if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?

  • 46 Replies
  • 13709 Views
If the world is flat, shouldn't there be only one star chart?

According to mainstream astronomy there is a north celestial pole star chart and a south celestial pole star chart. If you are standing on northern hemisphere you see the northern axis end point, whereas if you are standing on southern hemisphere you see the southern axis end point. Moreover, during the Equinoxes the south axis will be visible from parts of the northern hemisphere near the equator, vice versa.

You can do an image search for "south celestial pole star chart" to see what skies look like in southern hemisphere, becuase you and most of us on forum probably live in the northern hemisphere.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2015, 06:42:26 AM »
Interesting finding. As per below, it seems we also have an equatorial chart.

http://observe.phy.sfasu.edu/SFAStarCharts/SFAStarChartsPro.pdf
I think, therefore I am

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2015, 06:59:38 AM »
Cue JRowe and Dual Earth Theory. But chances are the other FE'rs will say that this is false and people have seen it as wrong for thousands of years.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2015, 09:41:54 AM »
Interesting finding. As per below, it seems we also have an equatorial chart.

http://observe.phy.sfasu.edu/SFAStarCharts/SFAStarChartsPro.pdf

Hi Cartesian,
I am thinking many of us (myself included) are self-taught. We have come to sites like this to re-trace our education and go through a sort of trial and error process. We are at same level of 7th or 8th graders probably. I am gaining appreciation for historical science, and the significance of Ptolemy, Copernicus, etc. Come to find out, these were just ordinary folks like us who just happened to make observations using trial and error or through the scientific method, etc. We can still appreciate how those who aren't aware of the astronomical charts would come to the conclusion earth is flat. Those that thought earth was flat used their zetetic sight to make observations on land, but only until observations gradually were made in the sky through what is now called "astronomy" were they able to make determinations about it being a globe. All these stories about aristostenes, colombus, etc are over-simplifications, etc. In my school, they spent more time teachiing about big bang theory than this REAL historical science.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2015, 03:35:53 PM »
It's also worth noting that southern constellations are always south of the observer and only visible south of the equator.  This makes no sense at all on a flat Earth but it makes perfect sense on our very round Earth.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2015, 03:38:19 PM »
It's also worth noting that southern constellations are always south of the observer and only visible south of the equator.  This makes no sense at all on a flat Earth but it makes perfect sense on our very round Earth.
Marketing marketing . I can explain it, I need better English though.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2015, 03:51:44 PM »
It's also worth noting that southern constellations are always south of the observer and only visible south of the equator.  This makes no sense at all on a flat Earth but it makes perfect sense on our very round Earth.
Marketing marketing . I can explain it, I need better English though.

Explain it in some other language and run it through Google translate then.  I can't wait to hear the latest failed attempt to explain this stuff that a 5 year old could debunk.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2015, 04:44:02 PM »
It's also worth noting that southern constellations are always south of the observer and only visible south of the equator. 

This is not correct. All northern stars are circumpolar and no southern stars are visible from the North Pole. As you travel southward from the North Pole, while still in the northern hemisphere, more and more of the southern stars become visible as fewer and fewer of the northern stars are circumpolar. All stars in all constellations in both hemispheres are visible, and none are circumpolar, from the Equator. If you continue south from the Equator, fewer and fewer of the northern stars are visible and more and more of the southern stars are circumpolar. At the South Pole, all southern stars are circumpolar and no northern stars are visible.

Celestial objects with more northerly declination than your latitude will appear north of you; that is, say, if you're at 35 S latitude, all of the southern constellation Libra, which extends from the Celestial Equator to declination -30, will be to your north at its highest point.

This is exactly what you'd expect since the Earth is spherical and the stars are distant.

It will be interesting if modestman can explain how this could possibly happen on a flat earth. I'm especially interested in hearing about the two different sets of circumpolar stars.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2015, 10:25:46 AM »
Nobody was able to explain the existance of two poles instead of one on the astronomical charts..

Rowbotham's reply:
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. Such, however,

p. 287

is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8 south of the equator, and in longitude 30 W. 1

MM. Von Spix and Karl Von Martius, in their account of -their scientific travels in Brazil, in 1817-1820, relate that "on the 15th of June, in latitude 14 S, we beheld, for the first time, that glorious constellation of the southern heavens, the Cross, which is to navigators a token of peace, and, according to its position, indicates the hours of the night. We had long wished for this constellation as a guide to the other hemisphere; we therefore felt inexpressible pleasure when we perceived it in the resplendent firmament."

The great traveller Humboldt says:--

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. More especially ought it to be at all times visible when the nearest star belonging to it is considerably nearer to the so-called "pole star of the south" than is the nearest of the stars in the "Great Bear" to the pole star of the north. Humboldt did not see the Southern Cross until he

p. 288

was in the 16th latitude south, and then it was "strongly inclined," showing that it was rising in the east, and sharing in the general sweep of the stars from east to west, in common with the whole firmament of stars moving round the pole star of the northern region.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

I'm really trying to understand flat earth perspective. I don't understand how his observation of stars from his perspective from England would be any different regardless of if flat or round. In both cases, the stars spin around the north pole axis. However, I'm guessing he never went to a place like Anartica or the southern tip of Chile to observe how the southern axis and constellations appear down there. He is so certain of the earth being flat, that he seems to dismiss with prejudice the idea that there could be a south pole and southern hemisphere celestial map that's completely different than what he is used to seeing in England. The celestial map of the sky has been mapped completely since 200 BC during time of Ptolemy. Only a few constellations in the far southern hemisphere were added around 1600 by a German astronomer. This would mean that at time of Rowbotham was alive, the celestial globe was 100% mapped. There is no mention of celestial globe by Rowbotham. He does not account for how there can be a southern axis and stars totally different than in northern axis/hemisphere. To him, the answer might be that the southern constellations are ficticious? If someone wants to make answer about this?

I am not trying to rub salt on the wound of flat earther here.. I realize this is maybe complicated question, and even if earth is flat, this might be hard or impossible to come up with answer that will reconcile the fact that there is a different map only visible from antarctica region of world...

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2015, 10:45:36 AM »
Cue JRowe and Dual Earth Theory. But chances are the other FE'rs will say that this is false and people have seen it as wrong for thousands of years.

Sadly, he's been banned. We'll have to do without his wonderful, intelligent additions from now on.
His is the only actual answer though, to be fair. Otherwise, circumpolar stars are met with silence.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2015, 11:18:34 AM »
if you pick up a star chart (a physical one you hold in your hand) it is shaped like a flat disc and is completely accurate. There is no southern pole star (it's supposedly Sigma Octans, which is very dim, newly discovered, and not fixed). The southern cross travels around the earth with the milky way while only Polaris is fixed. That is the layout from where ever you stand on earth it is just if you face north rather than south, the stars rotate one way as opposed to the other. I can find the southern cross even in Texas which is not in the southern hemisphere. How can that be if it supposed to be under my horizon?  There are no two maps for southern and northern constellations, no more than there are two maps for the southern and northern parts of the earth. parts of the same map. The aborigines in Australia (who have a keen sense of the stars being in the vast desert) know the world to be a flat disc as well. But what mainstream modern science "tells" you versus what thousands of years of ancestry "knows" are two different things. What gets me, is that our dead ancestors don't benefit from a lie, while the elites of today who control the narrative, do. I hope that answers your question.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 11:44:09 AM by shilohbirch »

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2015, 11:55:01 AM »
if you pick up a star chart (a physical one you hold in your hand) it is shaped like a flat disc and is completely accurate. There is no southern pole star (it's supposedly Sigma Octans, which is very dim, newly discovered, and not fixed). The southern cross travels around the earth with the milky way while only Polaris is fixed. That is the layout from where ever you stand on earth it is just if you face north rather than south, the stars rotate one way as opposed to the other. I can find the southern cross even in Texas which is not in the southern hemisphere. How can that be if it supposed to be under my horizon?  There are no two maps for southern and northern constellations, no more than there are two maps for the southern and northern parts of the earth. parts of the same map. The aborigines in Australia (who have a keen sense of the stars being in the vast desert) know the world to be a flat disc as well. But what mainstream modern science "tells" you versus what thousands of years of ancestry "knows" are two different things. What gets me, is that our dead ancestors don't benefit from a lie, while the elites of today who control the narrative, do. I hope that answers your question.

am i right to say that the midpoint in time between the summer and winter solstice is where the axis is perfectly lined up. So that would mean it would be remotely possible to see the south axis if you are at far end of solstice? otherwise, according to mainstream astronomy, viewing the south axis from Texas would not be possible. I would appreciate if some other people who live in southern hemisphere could give accounts of their observations too.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2015, 11:58:07 AM »
If you continue south from the Equator, fewer and fewer of the northern stars are visible and more and more of the southern stars are circumpolar... 
how can you verify this? here is a picture from Tazmania of Polaris, clearly circumpolar. http://aurora-gallery-news.blogspot.com/2011/07/aurora-australis-with-startrails.html

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2015, 12:01:18 PM »
here is a test for you (if you indeed can see both supposed axis points?).. if earth was a globe, and you could see both supposed axis end points from where you are, then if you time lapsed photos, you should see a ring of stars if you view directly south with your compass, and another ring of stars where you point your compass directly to the north... This test should prove if earth is flat or not. There cannot be two rings on a flat plane. Also, I will admit I do not know much about the star map. I will have to look into that more before being able to answer this comprehensively. Perhaps someone else knows better about this than me, and could give a better answer from FE/RE/etc perspective.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2015, 12:03:20 PM »
reply to neutral22: at 26 degrees N latitude you can see the Southern Cross any time of the year according to Earth Sky http://earthsky.org/favorite-star-patterns/the-southern-cross-signpost-of-southern-skies
that was just from a quick look up.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2015, 12:23:31 PM »
Here is a test to prove once and for all if earth is a sphere or is flat!:

Do the following:
*1* goto some place in Equator during midpoint between two solstices.
*2* aim one camera with compass needle pointing directly south.
*3* aim one camera with compass needle pointing directly north.
*4* during darkness, take photos every 10 minutes for entire period of darkness with both cameras.
*5* merge the photos together into time lapsed videos for each camera
*6* compare results, the expected results should be as such:

Hypothesis of expected results for flat earth:
 * pointing north timelapsed: you should see ring of stars rotating around north axis, "north star"
 * pointing south timelapsed: the stars should be away from the camera from southwest to southeast, but defintely not in a rotating ring.

Hypothesis of expected results for round earth:
 * pointing north timelapsed: you should see ring of stars rotating around north axis, north star
 * pointing south timelapsed: you should see ring of stars rotating around south axis, an empty space, and recognizable constellations like cross moving in circle around axis.

There is no such thing as south axis in flat earth, so this would be easy way to prove or disprove earth as being flat or round!!

Please write if you agree with the expected hypothetiss, and if you think actual conclusion of experiment would be in favor or not in favor of what you would expect??

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2015, 12:26:15 PM »
reply to neutral 22 as stated there are no two rings, just Polaris. This is evident on a star chart and with star trails all over the world. So I will reiterate a final time: the so called southern pole star is in the southern cross which is in the milky way. If you watch the milky way (I'm betting you can pick it out on a clear night), it follows the same ecliptic as the sun and moon as if everything is fixed. You would think the sun and moon would appear to travel differently as the moon is also moving counterclockwise around us according to modern science, and we are moving around the sun, but no, they look perfectly stuck along with the stars.

watch this video from space.com: http://www.space.com/24324-breathtaking-night-sky-time-lapse-video.html

If you're in the southern hemisphere you shouldn't be able to see polaris hidden below the horizon. Conversely, if you are in the north you shouldn't be able to the southern cross. I've posted evidence attesting that indeed you can see northern constellations and southern constellations from either hemisphere, and still only Polaris is circled or "ringed" by the stars. Why would our northern axis be fixed to a star quadrillion miles away while our southern axis followed a constellation that is apparently in our galaxy and follows the path of our solar system? All traveling unfathomable mph's, tilting, wobbling, and yet the stars and ecliptic paths remain the exact same, year after year?

a lie gets tangled the more it's woven, but depending on how entrenched the belief (or how unfathomable the alternative), it appears that the perpetual lies are still accepted. but when you start from the ground up, believing what you see instead of what you are told, the truth makes complete and simple sense. Occham's razor. Good luck on your journey.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2015, 12:36:56 PM »
reply to neutral 22:
just google Polaris star trails Tazmania or however far south you want to go and find the time stamp. Just look at the course of star trails from anywhere in the world at any time. there are no stars revolving around the south pole, period. but as for compasses, I think what is interesting is that your compass actually searches for south. Our north pole is actually the south pole. I apologize for being off topic but I think that is because it is the lowest point on our plane (the land masses gravitate toward it while the mile+ ice shelf encircle the world). There is no actual south pole in antarctica. They take you to a point and compasses show that it is off. Just too many things "off" with the round earth picture that keep needing explaining away. I think the best way to determine FE is to fly over Antartica. We can go to the moon but apparently its too cold for planes to fly over Antartica.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2015, 12:37:34 PM »
if you pick up a star chart (a physical one you hold in your hand) it is shaped like a flat disc and is completely accurate. There is no southern pole star, and the southern cross travels around the earth with the milky way while only Polaris is fixed. That is the layout from where ever you stand on earth it is just if you face north rather than south, the stars rotate one way as opposed to the other. I can find the southern cross even in Texas which is not in the southern hemisphere. How can that be if it supposed to be under my horizon? 
Planispheres that pivot around the North Celestial Pole are really useful only in the northern hemisphere. There are southern hemisphere versions that pivot around the South Celestial Pole available; those don't work so well north of the Equator.



Quote
There are no two maps for southern and northern constellations, no more than there are two maps for the southern and northern parts of the earth. parts of the same map.
Any flat map of the Earth or sky is going to be distorted because it's a projection of a sphere onto a flat surface (including your northern-hemisphere  planisphere example). Splitting the maps into sections is one way to minimize the distortions; northern and southern sky charts are one way of splitting the celestial sphere, but, you're right, there are other projections that can be used that put all, or most of, the sky on a single map.

Quote
The aborigines in Australia (who have a keen sense of the stars being in the vast desert) know the world to be a flat disc as well.
They may think they know this, but if they do think this, they're wrong.

Quote
But what mainstream modern science "tells" you versus what thousands of years of ancestry "knows" are two different things.
Yes, we have learned some things over the centuries.

Quote
What gets me, is that our dead ancestors don't benefit from a lie, while the elites of today who control the narrative, do. I hope that answers your question.
In what way does anyone benefit from lying about the shape of the Earth?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2015, 01:22:46 PM »
am i right to say that the midpoint in time between the summer and winter solstice is where the axis is perfectly lined up. So that would mean it would be remotely possible to see the south axis if you are at far end of solstice? otherwise, according to mainstream astronomy, viewing the south axis from Texas would not be possible. I would appreciate if some other people who live in southern hemisphere could give accounts of their observations too.

No. At an equinox, the direction to the Sun is perpendicular to the axis; the position of the stars don't change with respect to the axis at any time of year. You will never see the South Celestial Pole from Texas, but you can always see if from south of the Equator.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2015, 01:26:14 PM »
Quote
as stated there are no two rings, just Polaris.
right. expected: 1 ring around north pole if flat. 2 rings if round ( 1 for north pole and 1 for "south pole")


Quote
This is evident on a star chart and with star trails all over the world. So I will reiterate a final time: the so called southern pole star is in the southern cross which is in the milky way. If you watch the milky way (I'm betting you can pick it out on a clear night), it follows the same ecliptic as the sun and moon as if everything is fixed. You would think the sun and moon would appear to travel differently as the moon is also moving counterclockwise around us according to modern science, and we are moving around the sun, but no, they look perfectly stuck along with the stars.

watch this video from space.com: http://www.space.com/24324-breathtaking-night-sky-time-lapse-video.html
you have represented the expected result for if earth is flat in test i outlined.


Quote
If you're in the southern hemisphere you shouldn't be able to see polaris hidden below the horizon. Conversely, if you are in the north you shouldn't be able to the southern cross. I've posted evidence attesting that indeed you can see northern constellations and southern constellations from either hemisphere, and still only Polaris is circled or "ringed" by the stars.
I understand what you are saying. It might have something to do with the solstices..

Quote
Why would our northern axis be fixed to a star quadrillion miles away while our southern axis followed a constellation that is apparently in our galaxy and follows the path of our solar system? All traveling unfathomable mph's, tilting, wobbling, and yet the stars and ecliptic paths remain the exact same, year after year?

a lie gets tangled the more it's woven, but depending on how entrenched the belief (or how unfathomable the alternative), it appears that the perpetual lies are still accepted. but when you start from the ground up, believing what you see instead of what you are told, the truth makes complete and simple sense. Occham's razor. Good luck on your journey.
whether these sky stuffs are moving, or we are moving, if earth stationary or not, etc is a test for another time. IMO: those types of psuedo-scientific claims are erroneous regardless of what shape the world is.

Quote
just google ima or however far south you want to go and find the time stamp. Just look at the course of star trails from anywhere in the world at any time. there are no stars revolving around the south pole, period. but as for compasses, I think what is interesting is that your compass actually searches for south. Our north pole is actually the south pole. I apologize for being off topic but I think that is because it is the lowest point on our plane (the land masses gravitate toward it while the mile+ ice shelf encircle the world). There is no actual south pole in antarctica. They take you to a point and compasses show that it is off. Just too many things "off" with the round earth picture that keep needing explaining away. I think the best way to determine FE is to fly over Antartica. We can go to the moon but apparently its too cold for planes to fly over Antartica.

Ok.. I found bunch of images. I will look into it more later probably. I will not answer about compass, because I think I won't be able to answer it succinctly and open myself up for criticism, and derailment of thread. I have learned lesson that when starting topic I should be very brief, concise, and succinct as possible, or otherwise have the thread/topic derailed.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 01:33:18 PM by neutral22 »

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2015, 01:31:35 PM »
If you continue south from the Equator, fewer and fewer of the northern stars are visible and more and more of the southern stars are circumpolar... 
how can you verify this? here is a picture from Tazmania of Polaris, clearly circumpolar. http://aurora-gallery-news.blogspot.com/2011/07/aurora-australis-with-startrails.html
Those stars in your linked photo are clearly circumpolar, and also clearly circling the South Celestial Pole. Where's Polaris? It's really bright in pictures like this of the northern circumpolar stars because it moves so much slower than the other bright stars.

Here are the northern circumpolar star trails. Note the very short bright trail near the center of the arcs. That's Polaris.


Note the bright Milky Way in the southern picture. It's missing from the northern one. There's your verification.

[Edit] Clarify that the embedded image is of the northern circumpolar sky, and references to the southern circumpolar sky were the previous link. Sorry for any confusion.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 02:18:00 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2015, 01:34:48 PM »
reply to alpha
if the sigma octans is supposed to be the southern pole star, why don't the stars in the milky way bend around it in a ring? if you were to move that southern planisphere, you would see the same movement of the milky way as you would in the north. if you are supposed to be on the bottom of a spinning ball, that the world should look like its spinning in quite small concentric circles toward the south pole, correct? but we don't see that. We see the milky way glide across. Just because they made sigma octans the middle doesn't mean its the south pole because it doesn't act like a south pole. I can show you a map with north america looking bigger than south america which is wrong. but we use it everywhere in the US and "modern" world.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2015, 01:40:17 PM »
...sigma octans..., why don't the stars in the milky way bend around it in a ring? if you were to move that southern planisphere, you would see the same movement of the milky way as you would in the north.

Please explain more? I don't get what you are saying. In the photo that was posted by alpha, it is showing "stuff" spinning in a circle around the "south pole"..??

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2015, 02:05:24 PM »
so I see what the problem is: we are arguing with terms and assumptions of mainstream round earth, whereas you are using flat earth. We are on flat earth forum, we should try to understand your perspective.

I say let's omit this photo that alpha posted. There is just no way to reconcile this photo with a flat earth. In no way should there be any "stuff" spinning around axis in "south pole". It must be a faked photo? That cannot be true if earth is really flat?

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2015, 02:12:35 PM »
reply to neutral 22 as stated there are no two rings, just Polaris. This is evident on a star chart and with star trails all over the world. So I will reiterate a final time: the so called southern pole star is in the southern cross which is in the milky way.
No, the South Celestial Pole (SCP) is in the constellation Octans, not Crux.

Quote
If you watch the milky way (I'm betting you can pick it out on a clear night), it follows the same ecliptic as the sun and moon as if everything is fixed.
No, the Milky Way does not follow the ecliptic.

Quote
You would think the sun and moon would appear to travel differently as the moon is also moving counterclockwise around us according to modern science, and we are moving around the sun, but no, they look perfectly stuck along with the stars.
No, the Moon moves around the ecliptic once in about 29 days. The Sun appears to move slowly through the sky along the Ecliptic as the year progresses. That's why we see different constellations at night at different times of year. The same constellations that are up at midnight one night are up at noon half a year later, but we can't see them because the sky is so bright from the Sun.

Quote
watch this video from space.com: http://www.space.com/24324-breathtaking-night-sky-time-lapse-video.html
That's a pretty nice video. Notice that in the scenes pointing nearly due south, the stars are rotating clockwise; in the northern hemisphere, the stars rotate counterclockwise around the pole.

Quote
If you're in the southern hemisphere you shouldn't be able to see polaris hidden below the horizon. Conversely, if you are in the north you shouldn't be able to the southern cross.
If you're north of about 26 north latitude, you cannot see all of Crux, south of there, you can. This is because Crux is not located at the SCP; the southernmost part of it is about 26 from it.

Quote
I've posted evidence attesting that indeed you can see northern constellations and southern constellations from either hemisphere, and still only Polaris is circled or "ringed" by the stars.
Yes, you can see southern constellations from the northern hemisphere, but the further south they are, the closer to the Equator you have to be to see them.

No, the southern pole is also ringed by stars. Look at your star trails photo from Tasmania.

Quote
Why would our northern axis be fixed to a star quadrillion miles away while our southern axis followed a constellation that is apparently in our galaxy and follows the path of our solar system?
The northern axis happens to point near a relatively bright star now. It's not "fixed" to it in any way. You still seem to think Crux marks the SCP. It doesn't. All the stars that make up the familiar constellations are in our galaxy, but the stars are independent of, and quite distant from, our solar system.

Quote
All traveling unfathomable mph's, tilting, wobbling, and yet the stars and ecliptic paths remain the exact same, year after year?
The speeds are insignificant compared to the distances involved; they sound impressively large in a human scale, but we're working with astronomical scales here, so they're piddling. Wobbling? It's so slow it's hard to notice in a lifetime, and then only if you study this stuff. Why would the ecliptic change? It's the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. What would cause it to change?

Quote
a lie gets tangled the more it's woven, but depending on how entrenched the belief (or how unfathomable the alternative), it appears that the perpetual lies are still accepted. but when you start from the ground up, believing what you see instead of what you are told, the truth makes complete and simple sense. Occham's razor. Good luck on your journey.

Occam's Razor favors the spherical Earth and heliocentric solar system. Not only is it the simplest model, it's the only one that works at all. The rest of that paragraph is just rambling.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2015, 02:19:34 PM »
Neutral you have to understand that Alpha2omega wraps is whole life with lies , his life is lie, he is liar from the first grade.

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2015, 02:39:07 PM »
Neutral you have to understand that Alpha2omega wraps is whole life with lies , his life is lie, he is liar from the first grade.

The existence of a "south pole" should be observed if a ring of "stuff" spins around "south axis" in a time lapsed series of photos. Such photos do exist, such as what Alpha2omega posted! How can you explain this photo? Do you think it's fake or is there way to explain why there would be an axis in the south regions of the world to spin around if earth is flat?

This is not a photo made by alpha2omega, so you should call the liar not him, but whomever made it!


Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2015, 02:41:44 PM »
reply to alpha
if the sigma octans is supposed to be the southern pole star, why don't the stars in the milky way bend around it in a ring? if you were to move that southern planisphere, you would see the same movement of the milky way as you would in the north.
Here's the southern circumpolar and Aurora Australis image from your link. Embedding it here as an image makes it easier to discuss.



The exposure is relatively short - it looks like it's about 40 minutes. See how short the star trails are? The Milky Way way is also smeared by the same amount, but, since it's diffuse, it's harder to tell.

The Milky Way isn't a ring in that photo for the same reason the star trails aren't full rings.

Quote
if you are supposed to be on the bottom of a spinning ball, that the world should look like its spinning in quite small concentric circles toward the south pole, correct? but we don't see that.
We see concentric arcs, not circles, because the Earth only rotated about 10 during the exposure. Note that the arcs do get smaller and smaller as you approach the pole, just right of center.

Quote
We see the milky way glide across.
It gets more smeared out at greater distance from the pole for the same reason the star trails get longer further from the pole.

Quote
Just because they made sigma octans the middle doesn't mean its the south pole because it doesn't act like a south pole. I can show you a map with north america looking bigger than south america which is wrong. but we use it everywhere in the US and "modern" world.
Who "made" sigma Octans the pole star? It's called that because it's fairly close to the SCP and brighter than anything else almost as close or closer. And what do you mean "doesn't act like a south pole?" What's it not doing? What's it supposed to "act like?"

If you're talking about a Mercator Projection or similar map of the spherical Earth, so what? It's well known that projections of a sphere onto a flat map are distorted. Different projections are used to minimize certain distortions (making others worse) for various uses. This happens because the Earth is a sphere.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: if the world is flat shouldn't there be only one star chart?
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2015, 02:47:18 PM »
Neutral you have to understand that Alpha2omega wraps is whole life with lies , his life is lie, he is liar from the first grade.

Nah. You just don't like the answers I give and call them lies.

If you can actually counter anything I say with facts, have at it! If not, that's your problem, not mine.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan