We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy (https://archive.org/details/lady_blount_and_albert_smith-zetetic_astronomy) by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf).
As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.
We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions.
As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.
C h a p t e r IV.
TWO “ PO L ES ” AND TWO VORTICES.
We have seen, from the foregoing evidence that _ there
must be TWO “ poles ” ; but while we as Zetetics admit this
fact, we still deny that these “ poles ” are such as would be
required by a globe at each end of its supposed polar axis.
They are simply magnetic poles like the “ poles ” of an
ordinary magnet, and not the poles of a rotatory sphere of
any kind.
It may be objected that the earth’s magnetic poles do not
quite correspond with the celestial poles. True ! but this
may arise from the fact that the celestial and terrestrial fields
of magnetic operation, though generally the same, are not
quite coincident. But this difference may be easily accounted
for. There are two celestial poles and two terrestrial poles,
and the fact that these poles are alike magnetic, will account
for their slightly different positions ; as also for the fact that
these poles gradually alter their geographical areas. But
we cannot at present enter further into this interesting
question. Nature seems to work in pairs. We have heaven
and earth ; the sun and moon ; man and woman ; positive
and negative
There are two celestial poles and two terrestrial poles,
and the fact that these poles are alike magnetic, will account
for their slightly different positions ; as also for the fact that
these poles gradually alter their geographical areas. But
we cannot at present enter further into this interesting
question. Nature seems to work in pairs. We have heaven
and earth ; the sun and moon ; man and woman ; positive
and negative
We are aware of this and have addressed this phenomena over 100 years ago. Rowbotham's original model only contained one celestial and magnetic pole, but after Earth Not a Globe was published the South Pole was discovered and the society revised the Flat Earth model to account for the new evidence. Read the book Zetetic Astronomy (https://archive.org/details/lady_blount_and_albert_smith-zetetic_astronomy) by Lady Blount and Albert Smith. The model is also discussed in Albert Smith's The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf).
As for why this hasn't caught on with the wider Flat Earth community, I can only speculate that it is because these later post-ENAG works became available online much later than Earth Not a Globe did and the information has not yet been fully digested and discussed. That first book is so newly online that we don't even have a copy of it in our Library yet, for example.
Thanks for linking the new book. Do you find it to be accurate in its assertions?
Problem being, no model where the sun travels in a circle above a flat Earth matches any observable anything about the sun. Seasons, apparent size and position, horizon crossing, you name it.Here is the book by Zetetes with his "bipolar" model: SEA-EARTH GLOBE, And Its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions; OR Modern Theoretical Astronomy, by Zetetes. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Sea-Earth%20Globe,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf)
That said, I'm genuinely curious what you mean by 'I feel it would bring things closer to observation of daylight and close some questions on the wildly different paths the sun would need to take over the year in Lady Blount's two pole model.'
What 'observations of daylight?' What questions about the path of the sun?
Quote TWO POLES. |
Problem being, no model where the sun travels in a circle above a flat Earth matches any observable anything about the sun. Seasons, apparent size and position, horizon crossing, you name it.Sunset is a massive problem for FE. They say "perspective" but I proved elsewhere that for clouds to be lit from below the sun must be physically below the level of the clouds. Shadow angle depends on the physical relationship between light source and the item its light hits, not your perspective.