious, for two observers just a few hundred miles apart on the same continent. If you and I met in Australia, we could look south, then look up at an angle equal to our latitude, say 30 degrees, and we would be able to see Sigma Octantis. Then we could get in our SUVs and drive East and West respectively, keeping that star on our left or right as we get further apart. Go for an hour or two in opposite directions and then look at the same star. It will still be orientated true south for both of us, and yet the according to the monopole FET map we are now each facing in two slightly different outward directions. How can we be looking in a slightly different outward, radial directions and yet looking at the same star? You've brought in this idea of different stars, but that makes no sense at all - where, when and how do these different stars appear? Where is the join? How do the various constellations retain their continuity and conformance to all of the different star charts? It can't be mistaken identity - that doesn't align with centuries of successful celestial navigation across the southern hemisphere.
But how does one verify there’re looking at the same stars? They might think there looking at the same stars but aren’t. One continent could be looking for sigma octantis through the way if the southern cross and the other continent looking at the false southern cross and not the real one. Both thinking there looking at the same thing but they aren’t. Or they could be using a Southern Hemisphere compass to find Sigma Octantis which that compass doesn’t really look opposite of north when using it to look south.
-
But how does one verify there’re looking at the same stars? They might think there looking at the same stars but aren’t. One continent could be looking for sigma octantis through the way if the southern cross and the other continent looking at the false southern cross and not the real one. Both thinking there looking at the same thing but they aren’t. Or they could be using a Southern Hemisphere compass to find Sigma Octantis which that compass doesn’t really look opposite of north when using it to look south.
People have been plotting the stars for thousands of years. We have mountains of evidence, which has been used successfully by people navigating the great oceans of the world, that all builds to form a coherent map of the skies. Look at any star chart, or any of the online tools or phone apps, and they will all tell you that Sigma Octantis, regardless of your longitude, is found on a true southerly heading, at an altitude angle of whatever your latitude happens to be (in the southern hemisphere, of course), and all the other constellations appear to rotate around that point, just like the stars in the northern hemisphere appear to rotate around Polaris.
If you don't believe me, or every person who has ever viewed or navigated by the stars, go to the southern hemisphere and take a look for yourself. Take a look a the sky on a dark night, and find Sigma Octantis, and there it will be, due south of you.
I should emphasise - true south, not magnetic south. They aren't necessarily the same thing, but that's equally true on a monopole FET map, so I'm assuming there's no disagreement there.
-
It’s been nearly a month and there has been no good explanation for what we observe as the Southern Celestial pole. Again even if we grant that PBrane’s video is able to explain a rotating celestial pole for everyone, there is no way distant people looking in different directions will see the same stars.
Nothing has been offered to explain that anomaly except Jay Seneca’s suggestion that people might be looking at the wrong stars which is laughably incorrect.
I guess this is another point about which the Flat Earth model is just flat out wrong 😎
-
A very simple explanation is that there are at least four copies of each star in the southern hemisphere.