Please provide a Flat Earth model

I want to accurately represent the Flat Earth model, so I ask you provide me one. The model must describe:
- What is light?
- What is the sun?
- What is the moon?
- What are the start?
- Why does the sun set?
- Why does the sun set at different times in different places?
- What are seasons?
- Why do the stars rotate around a point (Polaris and the Southern Cross)
- Why do the stars rotate in different directions in different places?

I ask you to provide some pictures, as I assume it would be pretty difficult to explain with words.

I want to accurately represent the Flat Earth model, so I ask you provide me one. The model must describe:
- What is light?
- What is the sun?
- What is the moon?
- What are the start?
- Why does the sun set?
- Why does the sun set at different times in different places?
- What are seasons?
- Why do the stars rotate around a point (Polaris and the Southern Cross)
- Why do the stars rotate in different directions in different places?

I ask you to provide some pictures, as I assume it would be pretty difficult to explain with words.

Just an overhead map of the FE and the sun’s path on that map that explains to me why living in the Midwest why the sun doesn’t change apparent size throughout the day and how the sun rises due east and sets due west for most of the world on the equinox without the sun traveling north / south would be nice. 

This is what I find the most interesting about flat earthers, when you post something that debunk their "theory", they will come up with a million different "gotchas" and bs a paragraph of nonsense. But when you start to ask them about a model, they will ignore or dodge the question. Because they know that this theory will have unrepairable loopholes that will be used against them in the future.

I want to accurately represent the Flat Earth model, so I ask you provide me one. The model must describe:
- What is light?
- What is the sun?
- What is the moon?
- What are the start?
- Why does the sun set?
- Why does the sun set at different times in different places?
- What are seasons?
- Why do the stars rotate around a point (Polaris and the Southern Cross)
- Why do the stars rotate in different directions in different places?

I ask you to provide some pictures, as I assume it would be pretty difficult to explain with words.

I am on a Kindle right now. Pictures would need to be taken from elsewhere. Shouldn't be too difficult to explain. But as far as getting other ppl to get the explanation, that's unlikely to happen.

1. Light are energized particles, that we call photons. Round earthers assume two things about light that are probably not true. (1) that light particles are somehow distinct from  regular matter and that (2) light particles extend infinitely. This is not the case. Imagine a glass of water (this analogy is sometimes used in theology). In one glass it's just water, in another glass salt water, in another glass sugar water, muddy water, and finally poop water. In the same way, air molecules (or whatever gas) can absorb thermal energy, and the air becalmosbire particles known as embers. Or filth and mold, or water vapor (not just limited to energy, but also other matter) float through the air. Back to the glass of water. While the sea is filled with  large amounts of diffused salt in water, what would happen with the other glasses? Well because there's so little, it breaks down into finer and finer particles. This is also relevant to electromagnetic wavelengths; shorter wavelengths are more energetic, but they tend to quickly vibrate apart. So yeah, motes of heat or motes of light simply lose intensity over distance. Stick your hand near a fireplace. Then back up 5 ft, then 20 ft, then 500 ft. There is a perceived difference in intensity.
2. The sun is a large perpetual energy engine created by God. The sun is a star, that is to say one of the lights of the heavens. These were designed to have a consistent motion as angels under authority of God. It goes to its appointed place in order to provide light and warmth.
3.  The moon is not, as round Earthers propose, a solid object. It, along with the "planets are stars appointed to provide lesser light
4. Kinda part of my last  answer.
5. Human perspective is governed by lines an angles. This means that while the is an actual dome of the firmament, there is also a sort of personal window that we see out of. Staring ahead at something that looks almost in front of us but is overhead, those angles behave like this

\              |              /
  \            |            /
    \          |          /
      \        |        /
__ _  \      |      /__ ___ ___ __ __ 

Further lines outward get more and more horizontal. Meanwhile, photons get less intense over distance, and lastly vanishing point. But the sun seldom reaches vanishing point because it tents to blend or become obstructed by mountains,  etc. At an extremely high elevation or extremely low humidity, the the sun or moon will appear to shrink as it sets. Instead, it angles out of view, or sets.
6. The Flat Earth is represented almost like a circular table. There's a center point an outside. If you push a circle near the center point, where the circle's outside radius crosses is daylight. This means the   North Pole will get sunlight all day in the summer because the outer radius never stops crossing the North Pole. In the winter, it's too far from center to do it in northern hemisphere, but it would also be too  big a circle for the southern hemisphere. Or are you talking about time zones. The sun is a few minutes off because of the motion around the surface, but governments synchronized times to a time zone.
7. Over the course of a year, that circular path of the sun widens and narrows from Cancer to Capricorn and make again.
8. The stars are centered, like the spokes of of a wheel. The stars orbit Crux which is in the North Pole (God's Throne). Crux and Polaris are likely the same constellation from a different perspective.
9. Draw a circle with a star on it then put two dots, one outside the circle, and one inside the circle. That is, if the same star can be seen orbiting from either side of the equator, draw two lines like a cone on both sides, and see what comes out. Outside the circle, if the cone moves left to right, that same cone inside the circle looks to be going right to left. The orbit is also opposite. Which leads to the question of why the sun doesn't do that. Go ahead and ask me. I do not know.

th.
3.  The moon is not, as round Earthers propose, a solid object. It, along with the "planets are stars appointed to provide lesser light

How is the moon lesser light than stars and planets?  Its whole magnitudes brighter than the planets and stars.

Bulma.  Give your stupidity a rest.  You been schooled on the moon several times.  FE is a brainwashed cult.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 26, 2025, 05:43:02 AM

That model requires the moon to greatly change distance and apparent size for someone like me in the Midwest of the USA.  It doesn’t.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 08, 2025, 06:29:46 AM

So.  Time lapse of the moon from yesterday evening into the night.  I’ll try again when it’s less cloudy.

Moon 5/7/2025 time lapse evening into night cloudy drifted out of frame



I would also like to make a video with the moon way overexposed so the video will show it passing in front of stars.  Or make a special filter?

Where the moon would be overhead above the earth the entire time. So doesn’t explain the moon setting and being blocked by earth’s curvature at moonset.  Where the moon would be directly in the line of sight the entire time for all persons on earth.

Flat earth is stupid.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 26, 2025, 07:03:23 AM

More arguments with you that lead in circles.

Even with my largest sun on the flat Earth, it didn't cover all the way across.

No.  FE fails.  You can’t handle I have my own imagines that I captured that clearly shows by shadowing the moon is illuminated by the sun.  The distance of the moon can be calculated by a reliable means by parallax at a distance greater than the sun for the flat earth failed model where the moon gets in from of planets and the sun.  Backed by radar surveys and radio operators bouncing shortwave radio signals off the moon.  Where the moon still holds the same problems of the sun for FE.  For me in the Midwest, the moon still would have to greatly change distance and thus greatly change apparent size.  The moon doesn’t.  The moon would always be above a FE and in the line of sight.  Where in reality, the moon sets below the curvature of the earth being physically blocked from view.

Bulma, you still have no explanation of what causes the phases of the moon where the moon is clearly a spherical object being illuminated by the sun.  And what would replicate the shape of the phases of the moon if it wasn’t from being illuminated by the sun.


There is nothing circular that FE is a failed model.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2024, 09:22:14 PM

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.

Bulma.  The distance and existence of the moon is verified with radar. 

The moon is a very real object with mass and gravity helping drive tides on earth at a much greater distance than what the delusion of FE states.  The moon kills flat earth Bulma, and your delusional brainwashed stupidity. 

But as far as getting other ppl to get the explanation, that's unlikely to happen.

There is quite a big difference between people understanding the explanation (i.e. getting it) and them accepting it as something that would work.

i.e. we can get your "explanation", and still reject it as the BS it is.

Round earthers assume two things about light that are probably not true.

No, they aren't assuming.
They are accepting based upon mountains of evidence.

that light particles are somehow distinct from  regular matter

"Regular matter" is made from protons, neutrons and electrons.
We can measure these and experiment with them, and see what the properties are, and that it is nothing like light.
For starters, these particles have a rest mass. Light does not.
But perhaps the biggest one is the velocity.
We can take regular matter and change its velocity. We can have it travelling quite slow relative to us or quite fast.
And that includes with it being in a vacuum.
But you can't do that with light. The only way you can change the speed of light is by having it pass through a different medium. When it leaves that medium its speed changes back.

So this is not an assumption, this is simply accepting reality.
If you are suggesting your explanation requires this to be false, then your explanation is complete crap.

light particles extend infinitely.

Not quite, instead, it continues until it is absorbed or reflected or refracted or scattered and so on.

the air becalmosbire particles known as embers

No, they don't.
Embers are when you have a solid fuel or other solid material, where a usually small piece breaks of while being incredibly hot.
That is not the air molecule becoming embers.

what would happen with the other glasses? Well because there's so little, it breaks down into finer and finer particles.

Not unless you are providing a hell of a lot of energy, before which it would turn into a gas.

but they tend to quickly vibrate apart.

Just how does light magically vibrate apart?

Stick your hand near a fireplace. Then back up 5 ft, then 20 ft, then 500 ft.

And you will see that the energy is spread out over a larger area.
That is not energy just magically dying like you pretend it needs to.
In fact, in a different thread you even admitted it can't.
Yet here you are contradicting yourself yet again and lying to everyone yet again.

2. The sun is a large perpetual energy engine created by God.

i.e. pure magic.
That isn't an explanation.
That is basically saying that you have no explanation at all and need to appeal to magic.

3.  The moon is not, as round Earthers propose, a solid object.

Yet it behaves in every way like a solid object.
Including having shadows on its surface.

5. Human perspective is governed by lines an angles.

Yes, basic geometry which says if you consider a cartesian coordinate system centred on you and levelled on you, then an object with a z coordinate (height above you) of h, and a distance in the xy plane of d, then the angle to it is atan(h/d).
This makes it impossible for an object above you to set.

Likewise, perspective also clearly shows that as an object gets further away, it appears to shrink.

the the sun or moon will appear to shrink as it sets.

You keep trying to claim this, but you can't provide a single example.

it's too far

Except summer, in the southern hemisphere, shows that is not the case.
The equator still receives roughly 12 hours of daylight.
Any circle making that will necessarily give the north pole 24 hours of daylight, yet regions near the north pole end up with no daylight.
And it also means the further south you go you would have to get less daylight, but in reality you get more.

The stars orbit Crux which is in the North Pole

No, Crux and fundamentally different.
Cruz isn't even the south pole star, but points south.
From the equator you can see both.
The south celestial pole is not the north celestial pole.
So this doesn't even come close to an explanation, it is just a pathetic assertion made without any backing at all, which makes absolutely no sense.
It makes no attempt at all to explain the south celestial pole.

if the cone moves left to right

This is not about left to right vs right to left.
This is about clockwise vs counter-clockwise.
If you are in the northern hemisphere looking to the north, you can see stars close to you appear to go from east to west (i.e. right to left), before dropping down and then going back to the east, i.e. moving in a counter-clockwise direction.
But if you are in the southern hemisphere looking south, then you see the opposite. They appear to go left to right, then down then right to left, i.e. clockwise.
This makes no sense at all on the FE. Especially as you shouldn't be able to see them appear to circle a point due south. But it makes perfect sense on the RE.


Again, this is not me not getting your explanation. This is me understanding it and recognising it is pure BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 12:56:48 AM

Stick your hand near a fireplace. Then back up 5 ft, then 20 ft, then 500 ft.

And you will see that the energy is spread out over a larger area.
That is not energy just magically dying like you pretend it needs to.
In fact, in a different thread you even admitted it can't.
Yet here you are contradicting yourself yet again and lying to everyone yet again.

Where Bulma ignores you can still see the fire as a point source of light.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 12:56:48 AM

The stars orbit Crux which is in the North Pole

No, Crux and fundamentally different.
Cruz isn't even the south pole star, but points south.
From the equator you can see both.
The south celestial pole is not the north celestial pole.
So this doesn't even come close to an explanation, it is just a pathetic assertion made without any backing at all, which makes absolutely no sense.
It makes no attempt at all to explain the south celestial pole.

How can a flat earther post about being brainwashed, then not know the difference in physical locations between Polaris the North Star at the northern celestial pole vs Crux in the southern hemisphere that is a constellation that aids in pointing to the southern celestial pole?

How do you argue with Bulma that right out lies and butchers reality. 

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together? You see one big star, do you not?

Either we are viewing a combined star, or we are viewing one star in the center, and the others are too distant/out of focus to be seen from the northern hemisphere.

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Some nights you can see North Star.

Polaris, the North Star, is not directly visible from the equator, but under ideal conditions, it can be seen just above the northern horizon. Its visibility decreases as you move further south from the equator.

But other nights you can see neither of them. It's not like they go anywhere though.

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Are you this stupid.

Polaris is a star in the northern hemisphere that is basically sitting in line with the northern celestial pole.

A star that doesn’t dim as one travels south.  Once far enough south across the equator Polaris is physically blocked from view by the horizon to the north. 

As you travel south, Polaris gets lower on the northern horizon.  Crux a constellation rising above the southern hemisphere to the south is rising in the south as you travel south as Polaris gets lower in the sky to the north.  Crux is a constellation that points where one has to “look” more south to locate the southern celestial pole. 



And not this..

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 01:18:43 PM

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

Why would people be looking outward? They are looking upward at something at an angle. It's just as plausible that they might be looking inward.

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

Quote

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Have a source?  Can you link to it.

Bulma.  Can you read?

Bulma.  Your buddy AI again..

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

You babbling and scribbling means nothing.

Bulma.  Can you read and comprehend.

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Are you this stupid.

Polaris is a star in the northern hemisphere that is basically sitting in line with the northern celestial pole.

A star that doesn’t dim as one travels south.  Once far enough south across the equator Polaris is physically blocked from view by the horizon to the north. 

As you travel south, Polaris gets lower on the northern horizon.  Crux a constellation rising above the southern hemisphere to the south is rising in the south as you travel south as Polaris gets lower in the sky to the north.  Crux is a constellation that points where one has to “look” more south to locate the southern celestial pole. 



And not this..

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 01:18:43 PM

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

Quote

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Have a source?  Can you link to it.

Bulma.  Can you read?

Bulma.  Your buddy AI again..

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

Quote

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Bulma.  Do you understand that Polaris is at the northern celestial pole with specific constellations around it.

Bulma.  Do you understand that Crux is in the southern celestial sphere surrounded by completely different constellations.  Where crux is a group of stars called a constellation and not a single star like Polaris. 

Bulma.  Do you understand there are places and times you can see the constellation crux and Polaris at the same time.  With a “trail” of completely different constellations between them.  With Polaris in the northern celestial sphere and Crux in the complete opposite direction in the southern celestial sphere.
 

Bulma.  Are you just this stupid or brainwashed?

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Clearly absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, because the constellations are seen the same regardless of where you are, as long as you can see them.
The angular size of crux is the same regardless of where you are on Earth.

And that is another massive problem for your delusional model.

Either we are viewing a combined star, or we are viewing one star in the center, and the others are too distant/out of focus to be seen from the northern hemisphere.

Or, your delusional fantasy is wrong, and Crux is a constellation which does not have Polaris in it, with the 2 in fundamentally different locations, and you are just desperately making up pathetic excuses to pretend your failed garbage works.

From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

Because it is NOT the south pole star.
Instead, Crux is located above a region from roughly 54 to 64 degrees south.
That means it will be visible up to around 26 to 36 degrees north. With 26 degrees seeing all of it just above the horizon, and 36 just seeing the northern most part.

The nights you can see it depends on the position of Earth in its orbit.
If it wasn't for the sun, you would be able to see it every day, with it being above the horizon at a different time each day (the same time if you are sidereal time).
But due to the sun you can't see it during the day.
So this then means you can only see it when it is out at night, so you can only see it for part of the year.

Conversely Polaris, the current north pole star can be seen every night from pretty much the equator north.

That means there is an entire 26 degree span that can see both Polaris and crux.

And they can see them in different locations.

They are not the same thing.

To suggest they are the same thing you would need to be some combination of a complete imbecile incapable of understanding even the most basic things; so heavily brainwashed you fail to understand the difference between delusional BS and reality; so heavily deluded/delusional you can't understand the difference between reality and your delusional BS; or a lying POS with absolutely no concern for the truth and no integrity at all saying pure BS you know is a pathetic lie.


And again, that doesn't address the main issue, the main issue is the fact that there is a point due south, visible to people in the southern hemisphere about which the stars in the night sky appear to circle.
This is fundamentally incompatible with your fantasy.

So obvious.

You mean so obviously pure BS.
Where you need to desperately pretend that people are only seeing through a tiny little opening, rather than being able to see 180 degrees of the sky; where you now want to pretend that people south are somehow below so they get a wider view; while you ignore so much of reality it isn't funny.

science means to know

Scientia means to know, but that is not what science means.
Science is a systematic study.
If you aren't doing the systematic part it isn't science.
Or as one meme says, the difference between fucking around and science is writing shit down.

And a big difference for most fields is measurement using tools and documentation.

Why would people be looking outward? They are looking upward at something at an angle. It's just as plausible that they might be looking inward.

No, it isn't just as plausible.
They are looking towards the south.
Yes, there is still an upwards angle, but that is not going in.

You are basically saying someone looking in the direction of the green line in this image is magically looking in the direction of the red line:

They are completely different.
This is not difficult to understand.
Your pathetic BS requires these people to not know what way north is or what way south is.
So no, your pathetic, desperate BS is not plausible at all.
Stop playing dumb.



Again:
Polaris and Crux are clearly different, seen in completely different locations and plenty of people can see both at the same time and see that they are clearly different.
Even if you desperately want to pretend they are the same, that still doesn't address the fact that people in the southern hemisphere can see the stars appear to circle a point due south, showing there is a point due south of everyone in the southern hemisphere. Likewise, it doesn't address the fact that this circling is in the opposite direction to the point in the northern hemisphere.

Again none of this makes any sense in your delusional fantasy but makes perfect sense with the RE model.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 06:36:04 AM

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

You babbling and scribbling means nothing.

Bulma.  Can you read and comprehend.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 05:59:30 AM

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Are you this stupid.

Polaris is a star in the northern hemisphere that is basically sitting in line with the northern celestial pole.

A star that doesn’t dim as one travels south.  Once far enough south across the equator Polaris is physically blocked from view by the horizon to the north. 

As you travel south, Polaris gets lower on the northern horizon.  Crux a constellation rising above the southern hemisphere to the south is rising in the south as you travel south as Polaris gets lower in the sky to the north.  Crux is a constellation that points where one has to “look” more south to locate the southern celestial pole. 

Are you this stupid?

Do you not understand that even in your imaginary Masonic spinning ball, they have to be looking inward not outward, as you show here.


Again. Whether the Earth is flat or spherical, they only reason all persons can see Crux, Polaris, or any other constellation is if they are looking inward to objects at a point. Not this.



See the picture directly above to see the problem with this. If this picture were at all true, this picture would be like this:

Yet again. Whether the Earth is flat or spherical, they only reason all persons can see Crux, Polaris, or any other constellation is if they are looking inward to objects at a point.

---

It's your AI's word against mine. Mine says it's not visible, even at the equator.

After it formerly said both could be seen at the equator... just not at the same time.

This is why I say that I trust AI about as often as Eric Dubay, who is of no help here, as he contends that the only stationary star is Polaris, so whatever Crux does, I honestly have no idea.

I have never seen it.  You claim that you can see both, and I have no firsthand proof of anything of the sort.

So I have decided, lacking evidence one way or another, that they are the same constellation, which was put on this Earth because God wants us to know our way.  Jesus is our North Star and Southern Cross, and thus we are never lost.

Are you this stupid?

Are you?
Or do you know you are spouting pure BS?

Do you not understand that even in your imaginary Masonic spinning ball, they have to be looking inward not outward, as you show here.

And the big difference is in your delusional BS, they need to be looking outwards, which makes no sense.
For the RE model, they are looking "inwards" towards the south pole.

Not this.

This is what you are claiming, that someone looking along the green line is actually magically looking along the red one.
What you are claiming is pure BS.

See the picture directly above to see the problem with this. If this picture were at all true, this picture would be like this:

Why?
Because you want to pretend it is?
Why do they have to look straight up?
Again, you just spout complete crap with no justification at all.
The stars are not just visible directly overhead, you can see them all the way to the horizon.

Here is an honest comparison.
Your pathetic, desperate BS:

These 2 green arrows need to point towards the same location, even though they are clearly pointing in different directions and have no chance of pointing towards the same thing.
Your BS is quite clearly wrong.
There is no way to make this work.

Compared to reality:

All looking in the same direction, towards the same thing, so they can see the same thing.

And if you want to be dishonest and pretend that the south celestial pole needs to be close, you don't get the angles completely correct, but the general idea still works of a point due south:


Again, reality, i.e. the RE model, works. Your BS does not.

There is a point due south that the stars appear to circle.
Your BS cannot explain this. The RE model explains it directly.

It's your AI's word against mine.

No, it is your completely and utterly useless AI vs actual observations.

You can even get star maps showing it. e.g. this one:
https://www.davidchandler.com/shop/cardboard-night-sky-20-30-north-latitude/
Notice what is visible on the south side, just up and slightly left of the centre? Crux.
And on the other side, we have Polaris, due north.

Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.

I have never seen it.

And you have been told what you can do to see it.
You need to go to a location between the equator and roughly 26 degrees north, at the right time of year, and you can see both.

This is not hard to understand.
Again, wilful rejection of reality will not save you.

We have actual evidence and observations and reliable sources, with the ability to get and test for ourselves, vs your pathetic assertion.

So I have decided, lacking evidence one way or another, that they are the same constellation

i.e. You have decided complete and utter BS based upon your own wilful ignorance of reality.

Again, if you want to appeal to your ignorance just admit you have no idea, and don't talk about the subject until you do.
Don't pretend your FE model can work until you actually know.

Otherwise you are just demonstrating you don't give a damn about reality and will just spout whatever dishonest delusional BS you can think of to pretend your delusional BS is true.

I'm not claiming someone looking at the green line is magically looking at the red (it's funny how often you appeal to magic, almost like you don't really have any concept of real science). North is north, south is south. You either move towards the north, where you find Canada and Alaska and lots of ice and water, or you head south through Africa or New Zealand or Darkest Peru.

I'm claiming that you probably don't know which way is north or south, and claim that because a constellation is found in the southern hemisphere, that it must be facing the South Pole like Polaris is to the northern hemisphere.That's an assumption.

protip: They are both facing the North Pole, and one cannot be seen north of a certain latitude because of perspective.

You are an idiot who thinks they are standing upside down (with regard to the proper hemisphere) looking at an angle ahead of you. You are truly lost.
If you were convinced that the Southern Cross was centered at the South Pole, you should be able to go visit the South Pole and check this. Instead, I hear alot of boasting about having been to Antarctica that sounds alot like teenage boys talking about their sexual prowess when everyone knows they are still virgins. Meanwhile, this area continues to be a no-fly zone.

The Earth one has one pole, starting underground and heading into the sky, where it fixes a constellation in place. You are standing upright, looking at the same constellation in the southern hemisphere as everyone from the northern hemisphere, but they can only see one star. It expands outward from this center point, where all water on Earth is kept in an ice wall.

I'm claiming that you probably don't know which way is north or south,

Bulma.  Are you stupid.  Or just a pathological liar.

Read what was actually posted.  Read how the world actually works.  Go and actually look at the night sky.

For starters.  Polaris sits near the northern celestial pole.  Surrounded by completely different constellations than the constellation Crux which is very different than the single Star Polaris.  Where you can follow a trail of different stars and patterns of stars we call constellations heading south to see Crux.  Where Polaris and Crux are in completely different regions of the celestial spheres, surrounded by completely different patterns of stars. 

I'm not claiming someone looking at the green line is magically looking at the red

Yes you are.
Just not directly.
You are saying people looking towards the south are somehow magically looking towards Polaris, which is above the north pole.
That is saying people looking along the green line are somehow magically looking at the red.

It is clearly pathetic BS.

But you don't care.
You are happy to spout whatever BS you can come up with, regardless of how clearly it is BS, all to pretend your pathetic failed model has any chance of matching reality.

it's funny how often you appeal to magic, almost like you don't really have any concept of real science

No, it actually demonstrates that I do have a concept of real science, and instead I am pointing out that your model is not scientific at all nor is it based upon reality; instead it needs pure magic to work.

If your model needs magic it is crap.

I'm claiming that you probably don't know which way is north or south

i.e. more pathetic, desperate crap.
Your model is so pathetic and broken you need to act like everyone is a complete imbecile incapable of understanding what way north is.
I know what way north is.
I can see it roughly with a compass.
I can see it based upon what way the sun is at solar noon.
I can work it out based upon the known geography.

It isn't that hard.

one cannot be seen north of a certain latitude because of perspective.

Perspective can NEVER make something above a plane disappear from view.
It can't be seen because Earth blocks the view.

You are an idiot who thinks they are standing upside down (with regard to the proper hemisphere)

Nope, that would still be you, acting like a complete imbecile incapable of understanding even trivial things.
So pathetic that you now need to pretend that there is a "proper" hemisphere.

I recognise that I am standing right side up (well sitting actually at the moment) on a round Earth.

You are so pathetic and desperate to have Earth be flat, that you will reject anything that goes against it and make up such obvious crap that anyone with a brain can see is complete crap, all to pretend your delusional fantasy has a chance of working.

If you were convinced that the Southern Cross was centred at the South Pole

I'm not.
Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that it is NOT the south pole star.
The south pole star is Sigma Octantis.
This is too faint to be seen with the naked eye.

you should be able to go visit the South Pole and check this.

I have no need to.
Because of the mountains of evidence showing clearly that there is a celestial pole located due south of me.
All I need to show that are simple observations, like the sun rising south of east, passing to the north and setting south of east.
It clearly isn't circling a point due north of me.
I can also use a time-lapse of the night sky, with the stars all appearing to circle a point due south.
And it clearly isn't to the north, because the stars are all wrong, and it is going the wrong way.

Meanwhile, this area continues to be a no-fly zone.

No, that is just your pathetic claim you have never been able to substantiate.

The Earth one has one pole

Then why does all the evidence, which you are yet to even attempt to refute, show that it has a north pole and a south pole?
In fact, perhaps the best place to show this is the equator:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170608195909/http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

You get the stars appearing to a circle a point on the horizon in both directions.

If it was your FE fantasy, the only people that would be able to see star trails as circles are those at the north pole.
Everyone else would see them as elipses.
And everyone would be able to see the pole star.

Your BS simply doesn't work.
And it is clear that you know that with how pathetic your excuses are.

Again, there are so many things your BS can't explain.
One of the key ones for this thread is the existence of the south celestial pole, a point in the night sky visible from south of the equator, which the stars appear to circle.

Your BS can't explain it at all. But the RE can explain it trivially.

I'm claiming that you probably don't know which way is north or south,

Old post you were part of ..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 17, 2024, 05:38:53 AM

It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.

Why wouldn’t stars relative stationary to a rotating earth not produce this?

3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg


Where at the South Pole, a similar picture can be taken but the stars trail in a different direction?

Quote

Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy

And at the equator the star trails do this…

Quote

https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/

(Where’s that delusional parabola?)

With you once again bulmabriefs144 trying to change the argument

The sun supposedly orbits the celestial North Pole on a flat earth like this…




Is that false.

On a flat earth, supposedly the starts orbit the celestial North Pole.  Like this.


Is that false.

So.  Why isn’t the sun orbiting the celestial North Pole. 



media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg

Note.  Added..  bulmabriefs144, why did you ignore and try to change the subject away from the above picture of sun trails that show the sun doesn’t orbit the celestial North Pole as required by flat earth?

Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…

For a number of reasons especially by the constellations, it’s obvious if you’re looking to the northern celestial sphere vs the southern celestial sphere.  If you can’t tell the difference, you’re stupid.  Where the constellation nicknamed Big Dipper is used to find Polaris is in the northern celestial sphere in the north.  Where you’re not going to see the constellation Big Dipper looking south.  Where the constellation Big Dipper isn’t in the Southern celestial sphere. The Big Dipper is part of Ursa Major which is near Ursa Minor that circle the northern celestial pole and Polaris.  You look south, you don’t see Polaris, Ursa Major, and Ursa Minor.  Where the constellations over the equator and in the southern celestial sphere are very different.  Where Crux is a group of stars. 

Whether they go this way,

or that way,

(Btw, you mean the southern hemisphere not the South Pole, you and I both know the South Pole is verboten and nobody, including the people of TFE have been there)
or this way,

has nothing to do with the path of the sun.

This is why they say, "The sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars." All of these things have different orbits. But all are in common with one thing: they are luminaries. That's right: planets and the moon are not solid bodies made or rock or gas, they are not other worlds to travel to (I know there's a great romance of exploration, but it's just to distract the public from sham that is keeping this world miserable). Without a telescope, you can see they cast light when no sun is apparent, and sometimes when no sun or moon is apparent.

"Where is your parabola?"

You're seeing the sky through it. It's the screen or planetarium setup that the stars move around.

And no, it matters zero fucks what direction they go.

The Round Earther thinks their opposite direction stars proves something. Sorry, Plato knew better. The dome's like the walls to a cave that you are chained to. You are either chained to the north or south wall. Like so:
          *     *                  *                   *
 ______________________________________
(--------/-------(-----/-------------\-------)-----\--------)

Outside, you can see stars moving in an opposite direction, and four key stars instead of the one. So what?

So, where's my parabola you ask? Well... In case you didn't notice, the sky effectively hits a sort of mirror around the equator. Southern hemisphere is outside the "mirror", northern hemisphere is inside the " mirror". At exactly the equator, you have a split. Yeah yeah, I know, you think this rotation has something to do with poles (even though you told me it's about orbit), but it's a simple visual effect.

And no, I was wrong, Crux is pulled along over course of a year, along with all other stars. But that's kinda the point. A single star in the sky magnetically moves other lights around it. There is no "opposite pole". And there is the so-called "Polaris Australis", but if you look at a southern hemisphere time lapse, you'll notice it too gets pulled along.

Like the spokes of a wheel.

This is why they say, "The sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars." All of these things have different orbits.

Where you just justified the heliocentric model.  They don’t have different orbits.  The earth is what is rotating.

"Where is your parabola?"

There is no parabola.

Bulma.  FE totally fails to model reality.  FE fails. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 14, 2025, 02:46:23 AM

You're seeing the sky through it.

Evidently not.  Because this…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 06:36:04 AM

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

Why would people be looking outward? They are looking upward at something at an angle. It's just as plausible that they might be looking inward.

Is debunked by this..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 13, 2025, 10:48:31 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 13, 2025, 06:00:31 AM

I'm claiming that you probably don't know which way is north or south,

Old post you were part of ..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 17, 2024, 06:01:31 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 17, 2024, 05:38:53 AM

It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.

Why wouldn’t stars relative stationary to a rotating earth not produce this?

3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg


Where at the South Pole, a similar picture can be taken but the stars trail in a different direction?

Quote

Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy

And at the equator the star trails do this…

Quote

https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/

(Where’s that delusional parabola?)

With you once again bulmabriefs144 trying to change the argument

The sun supposedly orbits the celestial North Pole on a flat earth like this…




Is that false.

On a flat earth, supposedly the starts orbit the celestial North Pole.  Like this.


Is that false.

So.  Why isn’t the sun orbiting the celestial North Pole. 



media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg

Note.  Added..  bulmabriefs144, why did you ignore and try to change the subject away from the above picture of sun trails that show the sun doesn’t orbit the celestial North Pole as required by flat earth?

Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…

For a number of reasons especially by the constellations, it’s obvious if you’re looking to the northern celestial sphere vs the southern celestial sphere.  If you can’t tell the difference, you’re stupid.  Where the constellation nicknamed Big Dipper is used to find Polaris is in the northern celestial sphere in the north.  Where you’re not going to see the constellation Big Dipper looking south.  Where the constellation Big Dipper isn’t in the Southern celestial sphere. The Big Dipper is part of Ursa Major which is near Ursa Minor that circle the northern celestial pole and Polaris.  You look south, you don’t see Polaris, Ursa Major, and Ursa Minor.  Where the constellations over the equator and in the southern celestial sphere are very different.  Where Crux is a group of stars.

Bulma where you need to have Crux and Polaris be the same thing.  Which is stupid because Polaris is a single star in the northern celestial sphere, and Crux is a constellation of stars in the opposite direction in the southern celestial hemisphere.

Where Bulma you are running and trying to change the subject from being debunked.

you and I both know the South Pole is verboten and nobody, including the people of TFE have been there

No. I know that is just your pathetic desperate claim, because a south pole is incompatible with your delusional BS.

has nothing to do with the path of the sun.

It actually ties to it quite nicely.
During the northern summer, the sun is the northern celestial hemisphere.
Those far enough north can even see it trace out a circle around the north celestial pole.
Those not far north enough can still set up equipment to trace out the arc of the circle that is visible.
Then during the southern summer, it is in the south celestial hemisphere, and it circles the south celestial pole.

That's right: planets and the moon are not solid bodies made or rock or gas

No, that's wrong. That is your pathetic, desperate fantasy.

Without a telescope, you can see they cast light when no sun is apparent, and sometimes when no sun or moon is apparent.

Sure, just like a wall is magically self illuminating, when the sun shines through a window or door, with the wall around the window or door blocking the view.

Your inability to see the sun does not mean the sun cannot be illuminating the object.
A child understands this, yet here you are competing against a rock for the lowest IQ score.

You're seeing the sky through it

Then why is there absolutely no evidence for it?
We have been over this countless times, your parabola is pile of garbage with no chance of working at all.

If you want to try invoking the pathetic BS again, try a top down viewing, showing the path of a star to produce the apparent circling motion.
Make sure you do this for both the north pole and the south pole.

Or, quit bringing it up as it is entirely useless and just shows everyone that you are a lying POS with no concern for the truth at all.

And no, it matters zero fucks what direction they go.

It is just one way to refute your pathetic BS.
The fact the stars appear to circle them in opposite directions shows your claims are pure BS.
It shows there are 2 points, not just one.
And your pathetic model can't explain that at all.

In case you didn't notice, the sky effectively hits a sort of mirror around the equator.

No, it doesn't.
The south sky is not merely a mirror of the north.

you think this rotation has something to do with poles (even though you told me it's about orbit)

No, this is about Earth being a sphere and rotating on its axis.
The orbit just explains why different stars are visible on different nights.

but it's a simple visual effect.

Yet for being such a simple visual effect, you can't explain it at all and just need to assert it as pathetic crap.

There is no "opposite pole".

Then why does all the evidence show there is?

if you look at a southern hemisphere time lapse

You observe the stars circling a point due south, clearly demonstrating that there is a south celestial pole, that there is a point due south of everyone. This does not work in your delusional garbage.

 the sky effectively hits a sort of mirror around the equator.

Funny.  When I watch the planets at night.  There is no mirroring of their travels. Also. Not for the moon.  Not for the sun.  There isn’t two Jupiters.  There isn’t two planets named Venus opposite of each other moving as mirror images.  There isn’t another object with the brightest and movements of Venus.  Where comets are not mirrored between the northern and southern celestial spheres. 

Again.

Accurate star atlases of the night sky.  One for northern hemisphere one of the southern hemisphere.

Northern hemisphere





Southern hemisphere




Where I’ve been to Australia and seen there are different constellations in the southern celestial sphere.


The star patterns of the northern celestial sphere are completely distributed differently than the star patterns of the southern celestial sphere.  Where in the southern hemisphere the constellation Crux circles the southern celestial pole which has no star sitting at the pole.  In line in a better term.  Where in the northern celestial sphere the very different constellations from crux nicknamed Big Dipper and Little Dipper that are not mirror images of crux circle the northern celestial pole where Polaris sits / is in line with the northern celestial pole.

Bulma.  You BS false to predict what’s actually seen.  There is no evidence of mirroring. Your BS is debunked and useless from star gazers to astronomers. 

Not like a mirror, dumbass. There is no double image.

Mirroring is something that viewers of telescopes have to adjust to, because the viewer tilts the device in the direction opposite that it should go.

Likewise, look at this:


Does it seem like the sky is divided in half? That's the night sky in the equator.

And some objects do not mirror at all.

Does it seem like the sky is divided in half? That's the night sky in the equator.

Hey dumbass.  Where one direction is north, and the other direction is south with completely different constellations in between where nobody is confusing the northern celestial pole for the southern celestial pole but you.

Where there is a very real northern celestial pole and a very real southern celestial pole. Not a “fake” celestial pole like you are lying about Bulma.  Where south has meaning for the heliocentric model.

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

You babbling and scribbling means nothing.

Bulma.  Can you read and comprehend.

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Are you this stupid.

Polaris is a star in the northern hemisphere that is basically sitting in line with the northern celestial pole.

A star that doesn’t dim as one travels south.  Once far enough south across the equator Polaris is physically blocked from view by the horizon to the north. 

As you travel south, Polaris gets lower on the northern horizon.  Crux a constellation rising above the southern hemisphere to the south is rising in the south as you travel south as Polaris gets lower in the sky to the north.  Crux is a constellation that points where one has to “look” more south to locate the southern celestial pole. 



And not this..

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 01:18:43 PM

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

Quote

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Have a source?  Can you link to it.

Bulma.  Can you read?

Bulma.  Your buddy AI again..

Mirroring is something that viewers of telescopes have to adjust to, because the viewer tilts the device in the direction opposite that it should go.

No, that is only if the image they are seeing through the telescope is inverted.

Likewise, look at this:
Does it seem like the sky is divided in half?

No.
There is nothing which indicates any sort of division.
Even if it was, divided in 2 is NOT mirroring.

The simple fact is that the southern sky is not a mirror of the northern sky.
Spouting that crap will not save you.

Now can you try explaining how there is a point due south for everyone in the southern hemisphere which the stars appear to circle?