South Celestial Pole?

  • 23 Replies
  • 4732 Views
South Celestial Pole?
« on: April 30, 2010, 08:14:35 PM »
I know this has been brought up before but I couldn't find a straight answer. If the earth is flat and the stars rotate above it centered on the north pole, why can the south celestial pole be observed by anyone far enough south?

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2010, 11:32:19 PM »
I know this has been brought up before but I couldn't find a straight answer. If the earth is flat and the stars rotate above it centered on the north pole, why can the south celestial pole be observed by anyone far enough south?

Because the Earth is a sphere.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2010, 03:37:59 AM »
This has been brought up before and no sensible explanation has so far been supplied.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2010, 06:07:04 AM »
Moved to Q&A.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2010, 06:28:01 PM »
I believe the official explanation (in all seriousness) is that the southern hemisphere (or at least Australia) does not exist.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2010, 09:09:30 AM »
I believe the official explanation (in all seriousness) is that the southern hemisphere (or at least Australia) does not exist.


I don't think anyone here seriously doubts that Australia exists.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2010, 09:29:07 AM »
I have since learned that the guy who said that isn't really taken seriously, so disregard that.

Feel free to offer an alternate explanation, I haven't seen one.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2010, 09:40:01 AM »
I don't think anyone here seriously doubts that Australia exists.

George Scott fallacy.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2010, 08:05:35 AM »
I have since learned that the guy who said that isn't really taken seriously, so disregard that.

Feel free to offer an alternate explanation, I haven't seen one.
Hmm, still no responses???  Come on guys, give it a shot.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2010, 10:59:09 AM »
Hmm, still no responses???  Come on guys, give it a shot.

They choose to ignore any points they have no intelligible responses for. Some examples are this question, why they can't produce a working map, how to produce observed magnetic field lines on a flat earth, measured variations in gravitational pull, why the coriolis effect behaves as it does, etc.

Maybe if you're really lucky, levee will show up and throw out a couple dozen links to unrelated issues, then completely misunderstand the question.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2010, 11:51:40 AM »

Maybe if you're really lucky, levee will show up and throw out a couple dozen links to unrelated issues, then completely misunderstand the question.

I really did laugh out loud when I read that.  :D
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2010, 12:28:48 PM »
There are multiple south celestial poles (at least three), and depending on which of the southern continents you're on you will see one of them.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2010, 12:52:50 PM »
There are multiple south celestial poles (at least three), and depending on which of the southern continents you're on you will see one of them.

I really did laugh out loud when I read that.  :D
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Aihwa

Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2010, 01:22:16 PM »
There are multiple south celestial poles (at least three), and depending on which of the southern continents you're on you will see one of them.


It all makes sense now.


(Not really, but I don't want to hurt his feelings  ::))

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2010, 01:29:18 PM »
Its just really not worth the effort to disprove him...

But for starters, why do everyone see the same star formations at the south celestial poles, and why does the entire sky appear to rotate around a single axis instead of around 3 or more separate points?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2010, 02:39:56 PM »
But for starters, why do everyone see the same star formations at the south celestial poles, and why does the entire sky appear to rotate around a single axis instead of around 3 or more separate points?

Each south celestial pole has identical stars around it, and you can only see at most one of them at a time - they're too far apart for anyone to see two or more simultaneously.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2010, 09:12:12 PM »
But for starters, why do everyone see the same star formations at the south celestial poles, and why does the entire sky appear to rotate around a single axis instead of around 3 or more separate points?

Each south celestial pole has identical stars around it, and you can only see at most one of them at a time - they're too far apart for anyone to see two or more simultaneously.


But wouldn't someone inbetween 2 of the SCP's be able to see that there are 3 points of rotation in the sky via the movement of the stars?

How do you explain how multiple celestial poles work? Gears?

How do gears cover the entire sky? We all know that adjoining gears will produce gaps between the teeth them before they touch each other.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2010, 10:13:35 PM »
But for starters, why do everyone see the same star formations at the south celestial poles, and why does the entire sky appear to rotate around a single axis instead of around 3 or more separate points?

Each south celestial pole has identical stars around it, and you can only see at most one of them at a time - they're too far apart for anyone to see two or more simultaneously.
These are the "theories" that go from half baked to downright insulting to everybody that lives south of North America or Europe.

In my case, I live very close to the Equator, where the separate "gears" of the "North" and "South America" would be both visible and the diverging and converging movements of the stars of one gear with respect to the other would be easily visible.

How does Parsifal explain that neither I nor any other resident of locations close to the Equator has seen the borders of the "gears"? Are we all stupid, or too poor to buy telescopes, or genetically predisposed to not looking to the sky? Are we, as Tom Bishop says, lacking even one single astronomical observatory?

From a vantage point, like a high mountain top, we can see almost all the stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. If there were gears, or independent sets of stars rotating around different poles, or anything of the sort, we would see it and any of our astronomers, either amateur or professional, would have blown the top off the Conspiracy.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2010, 10:40:22 PM »
But wouldn't someone inbetween 2 of the SCP's be able to see that there are 3 points of rotation in the sky via the movement of the stars?

Yes.

How do you explain how multiple celestial poles work? Gears?

How do gears cover the entire sky? We all know that adjoining gears will produce gaps between the teeth them before they touch each other.

The celestial gears model doesn't hold that the stars are fixed onto rotating gears; rather, it uses gears as an analogy to explain the overall motion of the stars. Since the gears aren't fixed, the stars don't have to follow perfectly circular paths and can spread out into areas that would otherwise be devoid of stars.

These are the "theories" that go from half baked to downright insulting to everybody that lives south of North America or Europe.

In my case, I live very close to the Equator, where the separate "gears" of the "North" and "South America" would be both visible and the diverging and converging movements of the stars of one gear with respect to the other would be easily visible.

How does Parsifal explain that neither I nor any other resident of locations close to the Equator has seen the borders of the "gears"? Are we all stupid, or too poor to buy telescopes, or genetically predisposed to not looking to the sky? Are we, as Tom Bishop says, lacking even one single astronomical observatory?

From a vantage point, like a high mountain top, we can see almost all the stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. If there were gears, or independent sets of stars rotating around different poles, or anything of the sort, we would see it and any of our astronomers, either amateur or professional, would have blown the top off the Conspiracy.

As I said, the stars don't move in perfectly circular paths. In fact, where they join at the celestial Equator, they are moving more or less in a straight line; they diverge further away, over the ocean. Since you presumably live on land and not on the ocean, you wouldn't see the point where they diverge.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2010, 01:49:51 AM »
Any evidence for such outlandish claims?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2010, 02:24:18 AM »
Any evidence for such outlandish claims?

Which claim specifically would you like evidence for?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2010, 03:20:01 AM »
These are the "theories" that go from half baked to downright insulting to everybody that lives south of North America or Europe.

In my case, I live very close to the Equator, where the separate "gears" of the "North" and "South America" would be both visible and the diverging and converging movements of the stars of one gear with respect to the other would be easily visible.

How does Parsifal explain that neither I nor any other resident of locations close to the Equator has seen the borders of the "gears"? Are we all stupid, or too poor to buy telescopes, or genetically predisposed to not looking to the sky? Are we, as Tom Bishop says, lacking even one single astronomical observatory?

From a vantage point, like a high mountain top, we can see almost all the stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. If there were gears, or independent sets of stars rotating around different poles, or anything of the sort, we would see it and any of our astronomers, either amateur or professional, would have blown the top off the Conspiracy.

As I said, the stars don't move in perfectly circular paths. In fact, where they join at the celestial Equator, they are moving more or less in a straight line; they diverge further away, over the ocean. Since you presumably live on land and not on the ocean, you wouldn't see the point where they diverge.
Care to give us a diagram? Because the one that has been animated elsewhere does not describe correctly what I see every clear night. Your diagram indicates that I should not see any stars either in the East or the West declinations. Quite the contrary, the stars of the Northern gear would intersect the horizon with declinations between -45 and +45 (NW to NE) and the stars on the Southern gear would intersect the horizon with declinations between 135 and 225 (SE to SW).

What the gears animation really shows is that there is a huge starless patch of sky around the Eastern and Western parts of our sky and that we are the idiots from underdeveloped countries that never look at the sky, so we do not see that remarkable phenomenon.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2010, 06:07:14 AM »
Any evidence for such outlandish claims?

Quote from: Parsifal
(Sticks fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA LA!!!!  Just gonna ignore this and say somethign that puts the burden of proof back on you.  LA LA LA LA LA!!

That sound about right?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: South Celestial Pole?
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2010, 09:50:20 AM »

The celestial gears model doesn't hold that the stars are fixed onto rotating gears; rather, it uses gears as an analogy to explain the overall motion of the stars. Since the gears aren't fixed, the stars don't have to follow perfectly circular paths and can spread out into areas that would otherwise be devoid of stars.

Thus the model is its own undoing, because that results in angular distances between stars being variable. They aren't.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.