where is the south celestial pole located?

bishop says there is a north celestial "pole" with polaris at the center. these are something like a cluster of stars that orbit a common center once every 24 hours (an idea which is problematic itself as pointed out in my previous thread post).

bishop then goes on to explain that there is a "south" celestial pole, with similar characteristics. this explains why sky timelapses in both north and south hemispheres look similar--they are pictures of different phenomenon with similar behaviors (north and south celestial poles).

polaris happens to be situated above the center point of the flat earth. which i suppose is natural since the earth is the center of the universe.

but it's not clear where (on earth--if at all) the south celestial pole is over. does it somehow orbit in the aether like the sun and moon? or excuse me, other stars? (maybe orbiting polaris while still being it it's own orbital sub-system?) or is it stuck over, say, the tip of south africa? if so, would it therefore be at different points in the sky at the same local time (say, midnight) for different longitudes?

seems like this is a pretty basic question that should be high on the list for any theory of "what, where, and why are we" to explain. (but then, so would an explanation that made a lick of sense for phases...)

From what I have gathered from thier (Tom & Co.) answers and pictures the southern area (not a pole) is the edge of the Earth aka the ice wall.

I still don't understand how a flat earth can have a magnetic field either

I still don't understand how a flat earth can have a magnetic field either

I've outlined it in the FAQ.

From what I have gathered from thier (Tom & Co.) answers and pictures the southern area (not a pole) is the edge of the Earth aka the ice wall.

i don't mean an earth pole. obviously a flat earth as modeled has a problem with a south pole. i'm talking about bishops' reference to a "celestial" south pole. (talked about in the thread "explain this" or something like that, which opens with a panoramic time lapse of star trails showing the north pole and almost the south pole.) he invoked this to explain how stars in a nighttime timelapse photo form a circular pattern around the axis of the south pole.

bishop explained it by invoking the existence of magical north and south celestial poles. i think he said the north celestial pole is over the center of the earth (or implied), but he didn't say where the south celestial pole is, or whether it moves relative to earth or not and if so, in what way. if it was stationary like the north pole, obviously that would cause alot of problems as it would be in different parts of the sky at the same local times for different longitudes, when it should appear in the same place at the same local times.

not that any of it makes any sense anyway. as someone said to tom, stars at all radii from the orbital center can't all rotate in perfect circles all in exactly 24 hours, except in bishop-land. the stars closer to the center would orbit faster, and in an elliptical orbit at that, as observed in all star clusters. bishop compared the two "celestial poles" to star clusters.  or called them star clusters outright. i don't remember and i no longer care to look it up. he's just a troll as i've finally realized so there's no point.

Quote from: Agent Z on October 29, 2007, 10:15:06 PM

I still don't understand how a flat earth can have a magnetic field either

I've outlined it in the FAQ.

Yes, but like so much of the FAQ, it makes absolutely no sense

The FAQ doesn't really answer the question. Where exactly is the magnetic south pole? You claim that at the ice wall the magnetic field lines are vertical, but that wouldn't make the compas needle point north-south, it would try to point up-down.

Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.

The FAQ doesn't really answer the question. Where exactly is the magnetic south pole? You claim that at the ice wall the magnetic field lines are vertical, but that wouldn't make the compas needle point north-south, it would try to point up-down.

Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.

i don't mean to dampen the conversation, but i want to get this thread (that i started i think) back on track. all good questions that fe has issues explaining, but the original question was where is the celestial south pole...

meaning, if you take a time-lapse of the sky in the souther hemisphere, you can see that the stars "orbit" a common point. bishop says that point is the "celestial south pole". the celestial north pole, he says, is over the center of the earth. where then is the celestial south pole?

where then is the celestial south pole?

The North Celestial Pole exists over the North Magnetic Pole. The South Celestial Pole exists over the South Magnetic Pole.

Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.

The South Magnetic Pole on FE is the area beyond the Ice Wall where the Magnetic Field Lines are vertical. The South Celestial pole is located over this area.

Technically, the actual South Magnetic Pole is physically beneath the North Magnetic pole. The field lines justs swoop over the earth and become vertical at the Ice Wall.

bishop explained it by invoking the existence of magical north and south celestial poles. i think he said the north celestial pole is over the center of the earth (or implied), but he didn't say where the south celestial pole is, or whether it moves relative to earth or not and if so, in what way. if it was stationary like the north pole, obviously that would cause alot of problems as it would be in different parts of the sky at the same local times for different longitudes, when it should appear in the same place at the same local times.

It only causes problems because you come into the discussion assuming that the Round Earth model is the correct model. It's not.

The FAQ doesn't really answer the question. Where exactly is the magnetic south pole?

The 'south' magnetic pole is directly under the 'north' magnetic pole, under the Earth.

You claim that at the ice wall the magnetic field lines are vertical, but that wouldn't make the compas needle point north-south, it would try to point up-down.

Right, and that's what happens at the poles.

Quote

where then is the celestial south pole?

The North Celestial Pole exists over the North Magnetic Pole. The South Celestial Pole exists over the South Magnetic Pole.

Quote

Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.

The South Magnetic Pole on FE is the area beyond the Ice Wall where the Magnetic Field Lines are vertical. The South Celestial pole is located over this area.

Technically, the actual South Magnetic Pole is physically beneath the North Magnetic pole. The field lines justs swoop over the earth and become vertical at the Ice Wall.

So, the stars in the south rotate around a fixed point over a circular area all around the earth? Sound like a contradiction to me. That explanation of the MSP is what I thought, and makes sense.

Quote

bishop explained it by invoking the existence of magical north and south celestial poles. i think he said the north celestial pole is over the center of the earth (or implied), but he didn't say where the south celestial pole is, or whether it moves relative to earth or not and if so, in what way. if it was stationary like the north pole, obviously that would cause alot of problems as it would be in different parts of the sky at the same local times for different longitudes, when it should appear in the same place at the same local times.

It only causes problems because you come into the discussion assuming that the Round Earth model is the correct model. It's not.

The real cause of the problems is people like you assuming that the Flat Earth model is the correct model. It's not.

The North Celestial Pole exists over the North Magnetic Pole. The South Celestial Pole exists over the South Magnetic Pole.

The South Magnetic Pole on FE is the area beyond the Ice Wall where the Magnetic Field Lines are vertical. The South Celestial pole is located over this area.

Technically, the actual South Magnetic Pole is physically beneath the North Magnetic pole. The field lines justs swoop over the earth and become vertical at the Ice Wall.

ok, tell me if this summary of your words is reasonably correct:

* the south celestial pole exists over the south magnetic pole.

* the south magnetic pole is the area beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical

* the south celestial pole is located over the area beyond the ice wall

* the south magnetic pole is physically beneath the north magnetic pole

bishop, do you see the contradictions in your own fe story?

furthermore, if the south celestial pole is "beyond the ice wall", where exactly is it and does it move around in the sky? how do you explain the fact that it appears in the same place in the sky at any given time at night, at any longitude and any particular latitude "south" of the equator?

or, if the south celestial pole is above the south magnetic pole which is beneath the north magnetic pole, then how does anyone see it at all?

keep in mind, you have already clearly established in previous posts that you believe the south celestial pole is visible. so arguing it away (invoking conspiracy, mass hysteria, etc) would just introduce more contradictions into your already ridiculous made-up-on-the-fly story.

oh and i almost forgot: shut the fuck up. let someone who knows what they are doing answer this.

* the south celestial pole exists over the south magnetic pole.

This is correct, depending on how we want to define the South Magnetic Pole. I define it as where the field lines are vertical.

* the south magnetic pole is the area beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical

This is how I personally define the South Pole, where the field lines are vertical. TheEngineer and other FE proponents may define the South Magnetic Pole slightly different.

* the south celestial pole is located over the area beyond the ice wall

mmm hmm

* the south magnetic pole is physically beneath the north magnetic pole

This is also correct depending on how we define the South Magnetic pole. TheEngineer has a diagram somewhere.

bishop, do you see the contradictions in your own fe story?

Nope.

furthermore, if the south celestial pole is "beyond the ice wall", where exactly is it and does it move around in the sky? how do you explain the fact that it appears in the same place in the sky at any given time at night, at any longitude and any particular latitude "south" of the equator?

This does not occur. The South Celestial Pole is in one location only. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. William Carpenter reports in his book "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed" that the Sigma Octantis, the star which marks the center point of the South Celestial Pole, was seen misaligned with the direction of South. Sigma Ocantis was seen on several polar expeditions to be South-East or South-West of the observer. These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes.

or, if the south celestial pole is above the south magnetic pole which is beneath the north magnetic pole, then how does anyone see it at all?

The South Celestial pole is above the earth, not below it. The South Celestial pole is over an area beyond the Ice Wall where the field lines are vertical.

Tom Bishop. Are we playing this game again? You've obviously seen my request for clarification from you, seeing as you were editing your posts in the thread an hour after I made the request. Do I have to hound you again to get you to respond? What's going on?

Woooh Bishop you sure are entertaining. The north celestial pole is the point in the north where the stars rotate around. Are you saying that the south celestial pole is not a point, more a region?

If the south magnetic point is beyond the ice wall then there is something beyond the ice wall and u cant fall off the ice wall into nothing

If the south magnetic point is beyond the ice wall then there is something beyond the ice wall and u cant fall off the ice wall into nothing

That's correct. Beyond the Ice Wall is a tundra of ice and snow.

Tom Bishop. Are we playing this game again? You've obviously seen my request for clarification from you, seeing as you were editing your posts in the thread an hour after I made the request. Do I have to hound you again to get you to respond? What's going on?

What request would that be? This is the first time you've posted in this thread.

Woooh Bishop you sure are entertaining. The north celestial pole is the point in the north where the stars rotate around. Are you saying that the south celestial pole is not a point, more a region?

Yes, the South Celestial Pole seen in RE sky charts is actually just a region over Australia. The Flat Earth Society has found that the tip of South America also has its own Celestial Pole with a unique layout independent of known star maps.

In order for the Flat Earth Theory to be contradicted it must be proven that observers on Australia and the tip of South America can see the same stars at the same time. Saying that they do is not evidence. Personal testimonies must be presented.

If the south magnetic point is beyond the ice wall then there is something beyond the ice wall and u cant fall off the ice wall into nothing

The south pole is not beyond the ice wall. It is under the earth. The ice wall is where the field lines are vertical. Just because there is a magnetic field, doesn't mean there's matter beyond the ice wall, you could still fall off.
Tom Bishop is being silly.

Whree I hate it when he edits posts while I write mine. Saying that evidence proves the earth is flat is not evidence either.

Whree I hate it when he edits posts while I write mine. Saying that evidence proves the earth is flat is not evidence either.

The Flat Earth Literature has personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.

Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?

But the personal accounts in the FEL are still just word-of-mouth, in the same way as quoting multiple independent observers that claim to have seen the south celestial pole.

You haven't answered my question regarding the nature of the south celestial pole, point or region?

Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?

Where are yours?

Quote from: ChiefConspirator on October 30, 2007, 03:45:53 PM

Tom Bishop. Are we playing this game again? You've obviously seen my request for clarification from you, seeing as you were editing your posts in the thread an hour after I made the request. Do I have to hound you again to get you to respond? What's going on?

What request would that be? This is the first time you've posted in this thread.

Yes it is. You, of course, have no idea what I'm talking about. Way to act like an adult deserving of a Ph.D.

I'm referring to the thread you, very clearly, want to forget exists.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17694.msg310797#msg310797

This is correct, depending on how we want to define the South Magnetic Pole. I define it as where the field lines are vertical.

Quote

* the south magnetic pole is the area beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical

This is how I personally define the South Pole, where the field lines are vertical. TheEngineer and other FE proponents may define the South Magnetic Pole slightly different.

Quote

* the south magnetic pole is physically beneath the north magnetic pole

This is also correct depending on how we define the South Magnetic pole. TheEngineer has a diagram somewhere.

so you just toss around all possible explanations and hope one will stick, without any caveat that one is "what you believe" and another is "what someone else believes"? seems like some non-trivial qualifiers to me, especially for directly contradictory explanations in the same post.

These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes.

back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.

The South Celestial pole is above the earth, not below it. The South Celestial pole is over an area beyond the Ice Wall where the field lines are vertical.

wait, look above. you just said the south celestial pole is below the earth. now it's above.

so let's go with your statement that the location of the south celestial pole is beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical...and above that. which means it is precisely anywhere within a 360 degree range on the compass, beyond the ice wall. bishop, where the fuck is the south celestial pole? when i go back to argentina i am going to look for it in the sky exactly where you tell me. since it is not moving around, it should be easy to find as long as it's dark. give me a longitude, that if extended as an imaginary line beyond the ice wall from the north pole, points to the direction of the south celestial pole.

That's the exact question I am awaiting an answer to.

Damn it. Now you guys scared him off from here too. Don't you understand how excitable Tom Bishop is? You have to be gentle with him, or he'll fly away and never come back.

back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.

Posting like this got Gulliver banned.  I'm about to go get the banning stick from the tool shed...

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on October 30, 2007, 04:17:58 PM

back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.

Posting like this got Gulliver banned.  I'm about to go get the banning stick from the tool shed...

It stings like a sonofabitch.

But the personal accounts in the FEL are still just word-of-mouth, in the same way as quoting multiple independent observers that claim to have seen the south celestial pole.

The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.

Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?

wait, look above. you just said the south celestial pole is below the earth. now it's above.

The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.

Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?

back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.

The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.

Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?

when i go back to argentina i am going to look for it in the sky exactly where you tell me. since it is not moving around, it should be easy to find as long as it's dark. give me a longitude, that if extended as an imaginary line beyond the ice wall from the north pole, points to the direction of the south celestial pole.

That's fine. Go to Argentina and look for Sigma Octantis. If you see it then we are incorrect.

Until then, the Flat Earth model is the correct model.

Hey Tom. Remember me? Is this thread better than mine, or something? What's so bad about my thread?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17694.msg310797#msg310797