Offline Celestial Investigations

  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Investigator of FE phenomena
    • View Profile
The Celestial Sphere
« on: October 27, 2018, 07:55:36 PM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2018, 05:03:33 AM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?
In the context of a flat earth, the concept of a celestial sphere doesn't really apply.  However, some FE'ers do advocate the existence of a celestial dome that serves a comparable function.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2018, 06:20:53 PM »
As I understand it FET places the North Pole in the centre of the disk of a flat Earth with Polaris essentially lying directly above the North Pole. That is what we see.  If you take a time exposure of the sky centred on the Polaris region you will see the star drawing out arcs centred on the north celestial pole.  Polaris is actually 40' away from the NCP itself which is just over one Moon diameter.

If you were to stand at the NP Polaris would be 40' off the zenith or overhead point. Move away from the NP in any direction and the angle between Polaris and the zenith would slowly increase. That again would happen if the Earth was flat. Continue moving away from the NP and gradually Polaris would approach and then come into contact with the horizon. At the same time different constellations would come into view, rising above the horizon on the opposite side of the sky to Polaris. Eventually Polaris would be on the horizon and then fall below it. You would then lose sight of all the northern polar constellations over the horizon that previously were previous directly overhead. 

That is very difficult to explain using a FE theory because Polaris would remain constantly above the horizon infinitely.  It is easy to explain with a RE theory though because beyond a certain distance from the NP (i.e. the equator) Polaris disappears behind the body of the Earth.

Over to you FE believers....

Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2018, 01:55:53 PM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?
Go to any planetarium.

You find yourself standing on a flat surface looking up at the celestial sphere.

Bada bing, bada boom...flat earth and sky modeled perfectly.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5141
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2018, 02:12:45 PM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?
Go to any planetarium.

You find yourself standing on a flat surface looking up at the celestial sphere.

Bada bing, bada boom...flat earth and sky modeled perfectly.

Ehhh... perfectly is a bit of a stretch.  It works fine for the small area of the average planetarium, but completely falls apart at modeling the differences in the night sky between the northern and southern hemisphere.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2018, 02:20:33 PM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?
Go to any planetarium.

You find yourself standing on a flat surface looking up at the celestial sphere.

Bada bing, bada boom...flat earth and sky modeled perfectly.

That planetarium modeling the sky perfectly shows a north celestial axis and a south celestial axis with stars rotating clockwise and counterclockwise with the stars above our equator in a straight line but not both very well. It also shows the stars dipping beneath the horizon and not fading out due to refraction.



Which image more represents the sky and its trails?


Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2018, 04:38:03 PM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?
Go to any planetarium.

You find yourself standing on a flat surface looking up at the celestial sphere.

Bada bing, bada boom...flat earth and sky modeled perfectly.

Ehhh... perfectly is a bit of a stretch.  It works fine for the small area of the average planetarium, but completely falls apart at modeling the differences in the night sky between the northern and southern hemisphere.
Why don't you take picture next time you go and post the differences...oh...I see...you can't.

The night sky is the night sky is the night sky.

I see different stars.

Sometimes I see different birds overhead, also...

Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2018, 04:41:26 PM »
Hello! I'm new here and I am wondering about the celestial sphere, specifically how It fits into the Flat Earth Theory. How accurate is it, and can it predict celestial positions reliably?
Go to any planetarium.

You find yourself standing on a flat surface looking up at the celestial sphere.

Bada bing, bada boom...flat earth and sky modeled perfectly.

That planetarium modeling the sky perfectly shows a north celestial axis and a south celestial axis with stars rotating clockwise and counterclockwise with the stars above our equator in a straight line but not both very well. It also shows the stars dipping beneath the horizon and not fading out due to refraction.



Which image more represents the sky and its trails?
I do not care where you are standing on the flat plain these are the rules:

1) If you are facing north, the stars move overhead from your right to your left;

B) If you are facing south, the stars move overhead from your left to your right.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2018, 06:33:59 PM »

I do not care where you are standing on the flat plain these are the rules:

1) If you are facing north, the stars move overhead from your right to your left;

B) If you are facing south, the stars move overhead from your left to your right.

You are ignoring their rotational directions and their axis.  Quite coincidentally, the straight star trails are above our equator and north and south celestial axis are perfectly above our north and south poles..

Star Trails by Aaron Miller, on Flickr


Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2018, 11:19:52 AM »

I do not care where you are standing on the flat plain these are the rules:

1) If you are facing north, the stars move overhead from your right to your left;

B) If you are facing south, the stars move overhead from your left to your right.

You are ignoring their rotational directions and their axis.  Quite coincidentally, the straight star trails are above our equator and north and south celestial axis are perfectly above our north and south poles..

Star Trails by Aaron Miller, on Flickr
I am not ignoring anything.

They move the same direction.

The fact curling is apparent at appearance and disappearance is indicative of nothing relative to the shape of the earth.

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2018, 02:33:35 PM »

I do not care where you are standing on the flat plain these are the rules:

1) If you are facing north, the stars move overhead from your right to your left;

B) If you are facing south, the stars move overhead from your left to your right.

You are ignoring their rotational directions and their axis.  Quite coincidentally, the straight star trails are above our equator and north and south celestial axis are perfectly above our north and south poles..

Star Trails by Aaron Miller, on Flickr
I am not ignoring anything.

They move the same direction.

The fact curling is apparent at appearance and disappearance is indicative of nothing relative to the shape of the earth.
The fact that the stars appear to be curling around two different centers of rotation suggests a celestial sphere as opposed to a celestial dome.  Essentially, that leaves FE'ers with a choice between a celestial sphere that is consistent with real world observations is very hard to explain in a flat earth context or a celestial dome which is easier to explain in a flat earth context but does not match real world observations.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2018, 12:19:03 PM »

I do not care where you are standing on the flat plain these are the rules:

1) If you are facing north, the stars move overhead from your right to your left;

B) If you are facing south, the stars move overhead from your left to your right.

You are ignoring their rotational directions and their axis.  Quite coincidentally, the straight star trails are above our equator and north and south celestial axis are perfectly above our north and south poles..

Star Trails by Aaron Miller, on Flickr
I am not ignoring anything.

They move the same direction.

The fact curling is apparent at appearance and disappearance is indicative of nothing relative to the shape of the earth.
The fact that the stars appear to be curling around two different centers of rotation suggests a celestial sphere as opposed to a celestial dome.  Essentially, that leaves FE'ers with a choice between a celestial sphere that is consistent with real world observations is very hard to explain in a flat earth context or a celestial dome which is easier to explain in a flat earth context but does not match real world observations.
What possible portion of any possible sphere could be apparent to observers on a flat plain?

A hemisphere or dome.

It is perfectly in line with real world observations.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2018, 02:27:55 PM »

What possible portion of any possible sphere could be apparent to observers on a flat plain?

A hemisphere or dome.

It is perfectly in line with real world observations.

You are not understanding.  The two polar axi with circumpolar stars and trails means either the Earth is a sphere, or the stars are a spherical shell.  The dome is impossible. There is no shape of a dome that could produce those star trails.  Infinite Earth plane is impossible since the star trails define only two options: 1. Spherical Earth which spins once approximately every 24 hours. or 2. The stars are a spherical shell rotating around Earth in its center approximately once every 24 hours.

If you can’t even agree on this, then make the case for how a dome would match these observations. 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2018, 02:35:22 PM by JCM »

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2018, 04:23:52 PM »
What possible portion of any possible sphere could be apparent to observers on a flat plain?

A hemisphere or dome.

It is perfectly in line with real world observations.
The way I see it, the only possible way that a celestial sphere could match real world observations in a flat earth context is if the earth was very small and the celestial sphere actually surrounded it sorta like this:
« Last Edit: November 30, 2018, 04:27:33 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2018, 01:56:21 PM »
You are not understanding.  The two polar axi with circumpolar stars and trails means either the Earth is a sphere, or the stars are a spherical shell.  The dome is impossible. There is no shape of a dome that could produce those star trails.  Infinite Earth plane is impossible since the star trails define only two options: 1. Spherical Earth which spins once approximately every 24 hours. or 2. The stars are a spherical shell rotating around Earth in its center approximately once every 24 hours.

If you can’t even agree on this, then make the case for how a dome would match these observations.
I believe I am understanding.

You are under the impression that lines or planes cannot intersect when it is patently clear math teaches it can.

While I cannot fundamentally comprehend the concept of infinity, it cannot be dismissed for math teaches all lines and planes are (ultimately) infinite.

Perhaps the dome is composed of permeable material allowing for intersecting the flat earth plane.
What possible portion of any possible sphere could be apparent to observers on a flat plain?

A hemisphere or dome.

It is perfectly in line with real world observations.
The way I see it, the only possible way that a celestial sphere could match real world observations in a flat earth context is if the earth was very small and the celestial sphere actually surrounded it sorta like this:

See above.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: The Celestial Sphere
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2018, 07:16:09 PM »
You are not understanding.  The two polar axi with circumpolar stars and trails means either the Earth is a sphere, or the stars are a spherical shell.  The dome is impossible. There is no shape of a dome that could produce those star trails.  Infinite Earth plane is impossible since the star trails define only two options: 1. Spherical Earth which spins once approximately every 24 hours. or 2. The stars are a spherical shell rotating around Earth in its center approximately once every 24 hours.

If you can’t even agree on this, then make the case for how a dome would match these observations.
I believe I am understanding.

You are under the impression that lines or planes cannot intersect when it is patently clear math teaches it can.

While I cannot fundamentally comprehend the concept of infinity, it cannot be dismissed for math teaches all lines and planes are (ultimately) infinite.

Perhaps the dome is composed of permeable material allowing for intersecting the flat earth plane.
What possible portion of any possible sphere could be apparent to observers on a flat plain?

A hemisphere or dome.

It is perfectly in line with real world observations.
The way I see it, the only possible way that a celestial sphere could match real world observations in a flat earth context is if the earth was very small and the celestial sphere actually surrounded it sorta like this:

See above.

You are failing to recognize the axis of rotations and where those would be on your dome.  The north axis of the celestial sphere is above the north pole (the center of your FE map).  The straight line star trails are along the equator. Then you see the southern axis...  Where is that southern axis on your FE map? It is verifiably south, and non moving.  Its location is just as verifiable as the northerly axis, the latitude lines we have defined on the planet work the same in the Southern Hemisphere. Your map has no location where a southerly axis matches our observations. 

Show us on the FE map where the southern axis is please. Within 5000 miles since there is no accepted FE map would suffice.  That image above shows the south celestial axis to be underneath the plane and would not be viewable and clearly not possible with FEH.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 11:45:08 PM by JCM »