The South Celestial Pole

  • 62 Replies
  • 13341 Views
*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 47082
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2014, 07:52:47 AM »
The REers who come here are obsessed with the conspiracy. The FE really just says that if the earth is flat, then there is a conspiracy. The REers demand details about the conspiracy, and over the years people have speculated about it. The people who argue for FE are only human, speculating about the conspiracy can be fun.

I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2014, 08:15:07 AM »
The REers who come here are obsessed with the conspiracy.

That's the problem, you simply can't view yourselves with the eyes of the outside world. REers are not obsessed, you're mistaken. They simply try to bring it home to you—probably without much success, I guess—that even mentioning such a conspiracy is what relegates your theories to the realm of childish fantasies. It shows that you simply can't find any other explanation to show how it might have happened that 3,000 years of science and history of science of mankind is simply dismissed as conspiracy by a handful of enthusiasts.

I'll stop here because there is really no point in saying so if you can't understand why. This is the single most important thing that makes it or breaks it. You can't hide behind UA, aetheric wind, flat disc, whatever subtheories while you have the conspiracy theory in place. Nothing you say has any credence with this forefront.

If you can't understand it, you can't but that's all there's to it.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 08:16:55 AM by reofcourse »

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 47082
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2014, 09:05:27 AM »
You really do not understand this forum at all. The vast majority of people who post here came here as REers, just like you. Most of them were quite obnoxious about it. Most of them thought this forum was hilarious and that they'd have some fun trolling the crazies. Some of the best FE theorists we've ever had started out that way.

What will you say when some new REer comes along and assumes you're FE? Even with your ridiculous user name, it will happen. Just try correcting one of them when they get RE science wrong!

You are proving what I said, though. REers are obsessed with the conspiracy.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2014, 09:30:26 AM »
I was a RE when I came here.  I am changed forever now.  No going back.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2014, 10:41:07 AM »
I was a RE when I came here.  I am changed forever now.  No going back.

It might well be. You see, there are two kinds of REers. One is the kind that you must have been earlier: the one that learns about it, never thinks about it, just accepts that it's so. Those, especially if they have some fundamental Biblical background, believe in strict creationism or similar, might be converted.

The second kind is my kind, who had more exposure to physics, science or simply some other activities that happen to prove a round Earth. We never will be converted. As I already mentioned in a previous post somewhere in a topic, as a radio amateur, I personally had radio contacts that, according to your flat disk theory, are impossible. It's not hearsay, it's not "Rowbotham said so" 150 years ago; I did so myself, and not once.

As to the conspiracy, I really don't give a damn. I tried to make you understand, you obviously don't, so let's leave it at that. :)

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 47082
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2014, 10:44:53 AM »
Most FEers on this forum are atheists or deists.

I understand you are obsessed with the conspiracy. I also understand that most people who come here are rather dense, at first, about the nature of this forum.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2014, 07:53:46 PM »
It is kind of hypocritical for RE'ers to say that FE'ers are obsessed with the conspiracy when they are the ones who are constantly bring the conspiracy up. 

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2014, 01:04:55 PM »
There's no explanation for a South celestial pole on the FE map if the South Pole is the circumference of the circle. 


The North 'POLE' is magnetically charged one way and South is magnetically charged the other.  MAYBE the Earth is two-sided, as I mentioned earlier...North plane on one side, South plane on the other.  The North Pole is technically the South Pole....it's where the two meet on the outer edge.  The Equator is the middle of Earth which makes it the CENTER.  It gets non-stop sun there because that is where the sun is located...moving up and down....above the North side in their Summer Solstice and below the South side in the Winter Solstice.
A diagram would help.  The equator does not get non-stop sun.  How do we get from one side to the other, unless it is 2 sided and is a convex (spherical?) shape?

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2014, 04:03:23 PM »
There's no explanation for a South celestial pole on the FE map if the South Pole is the circumference of the circle. 


Exactly. The flat Earth would need two distinct poles, like the foci of an ellipse. The North Pole could not be in the centre. And the waters would have to be bounded by ... what?
"I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." C. S. de Ford.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2014, 08:13:48 PM »
It is kind of hypocritical for RE'ers to say that FE'ers are obsessed with the conspiracy when they are the ones who are constantly bring the conspiracy up.

Sorry, but this is a funny comment.  Whenever the REs have tried to explain/illustrate the geography of Antarctica as it's accepted by geophysicists worldwide, the FEs invariably claim there's been a conspiracy mounted by the US government/the Fourth Reich/NASA/South Africa/the CIA/the Illuminati/the Jews/the Zetans to hide the truth from the public at large.

The reasons for this alleged conspiracy are never made clear by the FEs.  And why do the FEs accept a geographical (Arctic) north pole, but not a geographical (Antarctic) south pole?
 

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2014, 07:30:31 AM »
... the celestial pole that is seen from the South is the center of the circle on THAT side of the plane.  Just as the celestial pole in the North is the center of the circle on the opposite side of the plane.  ...

Just inflate the plane now and you get the convex spherical Earth.
"I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." C. S. de Ford.

*

Salviati

  • 147
  • What is my Personal Text?
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2014, 07:40:33 AM »
Just inflate the plane now and you get the convex spherical Earth.
Good one! I was thinking the same thing.
Q: Why do you think the Earth is round?
A: Look out the window!

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2014, 09:30:41 AM »
Just inflate the plane now and you get the convex spherical Earth.
Good one! I was thinking the same thing.
Except for the fact that the Poles are the widest part of the Earth, not the Equator.
Map to explain please.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2014, 10:44:01 AM »
Please show straight line distances between some capital cities.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2014, 05:45:35 PM »
Originally I was considering the Earth with two sides like a coin.  But in the following model, it is only one plane/side split in half.  So instead of the sun moving up and down seasonally, it moves "back and forth" between poles.  This can be quite confusing when speaking of direction.  The sun moves in a circle but from our perspective, it moves up and down.  "Up = closer to us, "down" = farther away.  This is true on a daily and seasonally basis.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

You keep talking about magnetism, I do not think it works the way you think it does.

Please describe, graphically, how the magnetic field lines would appear.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #45 on: February 09, 2014, 01:14:01 AM »

Except for the fact that the Poles are the widest part of the Earth, not the Equator.

The north and south poles are at the "narrowest" part of the spherical planet.  Th equator is at the "widest" part.
 
 

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #46 on: February 09, 2014, 07:59:13 AM »
Except for the fact that the Poles are the widest part of the Earth, not the Equator.
The north and south poles are at the "narrowest" part of the spherical planet.  Th equator is at the "widest" part.
You are being redundant.  We already know what the SE model is.
And travel distances to both the north and south poles show the spherical model is correct.  See thread about travelling to the south pole.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #47 on: February 09, 2014, 08:20:49 AM »
And travel distances to both the north and south poles show the spherical model is correct.  See thread about travelling to the south pole.

Great, when did you measure this?

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #48 on: February 09, 2014, 10:06:43 AM »
And travel distances to both the north and south poles show the spherical model is correct.  See thread about travelling to the south pole.

Great, when did you measure this?
Plenty of information available.  What do you have?  GPS satellites orbit over the south pole and you can fly there.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #49 on: February 09, 2014, 11:00:07 AM »
Plenty of information available.  What do you have?  GPS satellites orbit over the south pole and you can fly there.

Yes, because anybody can fly over the south pole anytime they want to.   ::)

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #50 on: February 09, 2014, 11:07:10 AM »
Plenty of information available.  What do you have?  GPS satellites orbit over the south pole and you can fly there.

Yes, because anybody can fly over the south pole anytime they want to.   ::)
Just have to book a flight
http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2014, 08:56:21 AM »

Yes, because anybody can fly over the south pole anytime they want to.

This is basically correct, providing you've got at least $1,000 to spend cattle class or $6,000 first class:

The QANTAS flight provides a full day of Antarctic experience. The flight from Australia ranges around 10,000km round trip—approximately 12.5 hours. Experienced Antarctic expeditioners are on-board to talk on the polar environment and its history while video screenings depict life on the ground. Approximately three hours south of Australia, passengers will usually see the first scattered ice followed by dozens of icebergs and ice floes. The flight then crosses the South Magnetic Pole where one starts to view the rugged mountainous topography of the Antarctic mainland.
 

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2014, 08:41:53 AM »


And how do you account for the numerous over-NP flights? Your scheme would allow one of them but not all the others.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2014, 04:59:02 AM »
Originally I was considering the Earth with two sides like a coin.  But in the following model, it is only one plane/side split in half.  So instead of the sun moving up and down seasonally, it moves "back and forth" between poles.  This can be quite confusing when speaking of direction.  The sun moves in a circle but from our perspective, it moves up and down.  "Up = closer to us, "down" = farther away.  This is true on a daily and seasonally basis.


Can you indicate on your diagram the location of the (fixed) north magnetic pole?  As it stands, I can't figure out in which direction a compass would point from different locations on the plane, as it must (obviously) point in exactly the same direction on the SP or the NP.

Also can you superimpose the image of a simple bar magnet on your diagram (as per the RE model)?
 

 

 

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2014, 11:42:01 AM »
Well, I gave up on my model.  For one thing, the Equator can't be the red oval since it's the divider line between N and S hemispheres/hemiplanes.  And for another, the Northern hemi continents don't work with the sun rising in the East.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2014, 04:14:47 PM »
A good honest reply.

The fact that there are two celestial poles, not one, means that the Earth cannot be a plane. It does not mean, though, that the Earth rotates or orbits the Sun, which it does not.
"I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." C. S. de Ford.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2014, 11:41:20 PM »
It does not mean, though, that the earth rotates or orbits the sun, which it does not.


I'm sorry, but is this meant to be a serious response?  If so, can you please post any citations that support your claim for a stationary and non-orbiting planet?
 



Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2014, 04:28:42 PM »
The Earth is not a planet, since a 'planet' wanders and the Earth does not wander anywhere.
"I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." C. S. de Ford.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2014, 04:41:00 PM »
The Earth is not a planet, since a 'planet' wanders and the Earth does not wander anywhere.

Planets "wander"?  Not necessarily.  And not in our solar system.  All our planets follow geometrically defined orbits.

But if you think they don't, please cite a reference.
 

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2014, 06:52:57 PM »
"Planet" meant "wandering star", which is what the planets looked like to astronomers before the advent of telescopes. Now we know better, but we still call them planets anyway.

What this has to do with the south celestial pole, or the plainly obvious fact that the earth has two celestial poles, I'm not sure...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."