Stars

Question for FE to explain. From the very confusing FE explanations of the movement of stars across the night sky, I don't see how it is possible that someone at one end of the "Icewall" and some one at the other end of the Icewall can see the same stars. Maybe this picture I quickly whipped up will help explain.
I can see how people near the red dot will see the same things, but the people at the yellow dots should see different stars if the Earth was flat. However they see the same stars.

Question for FE to explain. From the very confusing FE explanations of the movement of stars across the night sky, I don't see how it is possible that someone at one end of the "Icewall" and some one at the other end of the Icewall can see the same stars.

That's because they don't.

Quote

Question for FE to explain. From the very confusing FE explanations of the movement of stars across the night sky, I don't see how it is possible that someone at one end of the "Icewall" and some one at the other end of the Icewall can see the same stars.

That's because they don't.

But they do. You have evidence to contradict me, Bishop?

But they do. You have evidence to contradict me, Bishop?

Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed by Augustus De Morgan has many first-hand accounts of star discrepancies at different far off points on earth.

What first-hand accounts can you provide to demonstrate that two people on the opposite sides of Antarctica see the same stars?

Showing us the cover of a 150 year old book is not proof. If the Earth were flat, wouldn't people at the extreme edges see completely different star systems, not "discrepancies". And I'm not just talking Antarctica. The southern hemisphere should have large differences in star patterns at different points in longitude.

It must be like the Tom and Jerry cartoons when they keep running but the background just repeats. I guess the sky is the same way.

Showing us the cover of a 150 year old book is not proof.

Actually, since the first hand accounts of the Flat Earth Literature put the RE model to shame, it is proof.

If the Earth were flat, wouldn't people at the extreme edges see completely different star systems, not "discrepancies".

I'd say what seeing different constellations on opposite sides of the Southern Hemisphere is a discrepancy.

And I'm not just talking Antarctica. The southern hemisphere should have large differences in star patterns at different points in longitude.

It does. What first-accounts do you have for us demonstrating that a person from South America and a person from Australia can see the same stars at the same time?

What I'm trying to get at here is that on opposite sides of the southern hemisphere, you should not be able to both see the "Southern Cross" constellation for instance, a constellation that is used to find the South Celestial Pole. If the Earth was flat, it would be impossible. The flags of Australia and Brazil both have this constellation pattern included in them. Therefore someone in South America and Australia can see the same stars.

What I'm trying to get at here is that on opposite sides of the southern hemisphere, you should not be able to both see the "Southern Cross" constellation for instance, a constellation that is used to find the South Celestial Pole. If the Earth was flat, it would be impossible. The flags of Australia and Brazil both have this constellation pattern included in them. Therefore someone in South America and Australia can see the same stars.

It's true that the Southern Cross points Southward; but the Southern Cross is itself whirling within its multiple system above the earth. The South celestial system whirls around the Earth's hub at one rotation per twenty four hours. The Southern Cross passes over both Australia and South America.

It's not impossible for two people on those continents to see the same constellation. It's impossible for them to see the same constellation at the same moment in time.

In order to contradict the Flat Earth model you will need to present a reference of an observer in Australia and an observer in South America looking at the same stars at the same time.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v204/5/90/767845283/n767845283_2269304_8121.jpg

Not to mention, in your first post; how is the right hand observer on one side of the earth supposed to see the same stars as the other person on the other side of the earth if one of them is experiencing daylight?

So basically what you are saying is that this "South Celestial System" moves around the Earth to move to the other side of the Earth so that the other observers can see them at night, while at the same time this system is spinning? Wouldn't that cause the apparent movement of the stars across the night sky to not appear as a circle, but it would have to loop on it self because it is moving above the Earth as it is spinning? Sorda a tire as it is moving, if you follow 1 point on it does not complete a perfect circle because it is moving as it is rotating. And if this system is moving around like this, why does the Northern System not move either? What makes it special that it simply spins in one spot while the Southern system moves around the Earth?

And for my picture there, it would be Winter in Antarctica so it would have 24/hour darkness.

TB
Since it is never night in both Australia and South America at the same time, your proof is impossible to provide.

TB
Since it is never night in both Australia and South America at the same time, your proof is impossible to provide.

And so your book cannot be proof, since by your model they cannot be looking at the same time.

So basically what you are saying is that this "South Celestial System" moves around the Earth to move to the other side of the Earth so that the other observers can see them at night, while at the same time this system is spinning? Wouldn't that cause the apparent movement of the stars across the night sky to not appear as a circle, but it would have to loop on it self because it is moving above the Earth as it is spinning? Sorda a tire as it is moving, if you follow 1 point on it does not complete a perfect circle because it is moving as it is rotating. And if this system is moving around like this, why does the Northern System not move either? What makes it special that it simply spins in one spot while the Southern system moves around the Earth?

Bump for response.

Bump²

TB
Since it is never night in both Australia and South America at the same time, your proof is impossible to provide.

Making the RE model, in this case, unfalsifiable!

Couldn't help myself. hehe.

Quote from: dyno on February 22, 2008, 06:43:22 PM

TB
Since it is never night in both Australia and South America at the same time, your proof is impossible to provide.

Making the RE model, in this case, unfalsifiable!

What? Hes just saying that TB's little Book has faulty evidence. Still have not got anything for the thing I keep bumping for...

So basically what you are saying is that this "South Celestial System" moves around the Earth to move to the other side of the Earth so that the other observers can see them at night, while at the same time this system is spinning? Wouldn't that cause the apparent movement of the stars across the night sky to not appear as a circle, but it would have to loop on it self because it is moving above the Earth as it is spinning? Sorda a tire as it is moving, if you follow 1 point on it does not complete a perfect circle because it is moving as it is rotating. And if this system is moving around like this, why does the Northern System not move either? What makes it special that it simply spins in one spot while the Southern system moves around the Earth?

Bump³

Since it is never night in both Australia and South America at the same time, your proof is impossible to provide.

There are still discrepancies which should not occur in the RE model. For example; there are accounts of Sigma Octantis, the South Pole star, being seen South-West or South-East. This is impossible on a Globe Earth, as the South Pole Star needs to be  directly Southward from every longitude..

So basically what you are saying is that this "South Celestial System" moves around the Earth to move to the other side of the Earth so that the other observers can see them at night, while at the same time this system is spinning? Wouldn't that cause the apparent movement of the stars across the night sky to not appear as a circle, but it would have to loop on it self because it is moving above the Earth as it is spinning? Sorda a tire as it is moving, if you follow 1 point on it does not complete a perfect circle because it is moving as it is rotating. And if this system is moving around like this, why does the Northern System not move either? What makes it special that it simply spins in one spot while the Southern system moves around the Earth?

Well there are a number of multiple systems which exist above our earth. The system above the North Pole; the one most of us are familiar with, rotates clockwise. The multiple systems which exists over the Southern areas of the earth rotate counter clockwise.

A person at the equator observes two opposing star rotations: http://www.danheller.com/images/FAQ/Tech/Stars/img7.html#img10

Over the Flat Earth exists a number of stellar multiple systems. Each have unique configurations and keep each other in motion via gravitational gears. Formation was caused by a conglomerate of stellar interactions during formation and the influence of the sun which makes a path through the teeth of these gears.

Here is an animation for visual effect:



The turning of the celestial "gears" is what keeps each other generally moving in opposite directions. Not literal gears, but celestial systems rubbing against each other, affecting each other gravometrically.

Well there are a number of multiple systems which exist above our earth. The system above the North Pole; the one most of us are familiar with, rotates clockwise. The multiple systems which exists over the Southern areas of the earth rotate counter clockwise.

A person at the equator observes two opposing star rotations: http://www.danheller.com/images/FAQ/Tech/Stars/img7.html#img10

Over the Flat Earth exists a number of stellar multiple systems. Each have unique configurations and keep each other in motion via gravitational gears. Formation was caused by a conglomerate of stellar interactions during formation and the influence of the sun which makes a path through the teeth of these gears.

The turning of the celestial "gears" is what keeps each other generally moving in opposite directions. Not literal gears, but celestial systems rubbing against each other, affecting each other gravometrically.

Did you even read what I said? This "south celestial system" will not be completing a circle in the apparent motion of the star across the night sky! Follow 1 gear spoke on the middle gear on that animation. In completes a full rotation within itself and it will appear to do this by any observer. Makes sense so it must be the northern system located in the middle of the Earth. Now follow one of the gear spokes on the outer gears. While it completes a circle within it self, the observer will not see it complete a circle because it is rotating and it is moving around. If this were true, then time exposure pictures in the south will not complete a circle.

Did you even read what I said? This "south celestial system" will not be completing a circle in the apparent motion of the star across the night sky! Follow 1 gear spoke on the middle gear on that animation. In completes a full rotation within itself and it will appear to do this by any observer. Makes sense so it must be the northern system located in the middle of the Earth. Now follow one of the gear spokes on the outer gears. While it completes a circle within it self, the observer will not see it complete a circle because it is rotating and it is moving around. If this were true, then time exposure pictures in the south will not complete a circle.

Right. An observer in the Southern Hemisphere will see the eventual retrograde movement of the stars if he watches them long enough with precision. This is another proof for a Flat Earth.

Right. An observer in the Southern Hemisphere will see the eventual retrograde movement of the stars if he watches them long enough with precision. This is another proof for a Flat Earth.

The movement of the stars in the South is the same as the North.

Star movement in the South should look more like this if the Earth were flat. This is cause the gear reaches its lowest point and then returns upwards (This is a diagram of what a time exposure in the south would look more like if the Earth was flat).

Quote from: dyno on February 22, 2008, 06:43:22 PM

TB
Since it is never night in both Australia and South America at the same time, your proof is impossible to provide.

Making the RE model, in this case, unfalsifiable!

Couldn't help myself. hehe.

Actually, you mean FE is unfalsifiable there. FE postulates that something goes on that cannot be disproved, that the stars whirl around following the night....get it? Tom said that the stars move, and that the only way to disprove him is to instantly measure the stars in both a daylight. The unfalsifiability lies upon the person who makes the extravagant claim that cannot be disproved, like Russell's teapot.

Right. An observer in the Southern Hemisphere will see the eventual retrograde movement of the stars if he watches them long enough with precision. This is another proof for a Flat Earth.

If it was ever observed to happen.  Evidence please.  I think it would be quite obvious to any astronomer in the southern hemisphere.

Does anyone really understand what I'm saying about the star movement in the Southern Hemisphere if the Earth was flat?¿ Cause if you do, then you realize Tom Bishops star system does not work.

Yes we understand and yes, we realise TB's explanation is flawed. That seems to be the best FE can offer though.

Does anyone really understand what I'm saying about the star movement in the Southern Hemisphere if the Earth was flat?¿ Cause if you do, then you realize Tom Bishops star system does not work.

Unless you've tracked the stars in the Southern Hemisphere over a period of twelve hours, I don't see how you have contradicted the accounts in "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed."

Quote from: Jimmy911 on February 28, 2008, 03:48:50 PM

Does anyone really understand what I'm saying about the star movement in the Southern Hemisphere if the Earth was flat?¿ Cause if you do, then you realize Tom Bishops star system does not work.

Unless you've tracked the stars in the Southern Hemisphere over a period of twelve hours, I don't see how you have contradicted the accounts in "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed."

It also goes the other way around. Unless you've followed them around, you can't prove it.