Stars in the southern hemisphere

If you look at the star canvas from the north poll .. it will rotate around a point, called the celestial (north) pole, which lies fairly close to the zenith - the highest point of the sky.

If you move away from the north pole, the celestial north pole moves further and further away from the zenith. At the equator, you don't see the point the star sky rotates around anymore.

When moving towards the south pole, another point comes into view - the celestial south pole. Around which the sky rotates. If you get close to Antarctica, this point comes closer and closer to the zenith again .. till the star sky rotates around the same point again.

How is this possible with a flat earth? I understand the explenation of the star canvas in FE is that it rotates around the north pole.

Then WHY does it appear like the sky rotates around a single point at the south pole? Why does it look like one is looking at the centre of a rotating disc, and NOT the rim, as it would have to be if the FE explenation was correct?

While on that point, how come Astronomical system conversions, based on the roundness of the earth, *work*, 100%? Seems like a wee bit of a coincidence.

If I'm in an observatory in Puerto Rico and map the location of a star on the sky at a certain time, I don't put its location relative to my location on the records .. I note that down and from that calculate its position relative to the centre of the earth.

And I can, from an observatory in, say, the Canary Islands, calculate this data back into data applicable to my local coordinates .. that will tell me exactly where this star is on my sky at the given time.

Why oh why does this method .. WORK? Quite well, too, I've used centre-of-the-earth based databases myself to find the location of a star on my evening sky.

... hello?

*listens to the crickets chirping*

hee hawwww! hee hawwwww! moOOOOOooooo

You know it's just gotten to the point for me where I really don't know why I bother trying anymore.  I'm going to change my password to something I'll never remember a day from now since there seems to be no way to cancel my account.

Darn, I remembered it.  You can see though, not one person has tried to post a legitimate response to this.

Darn, I remembered it.

Heh .. I know the feeling

*ping*

Hello-oo?

So the stars are rotating above us. So what?


As a sidenote: Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.


~D-Draw

You are right, they do not post agaist this topic as long as it is presented in a logical manner, it cannot be refuted.

I posted similarly in a post dubbed "Possibly the best answer to the question" regarding the fact that a 2 dimensional space could not support the fact that the stars pivot around two different points in the night sky, therefor the universe must be 3 dimentional, then made  logical deductions from that point to disprove Flat Earth Hypothesis altogether.

The FE is not actually a place that REALLY insists on something as absurd as the earth in it's entirety being flat. It is a question that though it is insane to even consider, how can it be proven without the aid of external views of the earth, High Flying aircraft to see the curvature, or any of that.

They are however, correct in that the earth is flat in a relative sense. To everyday people in everyday situations, the earth appears flat all over the world. Things do not roll to the side, or any of that.

As far as the eye can see, given that we have eyes that are less than 3 inches apart, we cannot tell with the naked eye. We have to reference the stars, which is how they did it thousands of years ago.

I posted similarly in a post dubbed "Possibly the best answer to the question" regarding the fact that a 2 dimensional space could not support the fact that the stars pivot around two different points in the night sky, therefor the universe must be 3 dimentional, then made  logical deductions from that point to disprove Flat Earth Hypothesis altogether.

Space is either 4-dimensional, 10-dimensional, 11-dimensional, or 26-dimensional, depending on what you believe.

If you have proof against an FE people will just ignore your thread, or give stupid answers. The best answer you'll get in this thread is:

"It's an optical illusion."

simply put: watch "The Truman Show" how did the night sky work there? it was on the dome!

If you have proof against an FE people will just ignore your thread, or give stupid answers.

The stars rotating above us is just as logical as us rotating on a gravity-infested Round Earth; it's just how you look at it.


~D-Draw

You are ignoring the point.  If the stars were on a single dome, then they would rotate around the center (ie: the north pole or on the Truman Show, the center of the dome).  However, the point is that there are two stationary points, North and South poles that can be seen from the northern and southern hemispheres respectively.

In the Flat Earth concept, there is no South pole, so rotating stars would spin faster the further south you go.  No matter how you lay out the geometry, either the stars in Chile would zip overhead or the relative angles between the stars change nightly (a ludicrous concept because of the constellations).  Neither is the case.  Therefore, the Earth cannot be flat.

Basic scientific method, come up with a hypothesis, and if the data doesn't fit, trash it.

Basic scientific method, come up with a hypothesis, and if the data doesn't fit, trash it.

Thank you for reminding me to take out the trash.

You are ignoring the point.  If the stars were on a single dome, then they would rotate around the center (ie: the north pole or on the Truman Show, the center of the dome).  However, the point is that there are two stationary points, North and South poles that can be seen from the northern and southern hemispheres respectively.

In the Flat Earth concept, there is no South pole, so rotating stars would spin faster the further south you go.  No matter how you lay out the geometry, either the stars in Chile would zip overhead or the relative angles between the stars change nightly (a ludicrous concept because of the constellations).  Neither is the case.  Therefore, the Earth cannot be flat.

Basic scientific method, come up with a hypothesis, and if the data doesn't fit, trash it.

aaaah, but if we're all programmed to belive that this doesn't hapen, it makes prefect sense,   or whatever shit they'll come up with next

Quote from: "jaybird39"

I posted similarly in a post dubbed "Possibly the best answer to the question" regarding the fact that a 2 dimensional space could not support the fact that the stars pivot around two different points in the night sky, therefor the universe must be 3 dimentional, then made  logical deductions from that point to disprove Flat Earth Hypothesis altogether.

Space is either 4-dimensional, 10-dimensional, 11-dimensional, or 26-dimensional, depending on what you believe.

True, I forgot about time beingt he fourth. However the rest are all either hypothesis or theory, and until tangible proof exists I am relying on the known facts of length, width, depth, and time as the four dimensions of the universe.

Thanks for the correction

True, I forgot about time beingt he fourth. However the rest are all either hypothesis or theory, and until tangible proof exists I am relying on the known facts of length, width, depth, and time as the four dimensions of the universe.

Thanks for the correction

The correction was not important.

When you said that the universe is three-dimensional, it was clear that you were refering to spatial dimensions.

When he said that he universe has more than four dimensions, he was referring to dimensions that are too small to matter for the issues you're discussing.