[Tontogary]

Yes, and what they also dont appreciate is that whenever it is seen, it will be at the same relative position at the same time.

So for example, when the southern cross is seen from New Zealand, lets say at 01:00 local time there, and then seen from Perth, say at 20:00, it will look exactly the same with the long axis of the cross inclined at the same angle relative to the South Pole axis. For example, looking like it was pointing at 11 o’clock. Taken at the same moment (UTC) it would look identical to both observers.

I cannot say i agree with Edby that there is agreement among FEers that there is a southern axis of rotation.
EnaG specifically says there cannot be, and Sigma Octantis tracks along the circumfrance, the wiki describes all the stars rotating about Polaris, so it would be impossible for Sigma Octantis to be an axis as well.

[edby]

I cannot say i agree with Edby that there is agreement among FEers that there is a southern axis of rotation.

There is agreement among Southern Flatearthers because we can see it. Observation trumps everything. Tom is a friend of all Flatearthers.

[Tontogary]

I cannot say i agree with Edby that there is agreement among FEers that there is a southern axis of rotation.

There is agreement among Southern Flatearthers because we can see it. Observation trumps everything. Tom is a friend of all Flatearthers.

So EnaG is wrong then? Shock horror!

I dont see on the Wiki where it says there is a southern axis, only that there is a northern axis, or that the stars rotate about an axis that is above Polaris. If there is a southern axis, visible from the earth then it cannot work with a flat earth.

Maybe it would be good to get an ide about what is believed.

[hexagon]

Found on YouTube:

‘Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface’.

As far as I can determine, the second part is not correct. The first part is misleading, given that the practical application of of these measurements is for navigation to avoid ships crashing into land.

The second part is wrong. No such assumption is required. Latitude is an observable quantity based on the sun’s position. Longitude requires an accurate clock and a measurement of local noon.

Both are therefore measurable quantities, and so don’t depend on spherical earth assumptions. Of course, a spherical earth is a consequence of this, but a consequence and an assumption are quite different things.

Of course coordinate systems can be transformed one into each other, but you have a kind of natural coordinate system depending on the geometry and symmetry of your space. In Euclidean space you would naturally use Cartesian coordinates, in a cylindrical space you would use an angle, radius and height as coordinates. For a sphere radius and two angles. Longitude and latitude are spherical coordinates and I would say the use of them originates in astronomy cause the night sky appears as half sphere and you can easily describe the position and movement of celestial objects in spherical coordinates. And only later this was applied to locate certain points on the earth surface. For a flat earth cylindrical coordinates would be much more natural.     

[edby]

Rowbotham

Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star [p. 231] sinks to the horizon as the traveller approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.

What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.

This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which [p. 232] he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth. http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za37.htm 

That’s about as wrong as you can get.

[edby]

And here is one that is terribly difficult to explain on Rowbotham's perspective theory. He would have to say the centre of the trace is actually above the horizon, but that we cannot see it because of perspective. But look at the radius of all the trails. Where is their centre implied to be? Clearly far below the horizon.

[hexagon]

It's a bit of a problem that he always on the level of qualitative description regarding perspective. He never gives a formula or some numbers how far away or how large something should appear according to his concept of perspective. And one has to admit, that on this level the concept is quite compatible with daily life observations. If he would have tried (maybe he did, but never mentioned) and calculated this e.g. for person  on a very high mountain or for a distant object like the sun, moon or stars, he would by himself noticed the contradictions of his concept. 

[Tontogary]

It's a bit of a problem that he always on the level of qualitative description regarding perspective. He never gives a formula or some numbers how far away or how large something should appear according to his concept of perspective. And one has to admit, that on this level the concept is quite compatible with daily life observations. If he would have tried (maybe he did, but never mentioned) and calculated this e.g. for person  on a very high mountain or for a distant object like the sun, moon or stars, he would by himself noticed the contradictions of his concept.

And there lies the main issue with EnaG. Any of the “experiments” he tries to do that involve measurements or accuracy are easily found to be either inaccurate or taken data from 2nd or 3rd hand reports, and none from himself. Or he uses instruments that are not accurate to the level required, or even discounts instruments as inherently in error!

The conclusions he draws regarding the motion of the stars is based on very few reports, and just plainly not true.