[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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?

[Tron]

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.   

[Tom Bishop]

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?

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.

[Iceman]

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?

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.

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!

[SteelyBob]

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:



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?

[stack]

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?

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?

[Longtitube]

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

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:–




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.

[SteelyBob]

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.

[RazaTD]

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 

I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge 

[Jay Seneca]

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 

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.

[Longtitube]

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 

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/false-cross/

[SteelyBob]

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.

[Jay Seneca]

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. 

[SteelyBob]

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.

[RazaTD]

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 😎

[Susie]

A very simple explanation is that there are at least four copies of each star in the southern hemisphere.