The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation

As has been discussed here before, observers on the southern hemisphere can see that the stars appear to rotate around a different point in the sky than those in the northern hemisphere. This fact, while consistent with a rotating globe, appears to break FET.

I would like to see a workable explanation for this that is consistent with FET.

SEARCH

Did that. The "big gears in the sky" argument has been refuted. Apart from that, there has been no serious attempt by FET to explain the phenomenon.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2008, 02:10:26 PM

SEARCH

Did that. The "big gears in the sky" argument has been refuted. Apart from that, there has been no serious attempt by FET to explain the phenomenon.

Seconded. I'd like to hear an explanation.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 29, 2008, 02:15:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2008, 02:10:26 PM

SEARCH

Did that. The "big gears in the sky" argument has been refuted. Apart from that, there has been no serious attempt by FET to explain the phenomenon.

Seconded. I'd like to hear an explanation.

following up with these two.

Seconded. I'd like to hear an explanation.

Here's your explanation: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23582.msg498769#msg498769

well if we all quoted search and the big gears in the sky and you say search what should we be searching (may help a bit...)

Quote

Seconded. I'd like to hear an explanation.

Here's your explanation: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23582.msg498769#msg498769

You gave a link back to the original post. Any amount of significant evidence you present for this argument would be astounding, as I can't think of how this would be possible in a Flat Earth.

There is, as of this time, no adequate FE explanation for the south celestial pole. In the "big gears in the sky" thread, AmateurAstronomer proves several times that the gears theory is totally unworkable.

There is, as of this time, no adequate FE explanation for the south celestial pole. In the "big gears in the sky" thread, AmateurAstronomer proves several times that the gears theory is totally unworkable.

Really? What observations does Amateur Astronomer give us to disprove the gears theory?

Quote from: MadDogX on September 29, 2008, 10:24:33 PM

There is, as of this time, no adequate FE explanation for the south celestial pole. In the "big gears in the sky" thread, AmateurAstronomer proves several times that the gears theory is totally unworkable.

Really? What observations does Amateur Astronomer give us to disprove the gears theory?

The essentials:

1. The gears theory requires multiple focal points in the southern sky. This is not the case. Viewed from anywhere on the southern hemisphere, there are always the same constellations moving around the same focal point.

2. The gears theory would cause constant distortions in the southern sky. This is also not the case, as the stars clearly do not move with respect to each other, at least not significantly. If the gears theory were accurate, there would be no fixed constellations in the southern sky.

1. The gears theory requires multiple focal points in the southern sky. This is not the case. Viewed from anywhere on the southern hemisphere, there are always the same constellations moving around the same focal point.

Did Amateur Astronomer make any observations to prove or demonstrate this?

2. The gears theory would cause constant distortions in the southern sky. This is also not the case, as the stars clearly do not move with respect to each other, at least not significantly. If the gears theory were accurate, there would be no fixed constellations in the southern sky.

Did Amateur Astronomer make any observations to prove or demonstrate this?

Yes. See the big gears in the sky thread.

Yes. See the big gears in the sky thread.

I don't see where in that thread Amateur Astronomer makes observations of the South Celestial Pole from different multiple far off points on the earth for us. Can you show us the point in the thread where Amateur Astronomer makes several trips to different far away parts of the Southern Hemisphere to observe the SCP? I must have missed it.
 

Quote from: MadDogX on September 29, 2008, 11:34:47 PM

Yes. See the big gears in the sky thread.

I don't see where in that thread Amateur Astronomer makes observations of the South Celestial Pole from different multiple far off points on the earth for us. Can you show us the point in the thread where Amateur Astronomer makes several trips to different far away parts of the Southern Hemisphere to observe the SCP? I must have missed it.
 

Why should he? Millions of people live on the southern hemisphere. Are you implying that the sky in the southern hemipshere is totally different to what all publically available sources of information are saying - but nobody has noticed? Or is the entire southern hemisphere now part of the conspiracy?

The word of a company may be unreliable, I'll grant you that. But people have been observing the southern sky for a long time, generating large quantities of information on it, including star charts showing constellations that never change. If these star charts were wrong, people would notice.

Why should he? Millions of people live on the southern hemisphere. Are you implying that the sky in the southern hemipshere is totally different to what all publically available sources of information are saying - but nobody has noticed? Or is the entire southern hemisphere now part of the conspiracy?

Firstly, only 10% of the human population EVEN LIVES in the Southern Hemisphere. And most of those people are living in third world countries.  I'm not sure where you get off waving your hand around.

Secondly, I've never seen any reports from South America and Australia demonstrating that the stars to the south of those continents are the same. There is no information.

Thirdly, depending on which FE map is correct, when observers in South America and Australia look Southward, they may even be looking at the same set of stars.

It would be necessary to make specific voyages to both the South Pacific and South Atlantic to observe the stars exactly due south. Unless that is done there can be no conclusion on the layout of the cosmos.

Firstly, only 10% of the human population EVEN LIVES in the Southern Hemisphere. And most of those people are living in third world countries.  I'm not sure where you get off waving your hand around.

10% of the worlds population = ~650-700 million people. Millions of people, no?

Secondly, I've never seen any reports from South America and Australia demonstrating that the stars to the south of those continents are the same. There is no information.

There are several observatories on the southern hemisphere. See The Yale Southern Observatory and the La Plata Astronomical Observatory in Argentina, The Radcliffe Observatory in South Africa, The Stardome in New Zealand, not to forget observers in Amundsen Scott Base near the south pole. All of these are using the globally accepted star charts of the southern hemisphere. Why should they make a press release stating "yarp, the stars are right where they're supposed to be"?

Thirdly, depending on which FE map is correct, when observers in South America and Australia look Southward, they may even be looking at the same set of stars.

The map in the link you provided is based on a map used over 500 years ago. It severely distorts several continents. You'll need to do better than that.

It would be necessary to make specific voyages to both the South Pacific and South Atlantic to observe the stars exactly due south. Unless that is done there can be no conclusion on the layout of the cosmos.

Not really, no. Since the Atlantic and the Pacific are essentially "between" the Africa, South America and Australia, they would merely offer intermediate vantage points. In any case, people cross these oceans constantly. If the star charts turned out to be wrong when viewed from the ocean, people would have noticed long ago.


Try harder.


EDIT: I also just realized, no matter what part of the world we're talking about, any "gear in the sky" (even if only one was visible) would inevitably need to connect to the area around the north star at some point. This would create distortions in the sky around the equator on a flat Earth. Such distortions are not observed anywhere on Earth.

EDIT: I also just realized, no matter what part of the world we're talking about, any "gear in the sky" (even if only one was visible) would inevitably need to connect to the area around the north star at some point. This would create distortions in the sky around the equator on a flat Earth. Such distortions are not observed anywhere on Earth.

Why would this be so? What kind of distortions do you mean?

AmateurAstronomer made a rather good animation to illustrate this:



Unlike the RE sky, where the celestial poles are opposite to each other, the FE sky would have its celestial focal points on a single plain. More than one focal point arranged in such or any similar manner, will inevitably lead to visible distortions in the sky. It would be impossible to map the entire sky because some stars would always be shifting position with respect to each other.

This may or may not be the distortion you were talking about, but I'll post it anyway.

The left pictures show some group of stars from a location ("Location A") on the Earths surface where the stars are directly overhead. The right pictures show this same group of stars seen from another location ("Location B") in the other hemisphere.



Notice that while in RET the stars appear upside-down (as you correctly said), in FET they are distorted by perspective. Also, the path of the planet appears below where it should because the planets are at a lower altitude than the stars.

The loopy line is the retrograde path of a planet.

Quote

Why should he? Millions of people live on the southern hemisphere. Are you implying that the sky in the southern hemipshere is totally different to what all publically available sources of information are saying - but nobody has noticed? Or is the entire southern hemisphere now part of the conspiracy?

Firstly, only 10% of the human population EVEN LIVES in the Southern Hemisphere. And most of those people are living in third world countries.  I'm not sure where you get off waving your hand around.

Secondly, I've never seen any reports from South America and Australia demonstrating that the stars to the south of those continents are the same. There is no information.

Thirdly, depending on which FE map is correct, when observers in South America and Australia look Southward, they may even be looking at the same set of stars.

It would be necessary to make specific voyages to both the South Pacific and South Atlantic to observe the stars exactly due south. Unless that is done there can be no conclusion on the layout of the cosmos.

First Point  - This is a completely invalid and patronising point of view.  (are you president Bush's Foreign Policy advisor?)

Second Point - There are major observatories on each of these continents, used by universities and researchers from around the world.  It simply doesn't stand up.

Third Point - Mechanically impossible - You almost say so yourself.

Firstly, only 10% of the human population EVEN LIVES in the Southern Hemisphere. And most of those people are living in third world countries.  I'm not sure where you get off waving your hand around.

You seem to have some bad information there.  Here is some data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population)

Indonesia (228.4 Million people) - 3.42%
Brazil (187.8 Million people) - 2.81%
South Africa (47.9 Million people) - 0.72%
Argentina (40.3 Million people) - 0.61%
Australia (21.4 Million people) - 0.32%
Chile (16.2 Million people) - 0.25%

This is over 8% of the world's population living in non-third world countries in the southern hemisphere.  For comparison...

United States (305.3 Million people) - 4.54%

So there are more people living in non-third world countries in the southern hemisphere than there are living in the United States.

Secondly, I've never seen any reports from South America and Australia demonstrating that the stars to the south of those continents are the same. There is no information.

Can you find information that says they are not the same or are you just going to say "I can't prove a negative?"  We have shown evidence that the stars seen from Australia are identical to those seen in Chile and South Africa.

Thirdly, depending on which FE map is correct, when observers in South America and Australia look Southward, they may even be looking at the same set of stars.

It would be necessary to make specific voyages to both the South Pacific and South Atlantic to observe the stars exactly due south. Unless that is done there can be no conclusion on the layout of the cosmos.

I have made observations in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic.  Those two bodies are both in the southern hemisphere and are well separated (more then the continents).  The stars observed from both locations were the same.


EDIT: Fixed my inadvertent multiplication of these country's populations by a thousandfold.  I fixed my accidental substitution of Billion for Million.

Indonesia (228.4 Billion people) - 3.42%
Brazil (187.8 Billion people) - 2.81%
South Africa (47.9 Billion people) - 0.72%
Argentina (40.3 Billion people) - 0.61%
Australia (21.4 Billion people) - 0.32%
Chile (16.2 Billion people) - 0.25%

This is over 8% of the world's population living in non-third world countries in the southern hemisphere.  For comparison...

United States (305.3 Billion people) - 4.54%

So there are more people living in non-third world countries in the southern hemisphere than there are living in the United States.

I didn't knot the United States had a population of 305 billion people. 

Also, last time I checked Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Indonesia, and Chile were third world countries.

Can you find information that says they are not the same or are you just going to say "I can't prove a negative?"  We have shown evidence that the stars seen from Australia are identical to those seen in Chile and South Africa.

What evidence have you shown?

But even if we do imagine that there is evidence (there isn't) and the constellations to the south of South America, Africa, and Australia were really the same (they aren't), it still supports the Flat Earth map Sandokhan described in this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

The only thing those observations would demonstrate is that the earth is flat and that the hypothetical United Nations map is untrue. And that's first assuming that those observations exist as you imagine (they don't).

Sorry to be pedantic but you mean million people.

You are correct.  I was simultaneously working on a post about NASA's budget that was billions.   

You edit, I'll delete.

Not necessary for you to delete your post.  I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake.

Also, what's the definition of a third world country and why are you only including the USA for comparitive purposes?

I was just showing that basing an assumption that "only 10% of the world lives in the southern hemisphere" still included more people than live in a fairly populous nation, where we would expect that number of people to notice "something."

I did a quick look on wikipedia for you and found a map of third world countries (green):


This is going off the definition of countries not aligned with east or west in the cold war.

I am not sure I agree with that definition of third world country.  It was valid during the cold war, but now the term refers to countries that are undeveloped economically.  I selected countries for my list that had developed economies with stable economies.  Not countries like Congo, Botswana or some of the countries where a vast majority of the population is more concerned with survival than other pursuits.  Each of those countries has modern economies.  The only moderately questionable (in my opinion) would be Indonesia for the disparity between the rural population and urban, but it is still a country with a modern petroleum industry in addition to significant tourism.

According to the World Trade Organization:

"The thresholds for inclusion in the list of LDCs are: population of
less than 75 million; per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of less
than 900 dollars; Augmented Physical Quality of Life Index (combining
health, nutrition and education) of less than 59; and an economic
vulnerability index (EVI) of less than 36."

I didn't knot the United States had a population of 305 billion people. 

It doesn't.  That was a mistake on my part.  It is really millions of people not billions.

Also, last time I checked Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Indonesia, and Chile were third world countries.

See my post above as to why they aren't considered third world nations in a post-Cold War context.

What evidence have you shown?

That there are a significant number of people living in the southern hemisphere.  Many of those people are college educated professionals whose job it is to work at observatories, scientific facilities and universities.  To assume that no one in those countries spends time looking at the sky and wouldn't notice if the sky didn't match what they were taught it should is ludicrous.

But even if we do imagine that there is evidence (there isn't) and the constellations to the south of South America, Africa, and Australia were really the same (they aren't), it still supports the Flat Earth map Sandokhan described in this thread:

[img]http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/e/000e97gt_pem6hbvo.gif[/i]

That map is the inaccurate one that I have seen posted.  I can't even grasp how you are going to say that the observable sky offers support to that map.  Would you mind explaining that?

There is no way that maps matches the realities of intercontinental travel.  I know on his thread he mentions Columbus and Magellan, but he doesn't explain how they would have been able to navigate around the globe using that map.  The FE model of the Sun doesn't even work on that map.


[/quote]The only thing those observations would demonstrate is that the earth is flat and that the hypothetical United Nations map is untrue. And that's first assuming that those observations exist as you imagine (they don't).
[/quote]

Well, at least we can toss out the polar projection map of the Earth as an accurate FE map result of this, although FE would probably be better to stick with the traditional polar projection.  At least you can make an argument for rational travel on that map.  That new map creates a host of problems for traditional FE canon.

According to the World Trade Organization:

"The thresholds for inclusion in the list of LDCs are: population of
less than 75 million; per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of less
than 900 dollars; Augmented Physical Quality of Life Index (combining
health, nutrition and education) of less than 59; and an economic
vulnerability index (EVI) of less than 36."

Umm, can you explain that in more clear English?  I think I understand it, but I have no clue what those indexes are measuring.  What is an LDC?  Are the countries that I mentioned those?

Third world country became "least developed countries" for PC reasons.

http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=3641&lang=1

Quote

Can you find information that says they are not the same or are you just going to say "I can't prove a negative?"  We have shown evidence that the stars seen from Australia are identical to those seen in Chile and South Africa.

What evidence have you shown?

But even if we do imagine that there is evidence (there isn't) and the constellations to the south of South America, Africa, and Australia were really the same (they aren't), it still supports the Flat Earth map Sandokhan described in this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

The only thing those observations would demonstrate is that the earth is flat and that the hypothetical United Nations map is untrue. And that's first assuming that those observations exist as you imagine (they don't).

Thin ice, Tom. You are standing on it.

1. There aren't several varying star charts for the southern hemisphere. Everyone everywhere uses the same charts with the same constellations at the same positions. Since you are essentially claiming that there must be different star charts for different southern continents, I'd really like to see one of them.

2. As I said before, the map provided in that thread is completely ridiculous. It distorts north America beyond recognition and completely removes the pacific ocean. You remember that there are flights between Autralia and South America right? How the hell does that work on that map? I'll give you a clue: not.

3. The northern and southern "celestial gears" would still need to meet somewhere, probably over the equator. This would cause distortions that are clearly not there.

Third world country became "least developed countries" for PC reasons.

http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=3641&lang=1

That does support my assertion that people living in those countries are not, as Tom says, "living in third world countries."