[RazaTD]

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)

[Tom Bishop]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation

[SteelyBob]

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) 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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[stack]

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:

[Longtitube]

...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/argentina/ushuaia

[SteelyBob]

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. 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

[Tom Bishop]

...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/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.







The claim that these cities you listed are going to see the same stars at the same time is tenuous at best.

[Iceman]

In those cities' defense though, again, it's the middle of summer. Would the same be true in July?

[Tom Bishop]

Here is what it looks like during the summer on June 21, with added green marker for "a star":



Translating it to a Flat Earth Monopole map, with relative location:



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.

[stack]

Here is what it looks like during the summer on June 21, with added green marker for "a star":



Translating it to a Flat Earth Monopole map, with relative location:



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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[SteelyBob]

@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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[SteelyBob]

It doesn't really matter which continents we're talking about, does it? The principle is the same.

[stack]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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?

[Jay Seneca]

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. 

[Longtitube]

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.

[stack]

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]