*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Southern Cross
« on: January 22, 2021, 02:54:56 PM »
A while back I had a bit of a look at the logistics of Polaris, and was disappointed to find that, provided there is some force pulling light away from Earth,  a Flat Earth can provide an explanation for Polaris. However, having lived in the Southern hemisphere as well as the Northern hemisphere, I happen to know that the South has it's own Polaris. Enter, the Southern cross.

A constellation that is visible year-round from the Southern hemisphere, and basically only from the southern hemisphere (It sometimes peeks over the horizon in the north.) The south doesn't have a star over the south pole, but there are certainly constellations there as well, and the Southern cross is perhaps the most famous.  So here is my question: let us say that the sun is rising in Australia and setting in Argentina. Both countries can see the southern cross, and both see it due south.

This would work in the bipolar model, but would not work (as far as I can see) in the unipolar model. So, let's see what we can find for this one, eh?
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2021, 03:19:39 PM »
A while back I had a bit of a look at the logistics of Polaris, and was disappointed to find that, provided there is some force pulling light away from Earth,  a Flat Earth can provide an explanation for Polaris.

I disagree. EA is an attempt to explain what we observe with Polaris, but it doesn't work. The problem is that, barring tiny parallax movements, all of the stars retain their angular separations as they move around the pole stars - measure Orion, for example, and then measure it again a few hours later, and although it will have moved, the distance between the stars won't have (it's a roughly 10x20 degree box, if I recall correctly).

Then take the problem that, if we assume a flat earth and triangulate polaris in an attempt to find its range, we will get a different answer depending on which latitudes we choose for our two observation locations. So FET wheels out EA in an attempt to explain this, but the problem with that is there is no way for EA to operate that would simultaneously explain the apparent triangulation problem whilst also retaining the constant angular separation of the rotating constellations. If EA was bending the light, then our rotating constellations would change shape as they moved around the sky. But they don't.

Quote
The south doesn't have a star over the south pole

Yes, it does. It's called Sigma Octantis. It's not easily visible without a dark sky and/or some kind of magnification, but it's there, and it behaves the same as Polaris - your latitude = its elevation angle. The Southern Cross is actually quite a long way north, at a declination of around -60.

Your point is entirely valid though, and there are several threads running elsewhere to this effect. I showed on one of the recent ones that its actually possible for Sigma Octantis to be visible after dark in Africa, South America and Australia at the same time, albeit for a very brief window. I'm still awaiting a reply from Tom on that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8248
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2021, 03:25:56 PM »
I showed on one of the recent ones that its actually possible for Sigma Octantis to be visible after dark in Africa, South America and Australia at the same time, albeit for a very brief window. I'm still awaiting a reply from Tom on that.

Under the FE Monopole Model this is false. Any further questions?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2021, 03:34:11 PM »
Thanks for the reply Tom.



This is the image you'll recall from that other thread, showing 2142 UTC on 21st June this year. It's not clear from your short post which part of this you are challenging. Are you saying that, if I was to phone up some people in the dark parts of each continent at 2142 and ask them if it was dark outside, one or more of them would say it wasn't actually dark? I rather assumed that since you yourself had used similar diagrams from presumably the same source that you were happy with their predictions.

If not that, then you are presumably challenging the visibility of Sigma Octantis from those locations? Notwithstanding its dimness, which can obviously be overcome, I'd say it was a pretty well acknowledged fact that the southern pole star is visible in the southern hemisphere, but again, if you're challenging this, please make it clear so we can provide the adequate evidence. 

This stuff is agnostic of model - FET or otherwise, it's either a valid observation or it isn't. I clearly think it's valid, and you don't, but I'd ask for more detail if we are to have  meaningful debate.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2021, 04:22:27 PM »
Your point is entirely valid though, and there are several threads running elsewhere to this effect. I showed on one of the recent ones that its actually possible for Sigma Octantis to be visible after dark in Africa, South America and Australia at the same time, albeit for a very brief window. I'm still awaiting a reply from Tom on that.
This is patently false for so many reasons, the primary reason being Sigma Octantis being barely visible at all period. Stop peddling nonsense.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2021, 04:41:23 PM »
This is patently false for so many reasons, the primary reason being Sigma Octantis being barely visible at all period. Stop peddling nonsense.

Ok, well let's talk about the reasons why you think it's false. You've only offered one so far, so let's start with that.

Yes, Sigma Octantis is hard to see, especially if there's light pollution, or of course cloud (true for all stars). But how hard it is to see doesn't change the fact that it's there. It's not like it dips below the horizon or anything - it's right there, on a heading of south, at an elevation of whatever your latitude is. If you're in the southern hemisphere, have a clear sky, and get away from urban lighting etc, you will be able to see it, ideally with a telescope or binos etc.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2021, 06:42:37 PM »
At midnight in Capetown, South Africa on in early December, it is just before dawn in Perth, Australia and just after sunset in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. On a clear night, the Southern Cross appears directly (not precisely, but close) south of observers in these three places at the same time.

On the FAQ/UN map, that's pretty close to right angles and directly opposite between Perth and Rio.

Also at this time, neither Rio nor Perth would see the north star, although it is between them.

Would like to also discuss how the southern cross works on the bi-polar map, but not sure if that is off topic.




Peter Winfield

Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2021, 07:05:28 AM »

This would work in the bipolar model, but would not work (as far as I can see) in the unipolar model. So, let's see what we can find for this one, eh?

It does not even work in a bi-polar model because the stars would have to rotate about two different points and in two different directions.

There are many models, some of which are bi-polar and some of which are not, but none of them can explain how the stars can rotate around two different points.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2021, 07:30:20 AM »

This would work in the bipolar model, but would not work (as far as I can see) in the unipolar model. So, let's see what we can find for this one, eh?

It does not even work in a bi-polar model because the stars would have to rotate about two different points and in two different directions.

There are many models, some of which are bi-polar and some of which are not, but none of them can explain how the stars can rotate around two different points.

Hi there. As you'll see from the abrupt ending to this thread last month, this isn't a subject that FET has many answers for. I'm still waiting to hear what the 'many reasons' for my 'patently false' statement about Sigma Octantis were.

Peter Winfield

Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2021, 08:06:09 AM »
Hi there. As you'll see from the abrupt ending to this thread last month, this isn't a subject that FET has many answers for. I'm still waiting to hear what the 'many reasons' for my 'patently false' statement about Sigma Octantis were.

Yup. The South Celestial Pole is always due south everywhere on the Earth, and the North Celestial Pole is always due north everywhere on the Earth. So every point on Earth is directly between the North Pole and the South Pole. If the Earth isn't curved, it must be a straight line!

Peter Winfield

Re: Southern Cross
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2021, 11:58:50 AM »
I showed on one of the recent ones that its actually possible for Sigma Octantis to be visible after dark in Africa, South America and Australia at the same time, albeit for a very brief window. I'm still awaiting a reply from Tom on that.

Under the FE Monopole Model this is false. Any further questions?

So the FE Monopole Model is false.

We are really talking about the South Celestial Pole, not a specific star that happens to be very close to that Pole. And it doesn't matter whether the South Celestial Pole is visible at the same time or at different times in those places because, and here is the real problem, it doesn't move. At every point where it can be seen it is at a constant direction (due south) and a constant elevation (the latitude) throughout the night. Given that this is also true of the North Celestial Pole there really is no way that the Earth can be flat.

The stars, on the other hand, do move, but in opposite directions around the two Celestial Poles, as can be seen on countless time-lapse photos and videos. This, again, is consistent with the RE rather than FE model of the Earth.