The South Celestial Pole

The claims:

For a person in south america on the equator, the NCP and the SCP would not be on perfectly opposite sides of each other (the angle between them would be less than 180°).

However, as Master_Evar pointed out, the bipolar model suffers from the same problem as the celestial gears model: the SCP and NCP are not 180 degrees apart from each other at many places on your map. This directly contradicts observation.

WHAT observation?

That the South Celestial Pole is directly 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the North Celestial Pole. If either of the celestial poles is below the horizon, like in Australia, you can measure from the direction of the top of the arc of the stars. Like so:



The two red lines in this image mark the positions of the celestial poles. They are 180 degrees apart in real life. This is common knowledge that you can verify for yourself.

On a flat earth (provable immediately using the Tunguska explosion event, or any other number of direct proofs) you are going to have to deal with the index of refraction of the aether, something which is not taken into account by modern science.

Yes, you have said this multiple times. HOW do we "deal with the index of refraction of the aether"? Is there an equation that we can use? Can you show mathematically that the celestial poles will always be 180 degrees apart in your model?

HOW are they related? You haven't made any connection between it and the South Celestial Pole at all.

The geographical and the magnetic south pole DO NOT COINCIDE.

This means the shape of the earth cannot be spherical at all.

What does that have to do with how the South Celestial Pole works in your model? I still don't see the connection.

You appear to be incorrectly claiming sagnac errors are not taken into account in GPS calculations.

The fact that the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded by GPS satellites is a well known, accepted scientific notion (please read the references provided).

You must be confusing the ROTATIONAL Sagnac effect (which is being recorded) with the ORBITAL Sagnac effect (which is not).

Seems to be nuts to me to claim a liquid earth with flexible surface and tidal motion is going to have an exactly 180 degree opposite axis like it is bolted to something in an immoveable fashion.   On the face of it the system is too hard to model let alone claim IT MUST BE 180 degrees apart!!!!!

That the South Celestial Pole is directly 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the North Celestial Pole.

That is how the RE theory goes.


In practice it cannot be verified at all.

See, for example:

http://www.kabraham.co.uk/images/STARTRAILS.jpg


I can provide several direct proofs of the existence of aether: this means your claims of measurement are false, since the aether index of refraction is not being taken into account.


The Earth cannot be a solid sphere if the geographical and the magnetic south pole do not coincide.

There are only two theories which account for this: HE and FE.

HE can be dismissed immediately since there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

The Earth cannot be a solid sphere if the geographical and the magnetic south pole do not coincide.

do you have ANY source other than the laughable Hollow Earth page you previously posted that says this has to be true?

Seems to be nuts to me to claim a liquid earth with flexible surface and tidal motion is going to have an exactly 180 degree opposite axis like it is bolted to something in an immoveable fashion.   On the face of it the system is too hard to model let alone claim IT MUST BE 180 degrees apart!!!!!

Huh? If the earth is spherical, the celestial poles are just opposite ends of the axis of rotation. Any rotating object will have a north and south axis that are exactly 180 degrees apart. It doesn't matter what its shape is. The fact that we observe them to be 180 degrees apart is evidence that the earth is in fact spherical.

Seems to be nuts to me to claim a liquid earth with flexible surface and tidal motion is going to have an exactly 180 degree opposite axis like it is bolted to something in an immoveable fashion.   On the face of it the system is too hard to model let alone claim IT MUST BE 180 degrees apart!!!!!

A rotational axis is always a straight line, 180° apart. Mathematically and physically. Of course, not all of earth is rotating along the exact same axis, but the surface as a whole is so close to having one completely unified rotational axis that it makes no sense to divide it. Like, the difference won't be greater than 1°, 0.1° or even 0.01°. Sandohkans model has some areas where the angle between the north and south would be far greater than 1°, which is too great for the rigidness of earth's surface. Again, you are being unreasonably nitpicky.

That the South Celestial Pole is directly 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the North Celestial Pole.

That is how the RE theory goes.

In practice it cannot be verified at all.

See, for example:

http://www.kabraham.co.uk/images/STARTRAILS.jpg

Obviously if you are directly on the North or South Pole, it will be difficult to verify. Anywhere else it is easy to verify. Please look at the picture I provided in my previous post.

I can provide several direct proofs of the existence of aether: this means your claims of measurement are false, since the aether index of refraction is not being taken into account.

Fine. So take it into account. Show me that taking into account aether refraction will result in the celestial poles appearing 180 degrees apart in your model.

The Earth cannot be a solid sphere if the geographical and the magnetic south pole do not coincide.

There are only two theories which account for this: HE and FE.

HE can be dismissed immediately since there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

For the umptillionth time, what does this have to do with how the South Celestial Pole appears in your model?

For the umptillionth time, what does this have to do with how the South Celestial Pole appears in your model?

I would very much like to see this answered too.

If the earth were solid throughout, the geomagnetic pole would coincide with the earth's rotational axis.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field is NON DIPOLAR cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.

The non dipolar feature is explained ONLY by HE and FE.

Since HE can be ruled out immediately due to the fact that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, we are left with FE.

Certainly it relates to the FE model, since it is the only one which can explain why the geographical and the magnetic poles do not coincide.


Your red lines drawn on that photograph amount to nothing: you must provide a photograph which shows Polaris visible and directly measured from Australia.

Do not forget that I can immediately bring forth numerous ether proofs: a direct consequence being that now you will have to deal with an aether index of refraction.

If the earth were solid throughout, the geomagnetic pole would coincide with the earth's rotational axis.

And still no references showing why this should be so aside from your laughable hollow Earth reference before.  And the last I checked it was not solid throughout but at least some of the core is liquid.

If the earth were solid throughout, the geomagnetic pole would coincide with the earth's rotational axis.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field is NON DIPOLAR cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.

The non dipolar feature is explained ONLY by HE and FE.

Since HE can be ruled out immediately due to the fact that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, we are left with FE.

Certainly it relates to the FE model, since it is the only one which can explain why the geographical and the magnetic poles do not coincide.

Yes, I heard you the first five times. Stop repeating yourself. I didn't ask you if it relates to the FE model. I asked you how it relates to how your model explains the South Celestial Pole. You know, the title of this thread?

Your red lines drawn on that photograph amount to nothing: you must provide a photograph which shows Polaris visible and directly measured from Australia.

As you well know, Polaris is not visible from Australia. Why on earth do I need to show a picture of Polaris from Australia? Why do my red lines amount to nothing? They are just there to mark the cardinal direction of each celestial pole.

Do not forget that I can immediately bring forth numerous ether proofs: a direct consequence being that now you will have to deal with an aether index of refraction.

Good grief this is the most tedious argument I have ever had the displeasure of being a part of. GIVE ME SPECIFICS. HOW DOES AETHER REFRACTION WORK? HOW DOES IT RESULT IN THE CELESTIAL POLES BEING APPEARING 180 DEGREES APART IN YOUR MODEL?

Just a reminder: if you believe that aether experiment, you do realize that the researcher operates from the premise of a round earth orbitting the sun, right? It's in that paper you linked...

If the earth were solid throughout, the geomagnetic pole would coincide with the earth's rotational axis.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field is NON DIPOLAR cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.

The non dipolar feature is explained ONLY by HE and FE.

Since HE can be ruled out immediately due to the fact that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, we are left with FE.

Certainly it relates to the FE model, since it is the only one which can explain why the geographical and the magnetic poles do not coincide.


Your red lines drawn on that photograph amount to nothing: you must provide a photograph which shows Polaris visible and directly measured from Australia.

Do not forget that I can immediately bring forth numerous ether proofs: a direct consequence being that now you will have to deal with an aether index of refraction.

Sandokhan would you like to start a different thread to discuss why you believe RE requires the earth to be solid?  It seems to be a sticking point here that's making it difficult to keep this thread focused.

The amount of points you're bringing in that aren't relevant to the topic are getting dangerously close to a Gish Gallop. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop.   And I would like to see this topic debated without such underhanded tactics.

thanks

Gish Gallop.

This is my new favorite term. Thank you.

You appear to be incorrectly claiming sagnac errors are not taken into account in GPS calculations.

The fact that the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded by GPS satellites is a well known, accepted scientific notion (please read the references provided).

You must be confusing the ROTATIONAL Sagnac effect (which is being recorded) with the ORBITAL Sagnac effect (which is not).

The calculations for GPS are partly  based on a fixed earth as the frame of reference because the speed of light is constant, and a rotating frame would create a spiral path for the light.   However for the fixed earth frame of reference, earth rotation has to be taken into consideration because otherwise the amount the earth has moved compared to the fixed Earth frame of reference would create a very large error and that is what is known as the sagnac correction.   In practice an iterative method is used to narrow down the position where both frames of reference are used.

Apart from all of that how can you use satellites, and a rotating earth to claim the Earth is not orbiting the Sun??     

Anyway I notice you avoided the much easier to understand straight line path of the sun at equinox

You have been banned recently for trolling, yet here you are at it again.

There is no distortion in the image.

Here is another well known photograph showing the same thing:



The stars are moving in circles around the north and the south poles: that is why there will be divergence at the equator, something which cannot occur in the RE scenario.


Other photographs showing the same thing:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg

No, I was banned for insulting a mod.

None of those pictures show a rectangle.

You are still played out. All your stupid arguments were destroyed long ago.

No a spinning ball does not interact with ether.

Mirages exist.

Precession doesn't mean the earth is flat.

Remember hen you claimed you could show there is no precession?

The earth's magnetic field doesn't point to a flat earth.

 

In a sane debate, this line of reasoning would be devastating to anyone whol thinks the world is flat.

You present proof that literally everyone in the globe can check for themselves.

There are no other explanations for the observed phenomenon than to draw the conclusion that the world is round.

This, however, is not a sane debate.

I for one am very curious how the FE crowd will try to get out of this.

Your model doesn't show what you think it does.
You have demonstrated that the stars don't move the way you think they do.  The rotational model for stars, therefore, is possibly incorrect.
There is no conclusion that can be drawn here for anything other than that.

The impressive leap you made is best left to Olympians.

Quote from: sandokhan on August 25, 2016, 09:49:44 AM

The claims:

For a person in south america on the equator, the NCP and the SCP would not be on perfectly opposite sides of each other (the angle between them would be less than 180°).

However, as Master_Evar pointed out, the bipolar model suffers from the same problem as the celestial gears model: the SCP and NCP are not 180 degrees apart from each other at many places on your map. This directly contradicts observation.

WHAT observation?

That the South Celestial Pole is directly 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the North Celestial Pole. If either of the celestial poles is below the horizon, like in Australia, you can measure from the direction of the top of the arc of the stars. Like so:



The two red lines in this image mark the positions of the celestial poles. They are 180 degrees apart in real life. This is common knowledge that you can verify for yourself.

Quote

On a flat earth (provable immediately using the Tunguska explosion event, or any other number of direct proofs) you are going to have to deal with the index of refraction of the aether, something which is not taken into account by modern science.

Yes, you have said this multiple times. HOW do we "deal with the index of refraction of the aether"? Is there an equation that we can use? Can you show mathematically that the celestial poles will always be 180 degrees apart in your model?

Quote

HOW are they related? You haven't made any connection between it and the South Celestial Pole at all.

The geographical and the magnetic south pole DO NOT COINCIDE.

This means the shape of the earth cannot be spherical at all.

What does that have to do with how the South Celestial Pole works in your model? I still don't see the connection.

I have yet to see anyone actually verify the 180 degree separation.

Further, you did respond to me stating the stars are NOT moving in different directions. Correct?

...
You had no idea that the measurement using a sextant is flawed, as the link I provided to you amply revealed this very fact (a correct measurement must take into account the index of refraction).
...

We have refraction in both lines, toward horizon and toward measured star.
They bend light in the same way and in practically same amount.
Error is much lower than the one caused by ignoring Dip.

Note the "difference" between angles XET and YER.

...
You still owe everyone here an explanation concerning the fact that the geographical and the magnetic north pole do not coincide (a devastating problem for the RE).
...

You don't expect people to answer your claims only when they are directly addressed???
Wouldn't it be "a bit" cocky?

And why would it be so "devastating problem"? LOL

Magnetic field of Earth varies.
If you can't find it for yourself, here is
ONE,
TWO,
...

I don't expect everyone (actually almost anyone) to have rich home libraries.
But everyone who has Internet can google for knowledge any time, validate, compare, ...

Everyone can be aware that everyone else can test and verify their claims.

There's no dogma in science.
Butcher and pole dancer both have absolute right to question findings and claims of molecular biologist.

I have yet to see anyone actually verify the 180 degree separation.

Don't rely on someone else to verify it for you. If I provided photographic evidence, you would just claim it is fake anyway. Verify it yourself:

1. Go outside on a clear night. Make sure you can see both horizons.
2. Bring a camera that can take pictures of the star trails, either through a single long exposure, or multiple short exposures. You can even use many smartphones for this. Here is a guide for the iphone
3. Assuming you are in the Northern Hemisphere, find Polaris.
4. Setup your camera facing the exact cardinal direction of Polaris. (North)
5. Take a timelapse of the stars.
6. Rotate your camera exactly 180 degrees. It should now be pointing South.
7. Take another timelapse of the stars.
8. Confirm that the top of the arc of the stars in the south facing timelapse is in the exact middle of the photo.

I guarantee that if you measure carefully, you will see that the SCP is exactly 180 degrees apart from the NCP. This is common knowledge.

Further, you did respond to me stating the stars are NOT moving in different directions. Correct?

No, I don't think I did. Quote me, perhaps? I was mostly talking about planes with you, if I remember correctly.

1. Everyone looking at a circling plane from below will see the plane circling in the same direction.
2. All stars move from East to West.
3. Looking towards the North Celestial Pole, all stars appear to be rotating around a point counterclockwise.
4. Looking towards the South Celestial Pole, all stars appear to be rotating around a point clockwise.

Sandokhan, have you given up trying to explain how the South Celestial Pole works in your model? Did you finally realize that it doesn't work in your model?

Sandokhan, have you given up trying to explain how the South Celestial Pole works in your model? Did you finally realize that it doesn't work in your model?

Sandokahn writes walls of text when he begins to doubt. But he goes completely silent when even that won't work.

A flat earther not responding is as close as an admission of defeat as is apparently possible.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 27, 2016, 02:34:52 PM

Sandokhan, have you given up trying to explain how the South Celestial Pole works in your model? Did you finally realize that it doesn't work in your model?

Sandokahn writes walls of text when he begins to doubt. But he goes completely silent when even that won't work.

A flat earther not responding is as close as an admission of defeat as is apparently possible.

Oh yes, I am well aware. Consider my previous post a slightly subtler version of " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this.

Seriously, who has nothing better to do than stare up at the sky for hours upon hours at night in order to observe that they are rotating around a certain point.  Don't roundies have girlfriends?

You know, "girlfriends" sometimes like staring at stars. But they don't usually love moderating insane forums :/

This thread is over.

OH MY GOD EVERYBODY DROP EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING, SANDOKHAN SAID IT'S OVER!!!!

If we are floating on a "globe" then it should be impossible to capture both "celestial poles" in 1 photograph. 
There is something else going on. 

If we are floating on a "globe" then it should be impossible to capture both "celestial poles" in 1 photograph. 
There is something else going on.

Atmospheric refraction makes it possible.

How would that be possible on a flat disc anyway?

If we are floating on a "globe" then it should be impossible to capture both "celestial poles" in 1 photograph. 
There is something else going on.

Which photograph are you referring to? One of the panoramic photos? You do realize how panoramas work, right?

If you are referring to the photo Sandokhan provided, I would like to point out that you can't see both celestial poles in that image. The celestial pole to the right is slightly below the horizon. The hills don't help.

Also, it should be techincally possible to see both poles on a spherical earth if you are right at the equator. Both poles would be right at the horizon in opposite directions, similar to Sandokhan's image. Being on high ground would help. Also, as Brouwer pointed out, refraction can lift both poles a few degrees above the horizon under the right weather conditions.

This is very significant.  If the Earth is flat, then it makes sense that the stars should spin only on one axis, in this instance the North Pole, which we are all accustomed to.  But it also spins on a second axis, the South Pole, visible as such not only from Antarctica but also from a good many places far south such as Australia, New Zealand, Tierra del Fuego, etc.  This phenomenon makes sense for a globe but is very problematic for a Flat Earth.