The South Celestial Pole

This is skimmed over by Samuel Rowbotham in his "Zetetic Astronomy," but what is the current explanation within a flat-Earth model?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Time Lapse South Celestial Pole

This is skimmed over by Samuel Rowbotham in his "Zetetic Astronomy," but what is the current explanation within a flat-Earth model?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Time Lapse South Celestial Pole

This is FET's worst nightmare. The bi-rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles doesn't have any convincing explanation whatsoever from a FET point of view, and is sufficient to destroy mercilessly any hypothesis of a flat earth.

I posted this argument several times and each time fe'ers suddenly got lost, no answer from them.

This fact (yeah, it's a fact) is possible only on a round earth.

This is FET's worst nightmare. The bi-rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles doesn't have any convincing explanation whatsoever from a FET point of view, and is sufficient to destroy mercilessly any hypothesis of a flat earth.

I posted this argument several times and each time fe'ers suddenly got lost, no answer from them.

This fact (yeah, it's a fact) is possible only on a round earth.

Thanks. I notice the (complete, so far) lack of attempts to explain this in the Flat Earth model.

Did you bother searching the site? There are lots of discussions regarding the poles. Here's a good one http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.0

There just aren't many people willing to discuss FET anymore. Claiming they disappear whenever a question is asked is ridiculous. When they are here they aren't obligated to answer every question, especially ones that have been asked hundreds of times.

Did you bother searching the site? There are lots of discussions regarding the poles. Here's a good one http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.0

There just aren't many people willing to discuss FET anymore. Claiming they disappear whenever a question is asked is ridiculous. When they are here they aren't obligated to answer every question, especially ones that have been asked hundreds of times.

I never claimed that anyone disappeared. As for "bothering" to search the site, the thread you referred me to issues a warning that no posts have been made in over 120 days and suggests starting another thread. That's what I did.

From the other thread that you recommended, are the following basically the positions offered as explanation?

The South Celestial Pole is in one location only. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. William Carpenter reports in his book "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed" that the Sigma Octantis, the star which marks the center point of the South Celestial Pole, was seen misaligned with the direction of South. Sigma Ocantis was seen on several polar expeditions to be South-East or South-West of the observer. These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes.

The South Celestial pole is above the earth, not below it. The South Celestial pole is over an area beyond the Ice Wall where the field lines are vertical.

Yes, the South Celestial Pole seen in RE sky charts is actually just a region over Australia. The Flat Earth Society has found that the tip of South America also has its own Celestial Pole with a unique layout independent of known star maps.

In order for the Flat Earth Theory to be contradicted it must be proven that observers on Australia and the tip of South America can see the same stars at the same time. Saying that they do is not evidence. Personal testimonies must be presented.

Someone here says it is between New York and Maine.

Someone here says it is between New York and Maine.

 

I don't see how a flat Earth can have more than one celestial pole.

Tom Bishop
Flat Earth Believer
"The South Celestial Pole is in one location only. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. William Carpenter reports in his book "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed" that the Sigma Octantis, the star which marks the center point of the South Celestial Pole, was seen misaligned with the direction of South. Sigma Ocantis was seen on several polar expeditions to be South-East or South-West of the observer. These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes."

The 120 day warning is a feature of the site's software. It's not a rule that you can't revive an old thread. The mods will get mad if you just "bump" a thread without adding anything, but you are definitely allowed to post in old threads if you have something to add.

Also, you should read page 4 of that same thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.60 I wish TheEngineer still posted here

The South Celestial Pole is in one location only. This is a proof for a Flat Earth.

Seems to work better with a round Earth.

William Carpenter reports in his book "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed" that the Sigma Octantis, the star which marks the center point of the South Celestial Pole, was seen misaligned with the direction of South. Sigma Ocantis was seen on several polar expeditions to be South-East or South-West of the observer. These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes."

Sure, if one doesn't convert their magnetic azimuth to a grid azimuth. 

...
Also, you should read page 4 of that same thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.60 I wish TheEngineer still posted here

The thread still suggests starting a new thread topic.

Page 4 is all to do with the magnetic pole of the Earth, not the South Celestial Pole.

Anyway, from that thread,

The South Celestial Pole is in one location only. ... The South Celestial pole is over an area beyond the Ice Wall ...

The Flat Earth Society has found that the tip of South America also has its own Celestial Pole with a unique layout independent of known star maps.

I just don't follow this. The South Celestial Pole "is in one location only," but "the tip of South America also has its own Celestial Pole"?

Dealing with the celestial pole, not the magnetic pole, how can a flat Earth have more than one pole?

Yes, the thread hasn't been posted in for 120 days, it's an automatic warning, part of the forum software. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you revive an old thread, just that you read them so you'll know what the FE answers are.

Did you bother searching the site? There are lots of discussions regarding the poles. Here's a good one http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.0

I did read the entire thread (yep, i had to put up with tom bishop's piffle) and i have to repeat myself: no answer whatsoever from fe'ers about this topic. No one even tried to answer this:

Sky rotates around North celestial pole;

and

Sky rotates around South celestial pole;

and

Angular distance between stars doesn't change.

And please let's notice that North magnetic pole is not North celestial pole and South magnetic pole is not South celestial pole.

Well then, is there someone that can explain clearly and with facts how is possible on a flat Earth the bi-rotation of the sky? (Hint: it's not possible).

Remember the diagram someone posted in that thread showing the disk with the N and S Pole running through the middle of it?  I wonder if that means the Northern Hemi(plane) is one side and the Southern Hemi(plane) is the other.  Like two sides of a coin.  Hmmmm....

Yes, I saw that posted several times there, but how would inhabitants of the same side of the disc be able to view both celestial poles?

... Anyway, I'm not suggesting you revive an old thread, just that you read them so you'll know what the FE answers are.

Okay, fair enough, perhaps you jumped in a little strongly though.

Between that thread and this one, I have not seen any answers yet. How can a plane have two rotational centres at the same time?

I wonder if that means the Northern Hemi(plane) is one side and the Southern Hemi(plane) is the other.  Like two sides of a coin.  Hmmmm....

Sure. And nobody ever traveled to Australia or back.

Yes, I saw that posted several times there, but how would inhabitants of the same side of the disc be able to view both celestial poles?

To my knowledge, they can't.  The Northern hemi(plane) can see the N celestial pole only and the Southern hemi(plane) sees the S celestial pole only.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 04, 2014, 12:17:21 PM

... Anyway, I'm not suggesting you revive an old thread, just that you read them so you'll know what the FE answers are.

Okay, fair enough, perhaps you jumped in a little strongly though.

Between that thread and this one, I have not seen any answers yet. How can a plane have two rotational centres at the same time?

I don't think it does. I don't know what Tom was talking about, and he's not here to explain. There are about 13 pages of results if you search for "south celestial pole". Maybe the answer to your question is here somewhere.

Yes, the thread hasn't been posted in for 120 days, it's an automatic warning, part of the forum software. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you revive an old thread, just that you read them so you'll know what the FE answers are.

Another example of what happened in one thread.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1476861#msg1476861

Yeah, that's a terrible example. You basically begged Rushy for an answer over and over.

...ones that have been asked hundreds of times.

Questions which have been asked "hundreds of times" should be in the FAQ, along with the best available answer(s).

Quote from: Novice on February 04, 2014, 02:59:17 PM

Yes, I saw that posted several times there, but how would inhabitants of the same side of the disc be able to view both celestial poles?

To my knowledge, they can't.  The Northern hemi(plane) can see the N celestial pole only and the Southern hemi(plane) sees the S celestial pole only.

I expect inhabitants of equatorial areas would be able to see, or at least come close to seeing, both celestial poles. They should appear almost level with the horizon from such a vantage point.

Sky rotates around North celestial pole;

and

Sky rotates around South celestial pole;

and

Angular distance between stars doesn't change.

And please let's notice that North magnetic pole is not North celestial pole and South magnetic pole is not South celestial pole.

Well then, is there someone that can explain clearly and with facts how is possible on a flat Earth the bi-rotation of the sky? (Hint: it's not possible).

Definitely needs to go in the FAQ... IF an answer can be found! (Probably why it's not in the FAQ yet)

The only two theories that make a lick of sense to me are: a) the celestial lights are located within the firmament/aether. The index of refraction within the sphere increases towards the center (not dissimilar to dark fluid), or b) the aetheric wind theory of celestial light.

I expect inhabitants of equatorial areas would be able to see, or at least come close to seeing, both celestial poles. They should appear almost level with the horizon from such a vantage point.

Well, not quite but close to. You need a nice tall mountain first and two sets of eyes at the opposite ends of your head..

But really, yes, you can observe the phenomenon itself from the Equator.

I don't know who Rushy, Tom Bishop and TheEngineer are, nor why they don't post here anymore, but I do know that I have been unable to find an answer to this question from them.

I started a thread in Flat Earth Q&A because it stated, "If you're new to the site and want to know more about Flat Earth Theory, this is the place to start." Since I'm new to the site and want to know what the current thinking is regarding the fact that there is both a north and a south celestial pole, I came here and asked the question.

Can no one simply tell me what the answer is in the flat-Earth model?

 

Well, Ski just gave you an answer.

Also, Celestial Gears was a popular theory at one time.

Celestial Gears are bunkum.

Also, Celestial Gears was a popular theory at one time.

It might be a good pastime to create theories after theories; when somebody shows you that one of your theories doesn't hold water, there comes another armchair scientist and concocts yet another theory with three sentences and two animated GIFs but, well, you know, this is not the way the questions of the Earth will be solved, you know, by a couple of enthusiasts on an anonymous net forum somewhere in a shady corner of the Net...

Also, Celestial Gears was a popular theory at one time.

Angular distance between stars doesn't change.

Celestial Gears refuted for good.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 05, 2014, 04:31:48 PM

Also, Celestial Gears was a popular theory at one time.

It might be a good pastime to create theories after theories; when somebody shows you that one of your theories doesn't hold water, there comes another armchair scientist and concocts yet another theory with three sentences and two animated GIFs but, well, you know, this is not the way the questions of the Earth will be solved, you know, by a couple of enthusiasts on an anonymous net forum somewhere in a shady corner of the Net...

Maybe you should try to solve the questions of the Earth!

Maybe you should try to solve the questions of the Earth!

Maybe. At any rate, I know (I don't believe, I know ) that even if our current knowledge is not yet 100%, it's incomparably closer to the truth than any FE hypothesis is our could ever be.

You know, if you only argued about questions and answers, physical experiments and whatnot, it might be worth the brain challenge. But this conspiracy claim makes it absolute tomfoolery that nobody would and could ever take seriously. Until such time as you can completely eradicate it from your thoughts, your arguments, your propaganda, FE remains but a bad joke.

Actually, there would be another thing of secondary importance but still important enough that you'd need to eradicate, and this is the "Rowbotham said so". This would be OK for a religious sect but not if you aim to be more than that, you have to learn to speak the language of experiments yourself. Go out and make them, challenge other people, document it. In science, there is no such thing as "somebody said it". It's an important and interesting part of the history of science but not of science itself. We never say the theory of relativity works because Einstein said do—that simply isn't and cannot be part of any argument. It works because it works, we have the evidence and, at least until now, all attempts to disprove it failed.

Try to move along these lines, if you can; I have my doubts but you also have the benefit of doubt.