Do you have evidence to support your claim?I myself can testify to this claim. I served for six years in the US Navy, and made several cruises to the Southern Hemisphere. During which we could no longer see such Northern Hemisphere stars as Polaris, but could see Southern Hemisphere stars such as the Southern Cross.
Do you have evidence to support your claim?What would you accept as evidence?
Do you have evidence to support your claim?What would you accept as evidence?
Do you have evidence to support your claim?Rowbotham claims
MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH.
IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star.[/size]
But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.
Do you have evidence to support your claim?What would you accept as evidence?
Evidence would be a good start...
Maybe something beyond an anecdote.
We have people who live in the southern hemisphere personally confirming that they can see the Southern Cross and cannot see Polaris. Is that beyond an anecdote?No... it's basically the definition of the word...
If one of them had the equipment to take a picture and post it would you consider that beyond an anecdote?Yes, quite literally.
We have people who live in the southern hemisphere personally confirming that they can see the Southern Cross and cannot see Polaris. Is that beyond an anecdote?No... it's basically the definition of the word...QuoteIf one of them had the equipment to take a picture and post it would you consider that beyond an anecdote?Yes, quite literally.
Yes, quite literally.
If one of them had the equipment to take a picture and post it would you consider that beyond an anecdote?
Sucks to be you that you live in a location that has too much LIGHT POLLUTION. I live in Nevada and can see the stars better than you. More proof then next you want someone to give you money to fly to that location to see yourself, but knowing your logic you'll just keep the money
(http://7dust.net/Dark.jpg)
LOL, you see their logic, Santa Claus could have painted any of those pictures according to their logic. I've already now established Ground vs Satellite Communication.
junker is a complete liar to say she has been to those locations and not seen any good views, not to mention the Southern Cross which you obviously can not see from Nevada
I say junker is a she because she will never show any substantial proof that she is really a man.
Do you have evidence to support your claim?
Do you ever make a meaningful post?Do you have evidence to support your claim?What would you accept as evidence?
Evidence would be a good start...
Maybe something beyond an anecdote.
Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously;So these stars can be viewed from the Northern Hemisphere, though not all from "every meridian simultaneously" as claimed.
But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.
MM. Von Spix and Karl Von Martius, in their account of -their scientific travels in Brazil, in 1817-1820, relate that "on the 15th of June, in latitude 14° S, we beheld, for the first time, that glorious constellation of the southern heavens, the Cross, which is to navigators a token of peace, and, according to its position, indicates the hours of the night. We had long wished for this constellation as a guide to the other hemisphere; we therefore felt inexpressible pleasure when we perceived it in the resplendent firmament."
The great traveller Humboldt says:--
"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."
Do you ever make a meaningful post?Do you have evidence to support your claim?What would you accept as evidence?
Evidence would be a good start...
Maybe something beyond an anecdote.
You were explicitly asked "What would you accept as evidence?" and you give the non-sensual answer "Evidence would be a good start..."
Any photograph that has evidence against the flat earth is deemed fake of "Photoshopped", so what is acceptable?
Did you drop out of school and live with mommy and daddy still ? Why do you want to hold other peoples hand and have them show you things ?
The rest of your rant is premature. I haven't even established a position on the topic yet, so no need to jump to conclusions. I merely asked for evidence from someone making a claim. I apologize if that frustrates you, but I'll continue to ask for evidence when claims such as this are made.My rant! You call that a rant?
I have asked this before, but if the Flat Earth model were to be true, please explain the stars only seen in the northern or southern hemisphere?The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.
I waited for an answer... And I didn't get one.
Any Flat Earthers there willing to answer?
(By the way, I don't see the answer for my question anywhere in the wiki.)
The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.Have you a single piece of supporting evidence for the earth changing shape?
Sure -The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.Have you a single piece of supporting evidence for the earth changing shape?
And you call yourself "truth", LOL!
you started using offensive words even before I had the opportunity to express myself.The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.Have you a single piece of supporting evidence for the earth changing shape?
And you call yourself "truth", LOL!
Sure -The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.Have you a single piece of supporting evidence for the earth changing shape?
And you call yourself "truth", LOL!
Star trails - Round earth and concave earth - supported
Different stars - round earth and concave earth - supported.
flaws in explanation why we can see Chicago from 60 miles - flat earth.
Flaws support my idea of changing earth.
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg) Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no) Most of Chicago hidden - behind what? | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png) Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
flaws in explanation why we can see Chicago from 60 miles - flat earth.List one or two of these "flaws" please? I would like to address them.
Flaws support my idea of changing earth.
If you consider "laughing out loud" to be offensive, you're going to have a difficult life.And you call yourself "truth", LOL!you started using offensive words even before I had the opportunity to express myself.
People still discuss it, if it was so obvious as you say:Sure -The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.Have you a single piece of supporting evidence for the earth changing shape?
And you call yourself "truth", LOL!
Star trails - Round earth and concave earth - supported
Different stars - round earth and concave earth - supported.
flaws in explanation why we can see Chicago from 60 miles - flat earth.
Flaws support my idea of changing earth.
There are no "flaws in explanation why we can see Chicago from 60 miles" for the globe - refraction, leading to mirage. Just see how it varies with atmospheric conditions.
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park
Most of Chicago hidden - behind what?
Oops, where has Chicago gone?
Then you can get a mirage so extreme that a boat can appear floating in the air above the water, as in:(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
"Ghost Ship, probably on Lake Ssuperior
There's no need to drag in a "changing earth", all these observations are quite explainable on the Globe.
People discuss lots of things, but that doesn't make them "flaws".People still discuss it, if it was so obvious as you say:Sure -The earth is round for couples of weeks, concave to a lot of time and flat for very short time.Have you a single piece of supporting evidence for the earth changing shape?
And you call yourself "truth", LOL!
Star trails - Round earth and concave earth - supported
Different stars - round earth and concave earth - supported.
flaws in explanation why we can see Chicago from 60 miles - flat earth.
Flaws support my idea of changing earth.
There are no "flaws in explanation why we can see Chicago from 60 miles" for the globe - refraction, leading to mirage. Just see how it varies with atmospheric conditions.
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park
Most of Chicago hidden - behind what?
Oops, where has Chicago gone?
Then you can get a mirage so extreme that a boat can appear floating in the air above the water, as in:(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
"Ghost Ship, probably on Lake Ssuperior
There's no need to drag in a "changing earth", all these observations are quite explainable on the Globe.
People won't discuss it so much. it is ,as other things, a subject for discussion therefore this a flaw like plenty of other discussions.