The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation

  • 49 Replies
  • 10493 Views
*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2008, 11:58:51 PM »
Whether or not those countries are considered to be underdeveloped is completely beside the point.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2008, 12:04:41 AM »
Apparently it was for Tom as a reason that no one would notice differences from the one celestial star chart available and their own night skies.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2008, 12:15:54 AM »
Apparently it was for Tom as a reason that no one would notice differences from the one celestial star chart available and their own night skies.

A notion so unreasonable that it should have been ignored entirely. There are clearly observatories and astronomers in the southern hemisphere, even in underdeveloped countries. Should these people be considered unreliable or untrustworthy because they do not enjoy all the benefits of western society? That would be an argument derived solely out of prejudice and ignorance. Certainly unworthy of our attention.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2008, 01:03:14 AM »
A notion so unreasonable that it should have been ignored entirely. There are clearly observatories and astronomers in the southern hemisphere, even in underdeveloped countries. Should these people be considered unreliable or untrustworthy because they do not enjoy all the benefits of western society? That would be an argument derived solely out of prejudice and ignorance. Certainly unworthy of our attention.

FEers have a lot of notions that I consider so unreasonable that they should be ignored entirely, but here we all are.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2008, 01:04:43 AM »
I read the other thread linked over this one, and it was proved that celestial engines and stuff are unworking and don't fit anywhere, the history is gonna be repeated again? I don't see the point in this discussion.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2008, 01:17:14 AM »
I read the other thread linked over this ones, and it was proved that celestial engines and stuff are unworking and don't fit anywhere, the history is gonna be repeated again? I don't see the point in this discussion.

That's the whole point of this thread. The "Big Gears in the Sky" thread was derailed several times and contained only minimal attempts to support the gears theory (mainly by Tom Bishop) that were consistently refuted by AmateurAstronomer. Yet there never seemed to be an actual conclusion on the subject. Since no one has been able to provide an adequate FE explanation for the movements of stars, FET has essentially failed.

Tom's assertion that the southern sky looks different above different continents is so far unsubstantiated. His "backup plan", i.e. the map he linked to, would open up a whole new can of worms for FET, while still failing to fully address the stars issue. All in all the FE position on this subject is negligible.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2008, 02:54:48 AM »
Not only are there too many astronomers in the Southern Hemisphere to count, there is another fact that FE'rs conveniently ignore: more than half of the southern stars are visible from places like Florida or Texas. Many are visible even as far North as London.

Just to name a few, these constellations are seen from the United States or Europe:

Aquarius
Capricorn
Cetus
Eridanus
Lepus
Sextans
Hydra
Crater
Corvus
Libra
Scorpius

And those are just the most visible.

The Southern half of the stars are not, as Tom Bishop would want us to think, something that only a few ignorant people from third world countries can see. Many are easily seen from Tom Bishop's back yard with one of the two fabulous computer-guided telescopes that he claims to have.

Tom Bishop could show us easily how the stars from any of the previously mentioned constellations do not move as the readily available star charts tell us, and in this way he could destroy what he calls "RE". Why doesn't he?

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2008, 03:21:45 AM »
Tom Bishop could show us easily how the stars from any of the previously mentioned constellations do not move as the readily available star charts tell us, and in this way he could destroy what he calls "RE". Why doesn't he?

Could you elaborate on that?
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2008, 03:23:15 AM »
Tom Bishop could show us easily how the stars from any of the previously mentioned constellations do not move as the readily available star charts tell us, and in this way he could destroy what he calls "RE". Why doesn't he?

Could you elaborate on that?

Sarcasm much?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2008, 03:26:26 AM »
Tom Bishop could show us easily how the stars from any of the previously mentioned constellations do not move as the readily available star charts tell us, and in this way he could destroy what he calls "RE". Why doesn't he?

Could you elaborate on that?

Sarcasm much?

I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you saying that paragraph was sarcastic, or my question?
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2008, 03:27:13 AM »
The paragraph.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2008, 03:30:25 AM »
The paragraph.

Ahh, ok. I didn't read it that way. Guess it needs a *roll-eyes* smiley or something.  ;D
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2008, 04:04:54 AM »
Quote
Seconded. I'd like to hear an explanation.

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

Who shat in Tom's cornflakes this morning?

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2008, 04:37:30 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
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?

For the gear theory as you described it at the time I made my posts, it would only cover these portions.


With the new map you've been espousing they'd cover roughly these portions. This is just rough coverage though. If I see this map around longer I'll update for better coverage. All coverage on this map will always have overlap though, and that doesn't work well with gear theory.



This map is pretty shitty too, has no ice wall, thereby invalidating the antarctic ice wall theory, and the whole ms paint other islands thing is kind of iffy. What islands are those supposed to be? What's the boundless continent filling the left border? Do you think no-one will dispute the elongated distances that this map adds to the Americas? Are you aware that this map could never be used to chart the FE sun path, or the seasonal progression of said sun path as it is currently presented?

Regardless of which map you choose to present as accurate, you would still have dead areas where there are no gears overhead. Regardless of which map you choose, you still have to define how these starless sky's can go unnoticed for the entirety of human civilization up to our current age, and how they can still be unreported in the current digital age...

Your new map presents whole new problems, namely taking the red stripe out of lower North America and putting it in the Atlantic. I've been to Mexico and Panama, and I can assure you they have stars there. A whole sky's worth... Even with proper scaling this new map shifts the redline off the continental body.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
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?

I don't have too... The design you put forth yourself has 3 southern gears. You say that they are all different stars that just look to be in the same configurations to all those 3rd world Southern Foreigners... You seem to forget that Andromeda and the greater milky way are down there too. These I have observed, so it's up to you to invalidate all observations of these bodies on differentiating Southern continents. It's easy to mess up a star or two, but a 3 arc galaxy, or the greater milky way? Explain to me how these can be confused with "similar bodies".

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
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?

I made an observation that would contradict an observation that you already espouse as true. That observation was that if the stars on gears exhibited bendy light, then there would be measurable differences in the distances between visible stars on the gear junctions.



I asked you to show me anything that would show the variance I should expect with your theory, and got no response... I was hoping for a response, but I was expecting to get nothing. I'm not really expecting anything now, but you should consider yourself provoked.

If you don't want to present any proof that would confirm your viewpoint, then present some kind of proof that would invalidate my assertion. Or just say I'm right and you have no proof.

« Last Edit: October 01, 2008, 05:34:26 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2008, 08:32:26 AM »
http://www.skymap.com/

Here is a simple to use starchart program for Tom. He can use this to create starcharts from example for skyes of Australia and South America  an show us that they have different constellations.  The starcharts created by this program are accurate on southern hemisphere I know this from experience.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2008, 08:35:45 AM »
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?


That's a panoramic image that Tom has used to death well before you decided to use it. When you see a wrap around image, you'll see that stellar viewpoints, including that one do not exhibit any of the properties that Tom says a Flat Earth sky would exhibit that a Round Earth sky wouldn't. Maybe I get to school him on perspective for once?
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2008, 09:07:23 AM »
Wait a second...

This might actually represent a WIN for FET.
HOORAY!!!
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2008, 09:23:41 AM »
Wait a second...

This might actually represent a WIN for FET.
HOORAY!!!

If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.

I value acknowledgment. I await the poignant response you couldn't possibly deliver, because I'm asking for theory, for reason, not rhetoric or claptrap.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2008, 10:38:39 AM »
What it all comes down to is this: When FE'ers fail to respond to a RE'ers sound arguement it is because thet are incapable of producing evidence in support their theory. Through FE'ers failure to respond to one's post, the post is eventally lost to the vast list of posts which have come before it. Subsequently, by selectively choosing the arguements which they respond to, FE'ers are able to: 1) see only what they want to see, and b) keep the vast majority in the dark regarding the sound arguements of RE'ers.  Case in point: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23409.0
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2008, 01:56:58 AM »
Tom Bishop could show us easily how the stars from any of the previously mentioned constellations do not move as the readily available star charts tell us, and in this way he could destroy what he calls "RE". Why doesn't he?

Could you elaborate on that?
Simple. Every star chart since the Babylonians has shown the stars as if they were pinned on a giant sphere that is placed over us, with us at the center of the sphere. That is what is shown in every star chart we know, and the basis for our nomenclature for the star's position.

Tom's idea of how the stars move above the Southern sky require stars to move with respect to the Northern sky, so any star that moves with respect to the others is evidence that Tom is right.