where is the south celestial pole located?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

well, that was a fun excercise in futility. man bishop has blown a gasket. or a seal. or something.

well, that was a fun excercise in futility. man bishop has blown a gasket. or a seal. or something.

Still waiting for those accounts which proves your model of the earth.

If you do not have accounts which contradict mine, I would appreciate it if you just admitted defeat. Thanks.

Quote

well, that was a fun excercise in futility. man bishop has blown a gasket. or a seal. or something.

Still waiting for those accounts which proves your model of the earth.

If you do not have accounts which contradict mine, I would appreciate it if you just admitted defeat. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

Your model has no literature which demonstrates your model through experiment or reference. Believe me, I've looked.

Where are those accounts? I'm waiting for a single personal account which even suggests in the slightest that your celestial model is correct.

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

Your model has no literature which demonstrates your model through experiment or reference. Believe me, I've looked.

Where are those accounts? I'm waiting for a single personal account which even suggests that your celestial model is correct.

You don't need to wait for anything because you are standing on a round Earth right now. Don't waste your time on this.

You don't need to wait for anything because you are standing on a round Earth right now. Don't waste your time on this.

So you guys have no evidence? Is that what you're saying?

I think it is.

By the way, you ignored this on the other thread. Answer them, please.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 30, 2007, 01:00:20 PM

Quote

How do you know temperature approaches absolute zero?

Because temperature drops the further away you move from the sun. Duh.

Ok, let's assume we're on the imaginary flat Earth again, and the Sun is a spotlight. So, temperature approaches absolute zero when regions are further away from the Sun. Based on your claim, I assume the "spotlight" Sun, rather than just light things up, heats things up too. You said, in the other thread about Astronomy, that within the Sun there's no stellar fusion occurring. Therefore, this means the Sun does not emit radiation since, you know, stellar fusion is what produces radiant and heat energy after all. So, without stellar fusion, what causes the Sun to emit "something" to heat us up? What powers the sun to do this? Why and how does the Sun can emit "something"? What is this "something" that, like radiation, warms things up? If you can give me a clear, logical, and evident claim about the mechanism that causes the Sun to do this, we will get back to the topic "further away from the Sun allows temperature to approach absolute zero".

By the way, this is what you've said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2007, 09:28:44 PM

There is no direct evidence that fusion is occurring within the sun. The theory of fusion is a theory only, and a flimsy one at that. Once man masters stellar fusion get back to me.

This is the definition of stellar nucleosynthesis (stellar fusion):

Quote from: Stellar nucleosynthesis

Stellar nucleosynthesis is the collective term for the nuclear reactions taking place in stars to build the nuclei of the heavier elements. The processes involved began to be understood early in the twentieth century, when it was first realized that the energy released from nuclear reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source of heat and light. source

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 30, 2007, 01:00:20 PM

Quote

That is basically what I've said. I've said molecular movement ceases and matter emits/absorb no energy (heat) as absolute zero approaches. ΔS = 0.

The end.

Yes, what about it? Near zero Kelvin temperatures have been reached in laboratory settings.

I'm fine with that. Yes, there are records of temperatures reaching near absolute zero, as done in various laboratories. However, those experiments are done in a closed system. Matter would be close to impossible even at near absolute zero because molecular movement ceases and atomic movement begins to stop. There are so far no regions on Earth, as we know it, ever reached near absolute zero. Therefore, Earth plus near absolute zero will still be an impossible combination. However, if you want to discredit this claim, care to tell me what makes near absolute zero plus Earth a possible combination? What mechanism makes it possible? How and why is it possible? Why should it be possible?
Answer these, please.

Quote

You don't need to wait for anything because you are standing on a round Earth right now. Don't waste your time on this.

So you guys have no evidence? Is that what you're saying?

I think it is.

There are evidences, yet you will discard them as irrelevant. What's the point of giving you evidences that will simply be rejected by you? You might as well go find those evidences by yourself.

By the way, you ignored this on the other thread. Answer, please.

Off Topic.

Lets get back on topic: You have no evidence or references for the very basics of your model.

There are evidences, yet you will discard them as irrelevant. What's the point of giving you evidences that will simply be rejected by you? You might as well go find those evidences by yourself.

If you tell me to "look at this starmap and assume that this constellation is visible from Argentina" I will, of course, reject it.

But if you show through reference that an astronomer or explorer saw a certain star which should not appear in the Flat Earth model at his location, then that's prime evidence for your model. But you cannot even give me that. Because the Round Earth model is incorrect.

Quote

By the way, you ignored this on the other thread. Answer, please.

Off Topic.

Lets get back on topic: You have no evidence or references for the very basics of your model.

Then go back to the other thread and answer them. Just admit you can't, because your claims are baseless and irrelevant. I win: it's true.

Go answer them now and you still might have a chance to redeem yourself.

Quote

There are evidences, yet you will discard them as irrelevant. What's the point of giving you evidences that will simply be rejected by you? You might as well go find those evidences by yourself.

If you tell me to "look at this starmap and assume that this constellation is visible from Argentina" I will, of course, reject it.

But if you show through reference that an astronomer or explorer saw a certain star which should not be, then that's prime evidence of your model. But you can't even give me that. Because the Round Earth model is incorrect.

Stop with your fantasies and wake up.

The Round Earth model is never incorrect. If it is, all my geography classes would've been part of the conspiracy. All the maps from the Age of Discovery would be fake. Actually, since all the sciences I took is consistent with the Round Earth model, all of them would be part of the conspiracy too.

who the heck is banana republic?

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

bishop, get this through your self-deluded skull: personal accounts and quotes are not by themselves proof. not from me, not from you. i swear to god, if you post another "personal account" with "quotes" from a 19th-century drunken idiot who was out to prove the literalness of the bible, i am going to hunt you down myself.

i could post pages of personal quotes for you, including observations of the direct effects of a round earth such as bottom-lit clouds, time-lapse star trails, "sunken" cities, moon phases throughout a month rather than a day, oceans with pointy hats floating on them, people only seeing one side of the moon, navigation via different constellations in the sky at different latitudes, satellites floating by clear night skies, etc. etc. i could also post pages upon pages of astronaut transcript. i could post endless pages from the tens of thousands of textbook and other scientific literature demonstrating round earth. but i'll spare everyone the bother, because it would be boring for re'ers, and fe'ers would just say "it's all a conspiracy". so what's the point?

re mechanics are entirely self-consistent and easy to understand, while fe mechanics are full of giant holes, huge leaps of faith, and fundamental requirement of subscriptions to massive and unfounded conspiracy theory. and hell, you can't even explain how the sun works, for christ's sake.

the fact remains, bishop: you have not answered a single challenge i have thrown at you. not one. the title of this thread: "where is the south celestial pole located?" - you have not answered. (other than "beyond the ice wall", anywhere withing 360 degrees.) you have clearly stated and supported in other threads that there is a south celestial pole, and it is above the earth, and is visible. so where the fuck is the south celestial pole?. answer a single question directly for once. i challenge you. give me longitude, or better yet, declination and right ascension, visible from a reachable location of your choosing.

bishop, you have suggested  that stars are massive, and then that stars are chemical motes the size of dust. you have said the south celestial pole is beyond the ice wall above the earth, and then under the earth.

you have also blatantly lied to this forum by submitting a picture that you stated was a lake level, that i proved was blatantly false. that makes you a pissant cowardly liar.

also bishop, don't forget about this post, where you got completely owned and are suddenly silent on.

This is what, the third time I've told you to stop posting in this manner?  Enough.  I won't tell you again.

You take time to warn posts (albeit ones that are pushing it) without responding to their content?
Interesting. 

This is what, the third time I've told you to stop posting in this manner?  Enough.  I won't tell you again.

apologies. i wouldn't blame you for banning me, and it would actually be a blessing - but i will respect the rules and your warnings, and do better. plus you are right and that's not good debate form.

but man, can you blame me with bishop? his m.o. of never answering direct questions, his willingness to blatantly lie, and propensity for self-contradiction - all the while copy/pasting robot ham over and over as if it were the direct word of god and we should believe it as such; then to figure out he's a troll after all that...you get my point. it's enough to drive a guy to say...things. i'm sure troll bishop is giggling at all of this.

Thats a creepy image. Giggling Bishop?
eeayag!

Thats a creepy image. Giggling Bishop?
eeayag!

do you know where you got the image of your avatar from? that is seriously freaky. i'd like to see a bigger picture of that.

I honestly cannot remember. I'll try to find it again though.

Bumper cars.

ok, on the RE model, the south celestial pole would be: 90 degrees south. period. same as earth's south rotational pole.

on the FE model...it would not EXIST! there IS no south pole on the FE, that's the "edge" where the "ice wall" would supposedly stop you. that is, if "the conspiracy" didn't stop you first...

BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

Ever heard of a constellation called the "southen cross"? it would be nearly overhead all the time if you were at the south pole...but FErs deny it's existence!

BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:

And?

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 14, 2007, 08:25:34 AM

BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:

And?

As for my train of thought.
A magnetic pole that shifts polarity implies this to this:

    /------\     /------\
 S________NP________S


\    /------\      /------                           
 SS________NP_______

NP = North pole
S = South

Whichever part of the ice wall the magnetic south pole is on it would need to jump around...
Since the shift has reversed the poles before, the center of your FE used to have the NP on the edge.

Those are crappy magnetic field lines above the FE surface.

/----\

Keeping with your 'drawings':

Current:
/------\NP/------\
\------/SP\------/

Flipped polarity:
/------\SP/------\
\------/NP\------/

what's your point, TheEngineer? are you saying the south magnetic pole is UNDER the north pole?

Uh, yea.  That's my point.

He's quick. 

if that were true, EVERY compass would point UP or DOWN!
like this picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CampoMagnetico.png

you obviously know NOTHING about magnetism. go back to school.

if that were true, EVERY compass would point UP or DOWN!

At the poles, and the ice wall, that is exactly what they would do.  Just like the RE.  Please teach me about magnetism, as I am not sure I know your version of it.

if that were true, EVERY compass would point UP or DOWN!

ROFL. Might want to rethink that.