Ok folks, tell me something here

I can respect your belief in a flat earth, however I respect more the concept of this hypothesis being a mental excercise, rather than an actual reality. That being said, I wanted to provide an argument in favor of us "Round Earthers", that I find would be very hard to combat.

I have been around the world, and seen the constellations. I had to study the sky as part of my job in the Navy.

Let's just say that the world was actually flat. Lets also just say that the stellar map actually spins at one point, being Ursa Major 1 (the north star, or first star of the little dipper).

How do we explain the fact that in the southern hemisphere, there are four stars that also spin around a point. This is also known as the "southern cross". It is how navigators use the stars to navigate at night to determine where the south pole is.

How can it be explained that the existence of two points that the celestial starscape spins around two different points?

fixed

Man, you shouldn't have said you were in the navy. Now anything you say can be refuted by saying "you're probably part of the conspiracy"

Man, you shouldn't have said you were in the navy. Now anything you say can be refuted by saying "you're probably part of the conspiracy"

hmmm, I would think that any person with Navigation skills would come up with the same argument

But yeah, you are right. The conspiracy theorists would likely say that

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Man, you shouldn't have said you were in the navy. Now anything you say can be refuted by saying "you're probably part of the conspiracy"

hmmm, I would think that any person with Navigation skills would come up with the same argument

But yeah, you are right. The conspiracy theorists would likely say that

Navigational skills don't mean jack here because you're suposedly misled by your equipment. Don't forget satellites don't exist.

Do you need special equipment to see the Southern Cross?

On the contrary. The navigation specialty makes it a point to know how to navigate using stellar observations as a standalone entity, because at sea, there is always a possibility that electronic equipment fails in salt air, since it can corrode the electronics inside.

The most basic starting point of any navigational study, is the fact that the North and South Poles are oriented to specific spots in the sky at all times, and that they are only visible from the respective hemispheres of the globe at night.

These two points, do not require outside information to calculate the position of the North Star, nor the "Southern Cross " pivotal point. They remain in the same position with the rest of the sky rotating around them. They are a constant.

The angular difference from the horizon to the North Star (or the pivotal point of the southern cross) corresponds to the latitude you are at at the moment of observation.

You can use a simple protractor, soda straw, a piece of string, and a flat washer to make the observation, and calculate for yourself.

Tie the washer to one end of the string. Tape it to the middle of the flat edge of the protractor.

Tape the soda straw to the flat edge of the protractor lengthwise.

Site the North Star (the first star of the Little dipper's handle) then pinch the string to the protractor along the curved side to see what it reads.


Since you cannot measure from the horizon with this device, it measures backwards from a point directly beneath you (also known as the zenith angle) Use the number that is less than 90, so you can accurately figure things out (as far as you can with such a simple device). Take the measurement, and subtract it from 90. this is your angular distance from the horizon.

You will find that it correponds to the latitude you are at.

Now, if you are in the southern hemisphere, site the Southern Cross pivotal point, and use the exact same method used above to come up with you reading. Place a negative sign on the number, and it is your southern latitude.


This should lead to the conclusion that the Universe or celestial star map has two pivotal points in the sky. According to the Flat Earth Hypothesis this is not a possibility.

Again, I ask how is this possible?

The stars that are positioned directly above the north pole all rotate counter-clockwise, while the ones positioned south of the equator all rotate clockwise.  There are none directly above the equator that would be stationary because the sun and the moon revolve above the equator.  So any stars situated almost directly above the north pole would not be moving, and any stars situated near the ice wall would give the illusion of not moving.  That way, it seems almost as if there are two stationary points when in fact there is only one.

The stars that are positioned directly above the north pole all rotate counter-clockwise, while the ones positioned south of the equator all rotate clockwise.  There are none directly above the equator that would be stationary because the sun and the moon revolve above the equator.  So any stars situated almost directly above the north pole would not be moving, and any stars situated near the ice wall would give the illusion of not moving.  That way, it seems almost as if there are two stationary points when in fact there is only one.

Oh come on, you have to do better than that. Illusion ?

Quote

The stars that are positioned directly above the north pole all rotate counter-clockwise, while the ones positioned south of the equator all rotate clockwise. There are none directly above the equator that would be stationary because the sun and the moon revolve above the equator. So any stars situated almost directly above the north pole would not be moving, and any stars situated near the ice wall would give the illusion of not moving. That way, it seems almost as if there are two stationary points when in fact there is only one.

Oh come on, you have to do better than that. Illusion ?

That disproves nothing I've said.

Quote

Quote

The stars that are positioned directly above the north pole all rotate counter-clockwise, while the ones positioned south of the equator all rotate clockwise. There are none directly above the equator that would be stationary because the sun and the moon revolve above the equator. So any stars situated almost directly above the north pole would not be moving, and any stars situated near the ice wall would give the illusion of not moving. That way, it seems almost as if there are two stationary points when in fact there is only one.

Oh come on, you have to do better than that. Illusion ?

That disproves nothing I've said.

Equally, what you have said proves nothing.

Why are there so many illusions in the FE model?

Better yet, how do we explain that the stars that move in a counter clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere, which appear to be moving in a clockwise direction when looking south, move in perfect synchronous movement with all of the stars including the stars visible in the southern hemisphere?

For instance, the rightmost star of the Orion's belt, which is at and follows the line of the equator by naked eye observation.

The stars south of that star are not moving in a direction opposite of the ones that are north of it. One night of observation would prove that to you without any need of external devices.

If you cannot see the Orion's Belt, then use the flickery star at the hump of scorpio. It is a little south of the equator if I remember correctly. That is called the Antares Cluster.

This shatters your position of the stars in the northern hemisphere, and the stars in the southern hemisphere moving in different directions. They are all moving in the same direction, from east to west.

You can't simultaneously see stars in the northern hemi-disc and stars in the southern hemi-disc at the same time, otherwise we would be able to see the sun at any time of the day.  Obviously that doesn't happen, so there must be something wrong with your logic.

On the contrary, we can see many of the stars of the southern disk from the northern hemisphere. Any stars south of the rightmost star of Orion's belt are actually in the southern hemisphere's "Star disk"

Additionally, the stars in the sky do not move in an Arc'd shape relative to the north star, otherwise they would not appear to rise and set. Rather as the night goes on, they would appear to move further away from us, then closer before they dissappear in the horizon.

Now you know how I feel trying to argue against FE theory.

Forgive me, I'm a sadist.  I couldn't help it.

Now you know how I feel trying to argue against FE theory.

Forgive me, I'm a sadist.  I couldn't help it.

Lol, At least he apologised

FINISH HIM!

Now you know how I feel trying to argue against FE theory.

Forgive me, I'm a sadist.  I couldn't help it.

hehehe. Not easy is it?

I sort of threw  a wrench in the gear box by pointing out simple observation things that have been used literally for thousands of years. Long before electronic devices were even thought of.

*common misconception*

The world was thought to be flat by the entire world until columbus's time.

*/common misconception*

Any schooled navigator, long before the times of christopher columbus, knew that the earth was round. It was the layman who did not know. The route to the Indies was being debated as far as how far, not in the respect of earth actually being round or anything crazy like that.

Stellar observation is what actually taught mankind about the earth being a globe.

Mintaka + Alnitak Alnilam (orion's belt) are on the celestial equator, hence why jay bird is saying what's he saying. i don't think this really helps anything at all and was probably useless to post

Mintaka + Alnitak Alnilam (orion's belt) are on the celestial equator, hence why jay bird is saying what's he saying. i don't think this really helps anything at all and was probably useless to post

Ummm, what is useless to post?

You can't simultaneously see stars in the northern hemi-disc and stars in the southern hemi-disc at the same time, otherwise we would be able to see the sun at any time of the day.  Obviously that doesn't happen, so there must be something wrong with your logic.

What are you smoking?

If you are anywhere but the north pole you can see stars that are south of the celestial equator, likewise with the exception of the south pole, you can see stars north of the equator.

And the southern stars plotted over time form concentric arcs around the south pole, while the northern stars do the same around the north pole.

Since the same stars are visable from various locations in the South, and the southern Cross can be seen from all points south of the Equator, There is no way for a Flat Earth to be modeled with the observable stars.

Only a "3D" object like the round earth supports the observations.

I was kidding.  Nobody was responding so I thought I'd give it a shot defending the FE like a true FE'er probably would.

I was kidding.  Nobody was responding so I thought I'd give it a shot defending the FE like a true FE'er probably would.

I tried posting this stuff in  "The Southern Cross and North Star", I didn't have any takers at all.  Reality is so hard to argue against.

Not if you're on drugs...

I do have to admit, I was taken back the first time that I saw this forum. I thought that there must be some serious drug use in this place, or some really really stupid people.

Now that I understand more about what this site actually does, I can see how the idea of a flat earth can be controversial, and fun at the same time.

Most of the users on this forum are actually RE (Round Earth, or Real Earth based idealists.)

What the fuck is a "round Earth based idealist"?

Quote from: "fathomak"

I was kidding.  Nobody was responding so I thought I'd give it a shot defending the FE like a true FE'er probably would.

I tried posting this stuff in  "The Southern Cross and North Star", I didn't have any takers at all.  Reality is so hard to argue against.

Not sure why there were no takers. Maybe for the same reason the same happened to me in my posting.

Fathomak made an attempt to look like it, but he honestly knows that the Earth is round. If you look at it, there were no real attempts to blow my evidence apart either.

You see, this one thing totally blows the idea of a flat earth with a flat celestial disk above it out of the water. I just brought it up in a way that the naked eye can observe it, and that there was no use of a computer device, or any other intrument other than a crude Quadrant to make things appear deceptive.

I made it clear that the use of regular optical observation was all that was needed to debunk their hypothesis in its entirety. The precept that a flat earther takes is that the stars all picot on the North star. When you throw in that there is a second point, that they can see for themselves, it just takes their hypothesis, and crumbles it into a million pieces, since there is no way that the current hypothesis can support such a thing.

What the fuck is a "round Earth based idealist"?

Just that we believe that the earth is round. Regardless of whether or not we have absolute evidence of it. We believe it anyway.

We just have the proof to back it up.