"south star" not visible from northern hemisphere

IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which

p. 285

is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby

p. 286

proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.

Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star. It is scarcely polite to contradict the statements made, but it is certain that persons who have been educated to believe that the earth is a globe, going to the southern parts of the earth do not examine such matters critically. They see the stars move from towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied. But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute movements of the southern constellations. Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south--pole star included--sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm

Quote from: Rowbotham

IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which

p. 285

is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby

p. 286

proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.

Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star. It is scarcely polite to contradict the statements made, but it is certain that persons who have been educated to believe that the earth is a globe, going to the southern parts of the earth do not examine such matters critically. They see the stars move from towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied. But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute movements of the southern constellations. Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south--pole star included--sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations.

So,  Rowbotham as is his usual tactic  claims that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist.    The fact remains that it does exist, and the stars all revolve around that single point,  which means the earth has two poles, a North Pole and a South Pole.   This is not possible on a flat earth.     The only flat earth explanation is that either it doesn't exist, (Rowbotham)  or it's an optical illusion ( Eric Dubay)

Quote from: Rayzor

So,  Rowbotham as is his usual tactic  claims that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist.    The fact remains that it does exist, and the stars all revolve around that single point,  which means the earth has two poles, a North Pole and a South Pole.   This is not possible on a flat earth.     The only flat earth explanation is that either it doesn't exist, (Rowbotham)  or it's an optical illusion ( Eric Dubay)

This Rowbotham quote is based on anecdotal observation. If Rowbotham could see this photography he would be amazed, because it invalidates at least this one quote. Optical illusion? That seems like a mulligan. Rowbotham would spit at that suggestion, being that it goes against zetetic observation.

Quote from: neutral22 on June 22, 2015, 05:55:34 AM

Quote from: Rayzor

So,  Rowbotham as is his usual tactic  claims that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist.    The fact remains that it does exist, and the stars all revolve around that single point,  which means the earth has two poles, a North Pole and a South Pole.   This is not possible on a flat earth.     The only flat earth explanation is that either it doesn't exist, (Rowbotham)  or it's an optical illusion ( Eric Dubay)

This Rowbotham quote is based on anecdotal observation. If Rowbotham could see this photography he would be amazed, because it invalidates at least this one quote. Optical illusion? That seems like a mulligan. Rowbotham would spit at that suggestion, being that it goes against zetetic observation.

Here is the Eric Dubay video,  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">    see what you think

Quote from: Rayzor on June 22, 2015, 06:07:03 AM

Quote from: neutral22 on June 22, 2015, 05:55:34 AM

Quote from: Rayzor

So,  Rowbotham as is his usual tactic  claims that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist.    The fact remains that it does exist, and the stars all revolve around that single point,  which means the earth has two poles, a North Pole and a South Pole.   This is not possible on a flat earth.     The only flat earth explanation is that either it doesn't exist, (Rowbotham)  or it's an optical illusion ( Eric Dubay)

This Rowbotham quote is based on anecdotal observation. If Rowbotham could see this photography he would be amazed, because it invalidates at least this one quote. Optical illusion? That seems like a mulligan. Rowbotham would spit at that suggestion, being that it goes against zetetic observation.

Here is the Eric Dubay video,  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">    see what you think

I paused this video at the 20 second mark. That is all you need to see to understand the video, but let me know if there is anything past that point...

He is arguing already with the assumption that the earth is flat. However, the fact remains that if the world is a sphere, then there should be 2 different perspectives. Regardless of if some far away points are unseeable in that dome diagram, the north star would always be visible and look the same. That's not the case in time lapse video from south pole focal point - it looks much different -unless this is also an illusion of perspective?

I paused this video at the 20 second mark. That is all you need to see to understand the video, but let me know if there is anything past that point...

You are correct,   there is no workable flat earth explanations of the South Celestial Pole

Quote from: Rayzor on June 22, 2015, 05:00:08 AM

You are correct,   there is no workable flat earth explanations of the South Celestial Pole

Haven't you talked with JRowe? I'm fairly sure you have.

Whatever else you can say about his model, at least it answers this question.

Quote from: BiJane on January 03, 2016, 12:28:59 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 22, 2015, 05:00:08 AM

You are correct,   there is no workable flat earth explanations of the South Celestial Pole

Haven't you talked with JRowe? I'm fairly sure you have.

Whatever else you can say about his model, at least it answers this question.

Ah, but it is still not a WORKABLE model.

As far as I can tell with my own observation we cannot be on a flat Earth.

At the end of the  clip posted of the northern hemisphere you will see , what I call 111. Others call it the cricket stumps or the cricket pitch , due to there being another star a distance away seemingly in line with the middle of the three stars . Theses three stars are both seen in the nothern & south hemisphere . I see theses three stars regularly . I have veiwed them facing south , lv veiwed them facing east , lv veiwed them  facing north  & even overhead . The earth cant possible be spinning on an axis , if spinning at all.

So, i am new at the flat earth theory but im curious. I found this thread on google when i was searching for flat earth evidence. How do we explain the "southern" lights then?

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 03, 2016, 02:42:01 PM

At the end of the  clip posted of the northern hemisphere you will see , what I call 111. Others call it the cricket stumps or the cricket pitch , due to there being another star a distance away seemingly in line with the middle of the three stars . Theses three stars are both seen in the nothern & south hemisphere . I see theses three stars regularly . I have veiwed them facing south , lv veiwed them facing east , lv veiwed them  facing north  & even overhead . The earth cant possible be spinning on an axis , if spinning at all.

Do you have something to show that the stars you claim to see are the exact same stars each time and not just you?

...
When Robotham was around, was there a world-wide conspiracy at Antarctica? Why choose N.Pole in the center?

On December 14, 1911, Amundsen and four others stood at the South Pole, a month before Robert Scott.

For the next three days the men worked to fix the exact position of the pole; after the conflicting and disputed claims of Cook and Peary in the north, Amundsen wanted to leave unmistakable markers for Scott. After taking several sextant readings at different times of day, Bjaaland, Wisting and Hassel skied out in different directions to "box" the pole; Amundsen reasoned that at least one of them would cross the exact point. Finally the party pitched a tent, which they called Polheim, as near as possible to the actual pole as they could calculate by their observations.

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on January 03, 2016, 05:27:47 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 03, 2016, 02:42:01 PM

At the end of the  clip posted of the northern hemisphere you will see , what I call 111. Others call it the cricket stumps or the cricket pitch , due to there being another star a distance away seemingly in line with the middle of the three stars . Theses three stars are both seen in the nothern & south hemisphere . I see theses three stars regularly . I have veiwed them facing south , lv veiwed them facing east , lv veiwed them  facing north  & even overhead . The earth cant possible be spinning on an axis , if spinning at all.

Do you have something to show that the stars you claim to see are the exact same stars each time and not just you?

Well only another 100 or so people , iv pointed it out to who have witnessed it for them self .Now care to answer my question l put forward .Could you please explain how you can possibly  see a rotating star patten , if your spinning on a spherical & not looking in line with it axis.

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 03, 2016, 06:12:53 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on January 03, 2016, 05:27:47 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 03, 2016, 02:42:01 PM

At the end of the  clip posted of the northern hemisphere you will see , what I call 111. Others call it the cricket stumps or the cricket pitch , due to there being another star a distance away seemingly in line with the middle of the three stars . Theses three stars are both seen in the nothern & south hemisphere . I see theses three stars regularly . I have veiwed them facing south , lv veiwed them facing east , lv veiwed them  facing north  & even overhead . The earth cant possible be spinning on an axis , if spinning at all.

Do you have something to show that the stars you claim to see are the exact same stars each time and not just you?

Well only another 100 or so people , iv pointed it out to who have witnessed it for them self .Now care to answer my question l put forward .Could you please explain how you can possibly  see a rotating star patten , if your spinning on a spherical & not looking in line with it axis.

Are you talking about "field rotation"? (http://www.astrotx.com/Field%20Rotation.htm)

In human terms, if you look a something (constellation, Moon) rising in the East, you physically should point your body East and put your head against your left shoulder. When it is straight above you (facing N/S) your head should be straight up (normal). When setting in the West, your body should face West with your head on your right shoulder. This way, the object (Moon say) will not "rotate". This is what an equatorial telescope does automatically (see link above -  especially the eyepiece on the white moving telescope). If you keep your head straight up throughout, the object will appear to rotate throughout the night (an altazimuth mount - YOU).

Tell me how this is possible to veiw . On a rottating spherical earth. When your not standing at earth point of axis & in line with that axis .

North Star (STAR TRAILS) Time-lapse HD!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Tell me how this is possible to veiw . On a rottating spherical earth. When your not standing at earth point of axis & in line with that axis .

North Star (STAR TRAILS) Time-lapse HD!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 03, 2016, 08:53:28 PM

Tell me how this is possible to veiw . On a rottating spherical earth. When your not standing at earth point of axis & in line with that axis .

North Star (STAR TRAILS) Time-lapse HD!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Are you intentionally being ...obtuse, from any point on the spinning globe where you can see the north star you can observe the star trails. The epicentre will be located in a different position in the sky for different locations on the spinning globe.

An analogy would be, place a basketball on the ground, mark two dot such that they can both see a lightbulb on the ceiling but neither dot is directly on top of the basketball, now spin that fucker. Both dots have a view of the lightbulb and in you case the constellations of fly shit around it would form trails when observed from either dot, and neither dot is located on the axis of rotation.

Does that make it clearer for you bullshitter?

Tell me how this is possible to veiw . On a rottating spherical earth. When your not standing at earth point of axis & in line with that axis .

North Star (STAR TRAILS) Time-lapse HD!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 03, 2016, 08:53:28 PM

Tell me how this is possible to veiw . On a rottating spherical earth. When your not standing at earth point of axis & in line with that axis .

North Star (STAR TRAILS) Time-lapse HD!: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Easy, if you live in the Northern Hemisphere the North Celestial Pole can be seen by looking north (you can manage that!) at an altitude equal to your north latitude. Polaris will be almost at that location, and the stars will rotate anticlockwise about it.

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere the South Celestial Pole can be seen by looking south at an altitude equal to your south latitude. Sigma Octantis will be almost at that location, but it is too dim to be seen with the naked eye. The "Pointers" and "Southern Cross" are not far from the "South Celestial Pole" and they and other the other stars rotate clockwise about it. 

These fit perfectly with a globe rotating about an axis through the north and south poles.