Answer to the stars on a flat earth model

Say there is a dome around the flat earth. At the North pole (or centre of the map on a flat earth) the dome relative to the observer on the ground is almost horizontal. Perhaps here, there is no refraction of the light.

The further out you walk from the centre, the greater the angle of the dome relative to the observer on the ground and thus more refraction so seeing things a little differently.

Also we do not know what material or density, if the thickness is uniform or optical properties of the dome is uniform throughout. Just like 2 pairs of glasses, you put one on and then the other, it can have refraction in 2 different directions although to look at the glasses you couldn't tell the difference. I'm not saying its made of glass (stupid with so many meteors around!) It's obviously made of something that allows matter to pass through but either by blocking or repelling back, contains the atmosphere that allows us to breathe.

This is why the 'southern hemisphere' gets to see different stars than the 'northern hemisphere'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

Say there is a dome around the flat earth. At the North pole (or centre of the map on a flat earth) the dome relative to the observer on the ground is almost horizontal. Perhaps here, there is no refraction of the light.

The further out you walk from the centre, the greater the angle of the dome relative to the observer on the ground and thus more refraction so seeing things a little differently.

Also we do not know what material or density, if the thickness is uniform or optical properties of the dome is uniform throughout. Just like 2 pairs of glasses, you put one on and then the other, it can have refraction in 2 different directions although to look at the glasses you couldn't tell the difference. I'm not saying its made of glass (stupid with so many meteors around!) It's obviously made of something that allows matter to pass through but either by blocking or repelling back, contains the atmosphere that allows us to breathe.

This is why the 'southern hemisphere' gets to see different stars than the 'northern hemisphere'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

This seems very vague and highly speculative. Perhaps you can do some further work along these lines and see if there is a plausible way a refractive dome over a flat earth could produce things seen every day and night, including the apparent rotation of a different set of stars, in opposite directions, about points directly above each of earth's poles, all while the measurable angular separation between any two stars anywhere in the sky remains constant over a complete rotation.

Meanwhile, a rotating, nearly spherical, earth in a nearly circular orbit around a distant sun (relative to the size of the earth) explains all we see and measure to a very high degree of accuracy, very simply and elegantly. Have you considered that as a possibility?

This seems very vague and highly speculative. Perhaps you can do some further work along these lines and see if there is a plausible way a refractive dome over a flat earth could produce things seen every day and night, including the apparent rotation of a different set of stars, in opposite directions, about points directly above each of earth's poles, all while the measurable angular separation between any two stars anywhere in the sky remains constant over a complete rotation.

Meanwhile, a rotating, nearly spherical, earth in a nearly circular orbit around a distant sun (relative to the size of the earth) explains all we see and measure to a very high degree of accuracy, very simply and elegantly. Have you considered that as a possibility?

Considered and rejected  I like to feel like I'm special, important and know a truth no one else knows.

Perhaps you can do some further work along these lines and see if there is a plausible way a refractive dome over a flat earth could produce things seen every day and night, including the apparent rotation of a different set of stars, in opposite directions, about points directly above each of earth's poles, all while the measurable angular separation between any two stars anywhere in the sky remains constant over a complete rotation.

This is the kind of question I would love an FE'R to explain. Current explanations are extremely poor on this site, with constant nonsensical references to refraction that simply don't align with what we can see. I appreciate the difficulty of fitting a flat earth into a spherical, heliocentric reality, but the intellectual exercise is of some interest.

This is the kind of question I would love an FE'R to explain. Current explanations are extremely poor on this site, with constant nonsensical references to refraction that simply don't align with what we can see. I appreciate the difficulty of fitting a flat earth into a spherical, heliocentric reality, but the intellectual exercise is of some interest.

You wont find much cooperation unfortunately. The admin and mods of this 'society' have no interest in it and do not even believe in it themselves (despite what they say - their lack of conviction and inattention to details and explanations are quite telling). I personally love the thought experiments and making things up as I go along only to get shut down by science and math. This forum is actually a really good entertaining resource. That's why I like to say stupid shit at times. It gets answers that get me thinking of things I never would have considered.

That is why I too wish the flat earthers were more united and we had moderators that had a damn spine that could stick up for the movement and its believers. So that the debate wouldn't always be so lop sided.

Doesn't work.
Consider Polaris.
At the north pole it is straight up.

At the equator, it is on the horizon, due north.

Then any further south, it disappears.

There is no way refraction can account for that.

Looking due north at effectively 0 degrees angle of elevation is basically the same as being anywhere and looking in that same direction. You would be looking at the very bottom of the dome.
As such, everyone should be capable of seeing Polaris by looking that way as it is effectively the same light path.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 04, 2017, 03:32:28 PM

This seems very vague and highly speculative. Perhaps you can do some further work along these lines and see if there is a plausible way a refractive dome over a flat earth could produce things seen every day and night, including the apparent rotation of a different set of stars, in opposite directions, about points directly above each of earth's poles, all while the measurable angular separation between any two stars anywhere in the sky remains constant over a complete rotation.

Meanwhile, a rotating, nearly spherical, earth in a nearly circular orbit around a distant sun (relative to the size of the earth) explains all we see and measure to a very high degree of accuracy, very simply and elegantly. Have you considered that as a possibility?

Considered and rejected  I like to feel like I'm special, important and know a truth no one else knows.

Well, OK, then. Say no more... sounds plausible to me.

One of the serious issues of the stars on a flat earth model is this:  Anywhere north of the Equator (but more obvious the nearer one is to the North Pole) the stars in the course of the night circle around the celestial North Pole (= the star Polaris) in counter-clockwise direction.  At the same time, south of the Equator (and more obvious the farther south one goes) the stars circle around the celestial South Pole (there's no equivalent pole star in the South but there is the Southern Cross constellation not far from the celestial South Pole) in a clockwise direction.  In-between, the stars very consistently appear to rise in the East and set in the West. 

This effect is very very easy to explain for a Round Earth, and it's easy to demonstrate with a globe.  But it seems impossible to explain or demonstrate for a Flat Earth. 

Say there is a dome around the flat earth. At the North pole (or centre of the map on a flat earth) the dome relative to the observer on the ground is almost horizontal. Perhaps here, there is no refraction of the light.

The further out you walk from the centre, the greater the angle of the dome relative to the observer on the ground and thus more refraction so seeing things a little differently.

Also we do not know what material or density, if the thickness is uniform or optical properties of the dome is uniform throughout. Just like 2 pairs of glasses, you put one on and then the other, it can have refraction in 2 different directions although to look at the glasses you couldn't tell the difference. I'm not saying its made of glass (stupid with so many meteors around!) It's obviously made of something that allows matter to pass through but either by blocking or repelling back, contains the atmosphere that allows us to breathe.

This is why the 'southern hemisphere' gets to see different stars than the 'northern hemisphere'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with this, as other people have said. Do you have equations or diagrams demonstrating how this would work?

I have considered a semi-permeable dome surrounding the Earth (perhaps something with two different types of dense material, one which does not allow light to pass through and another which does, explaining the spotlight nature of the sun, lunar eclipses and seeing different stars at different locations as you posit) however I came to reject it as there are simply no documented studies or research which indicates such a thing could reasonably be expected to occur.

As to wanting to feel different, I can respect that, but I would ask what leads you to believe that your ideas are more accurate than most other peoples?

On star trails on the Globe, here is one post on " Bad Astronomy  "

Bad Astronomy, The lines in the sky are stars
Gifted astrophotographer Stéphane Guisard . . . . has done it again. He just published this amazing picture of star trails, but it’s not like one you’ve ever seen:

[Click to see a bigger, cleaner pic, and yes, you really want to!]
From: Star Trail from the Equator (Ecuador), "From Southern Pole to Northern Pole",
© Stéphane Guisard, Los Cielos de América

This astonishing picture shows the entire sky from horizon to horizon with the help of a wide angle lens (to help orient you, south is to the left, north to the right, west at the bottom, and east is at the top). It was taken on a volcano called Chimborazo, which is in Ecuador. The volcano has a latitude of 1.5° south, so it sits almost exactly on the Equator . . . . Guisard started the exposure about an hour after sunset, once the sky got dark, and ended 10 hours later, about an hour before sunrise. Because of this, it shows roughly 90% of the entire visible sky!

How this can be:
[First, a note: when I say "entire sky", I mean the whole thing, like you were floating out in deep space and could see in every direction with nothing blocking your way. It would feel like you were in the center of a sphere with the stars surrounding you no matter which way you look. On Earth at any one moment, the most you can see is 1/2 the sky, because the Earth itself blocks your view.]

OK, we need a little geometry lesson. Imagine you are standing on the north pole. As the Earth spins under you, the stars appear to make circles centered directly over your head. Polaris would make a tiny little circle in 24 hours (it’s not exactly on the north celestial pole, the point in the sky directly over the Earth’s north pole, but it’s close), and stars farther from the pole would make bigger circles. At the horizon, the circles would be biggest.

But that’s all you could see. The Earth itself blocks your view of the southern sky, so you can only see half the entire sky. The stars all make circles that are parallel with the horizon, so they never rise nor set. It doesn’t matter what time of night you go out; you see the same stars, just in different positions in the sky. You’ll never see Alpha Centauri or the Southern Cross.

The same is true if you were to stand on the south pole, except this time you can only see the southern sky. The Earth would forever block your view of the Big Dipper, Polaris, and other exclusively northern sights.

Things change if you’re on the Equator. Facing north, you would just see Polaris on the horizon — and actually it would be a bit above the horizon, due to, of all things, our atmosphere. The air of the Earth acts like a lens, bending the path of the light from stars near the horizon. Because of this, Polaris would actually be about two degrees (about 4 times the size of the full Moon) above the horizon. If the Earth had no atmosphere, Polaris would be exactly on the horizon as seen from the Equator.

Turning round and facing south, you’d see the south pole of the sky (marked by the much fainter star Sigma Octans), which would likewise be on the horizon. Facing east, you’d see stars just now rising, and facing west those that are just now setting. If we had no Sun, over the course of 12 hours you’d see every single star in the sky as the Earth rotates beneath you. That’s because any star just setting in the west as you start your observation will be just rising in the east 12 hours later.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

See the rest at: Discover, Science for the Curious.

Say there is a dome around the flat earth. At the North pole (or centre of the map on a flat earth) the dome relative to the observer on the ground is almost horizontal. Perhaps here, there is no refraction of the light.

The further out you walk from the centre, the greater the angle of the dome relative to the observer on the ground and thus more refraction so seeing things a little differently.

Also we do not know what material or density, if the thickness is uniform or optical properties of the dome is uniform throughout. Just like 2 pairs of glasses, you put one on and then the other, it can have refraction in 2 different directions although to look at the glasses you couldn't tell the difference. I'm not saying its made of glass (stupid with so many meteors around!) It's obviously made of something that allows matter to pass through but either by blocking or repelling back, contains the atmosphere that allows us to breathe.

This is why the 'southern hemisphere' gets to see different stars than the 'northern hemisphere'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

How would this explain an observer in Australia, South Africa and South America looking "south" and seeing the same stars if on a flat earth they would be looking in completely opposite directions?

Say there is a dome around the flat earth.

Around? I see what you are trying to do.   

If there is a dome over the flat earth ....  (1) what is it made of?  (2) what height it is above the earth and how far does it extend beyond the edges of the flat surface of the planet?  (3) what is the purpose of this dome (it evidently doesn't protect us from meteorites)?  (4) where are its supports (presumably at the corners of the dome) - where is the bottom of these supports?  (5) what is the age of the dome? (6) does the dome require/get any maintenance or repairs (when/how/by whom is the cosmic dust brushed off, the scratches repaired, the dome Windexed, etc.)?  (7)  who put the dome up there?

I can probably think of other questions if you give me time.  I wonder why we haven't made an effort to send men to explore this dome.

IF the earth was flat.
And IF there was a dome.
And IF there was a horizon.
Where do the stars come from and go to when they rise and set on the horizon ?

If there is a dome over the flat earth ....  (1) what is it made of?  (2) what height it is above the earth and how far does it extend beyond the edges of the flat surface of the planet?  (3) what is the purpose of this dome (it evidently doesn't protect us from meteorites)?  (4) where are its supports (presumably at the corners of the dome) - where is the bottom of these supports?  (5) what is the age of the dome? (6) does the dome require/get any maintenance or repairs (when/how/by whom is the cosmic dust brushed off, the scratches repaired, the dome Windexed, etc.)?  (7)  who put the dome up there?

I can probably think of other questions if you give me time.  I wonder why we haven't made an effort to send men to explore this dome.

I have asked the same questiions but haven't seen any answers. Maybe you will have better luck.

Quote from: Shifter on June 04, 2017, 03:15:26 PM

Say there is a dome around the flat earth.

Around? I see what you are trying to do.   

Damn! Busted. Perhaps the 'dome' is the gaseous atmosphere? Maybe back in the olden days, they didn't have another word in their vocabulary to describe it

IF the earth was flat.
And IF there was a dome.
And IF there was a horizon.
Where do the stars come from and go to when they rise and set on the horizon ?

Well, the Babylonians (and a number of other ancient civilisations)

• Believed that the earth was flat.
• Accepted a sort of "dome", though they called it the celestial sphere and had it rotate about (sort of orbit) their flat earth.
• Accepted that there was a horizon.
• And accepted that the sun, moon, planets and stars rose from and set behind the horizon.

But they was a catch.
      Their flat earth was small and their sun rose from and set into the underworld, Hades.
      Some civilisations, the Chinese, I think, had the sun rising from and setting into the sea.

The Babylonian region was small enough tobe  reasonably called flat.A few might remember Daddy and this is from his opening post:

. . . . . . . .
Now we have a flat Earth fitting all observations. Stars can indeed revolve sideways when seen from anywhere around the Equator, we can predict the sun and moon's positions, etc, as we would obtain something like this:

. . . . . . . .

Imagine the little Globe inside that Celestial Sphere, replaced by the small flat earth of the Babylonian region and you might see a locally flat earth that did indeed explain most of out celestial observations.

This can explain why the Babylonians, even being "flat earth believers", could have laid the basis for much of our astronomical observations.
They are even to blame for the 12's, 60's and 360's we find scattered through our time and angle measurements.
They started out thinking that there we 360 days in the year and did arithmetic to base-60 ( how many fingers and toes did they have?  )

So, maybe someone can explain where why these Neo-Flat-Earthers went so wrong in having the sun, moon, planets and stars circle above their flat earth.

Why did the flat earth work for these ancient people, yet now fails so miserably?

PS: The above is a gross simplification and not necessarily correct in all details.
      It is just meant to convey that a locally flat earth can explain what we observe.

Well, the Babylonians (and a number of other ancient civilisations)

• Believed that the earth was flat.
• Accepted a sort of "dome", though they called it the celestial sphere and had it rotate about (sort of orbit) their flat earth.
• Accepted that there was a horizon.
• And accepted that the sun, moon, planets and stars rose from and set behind the horizon.

But they was a catch.
      Their flat earth was small and their sun rose from and set into the underworld, Hades.

So, maybe someone can explain where why these Neo-Flat-Earthers went so wrong in having the sun, moon, planets and stars circle above their flat earth.

Why did the flat earth work for these ancient people, yet now fails so miserably?

Exactly this.  The ancient flat earthers had no problem with their sun going actually underground in the far-away west (along with moon and stars), crossing beneath the world overnight, and rising up out of the earth or sea in the far-off east because they didn't have any way of knowing that at their local midnight hour, it was noon somewhere else in the world.  They had no way of knowing that if you went far enough west, you would return home from the east.  Now that we DO know these things, the sun must remain above the flat earth at all times and nothing from antiquity will work.

Apart from the questions about the history and make-up of the dome,  nobody is answering the point I made about 10 entries up, about the stars going counterclockwise around the North Pole and going clockwise around the South Pole, and how is this possible with a Flat Earth model.   I believe this is a very significant point and it deserves some attention.

Apart from the questions about the history and make-up of the dome,  nobody is answering the point I made about 10 entries up, about the stars going counterclockwise around the North Pole and going clockwise around the South Pole, and how is this possible with a Flat Earth model.   I believe this is a very significant point and it deserves some attention.

First, it isn't possible on a FE.  But here are 3 typical FE BS answers:
1. Celestial gears/aetheric whirlpools/dome reflection or whatever.  Thats pretty much it, no further explanation.
2. You are mistaken, no one lives south of the equator to see such things... yeah I have seen it.
3.  You are lying / do not know what you are saying / brainwashed. 

Quote from: Cartog on June 17, 2017, 10:58:27 AM

Apart from the questions about the history and make-up of the dome,  nobody is answering the point I made about 10 entries up, about the stars going counterclockwise around the North Pole and going clockwise around the South Pole, and how is this possible with a Flat Earth model.   I believe this is a very significant point and it deserves some attention.

First, it isn't possible on a FE.  But here are 3 typical FE BS answers:
1. Celestial gears/aetheric whirlpools/dome reflection or whatever.  Thats pretty much it, no further explanation.
2. You are mistaken, no one lives south of the equator to see such things... yeah I have seen it

Yes, probably mistaken. But I have wondered what is wrong with my camera as all my photos of the moon turn out upside down.
.

3.  You are lying / do not know what you are saying / brainwashed.

Mikey T. , you seem a bright bloke! Should I
1) Buy new camera, one that doesn't lie to me when I take photos of the moon?
2) Or assume that Google is lying to me to cover up some deep dark secret?

I'd be most appreciative of any help that you can offer.

Thanks in advance,
RABINOZ,  (near) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Rabinoz, I would suspect that, because you are viewing the moon from down under, you are, on a Round Earth, standing upside down in contrast to us civilized people north of the Equator, and therefore you are seeing the Moon upside down from our point of view.  You (and other Aussies and Kiwis) would have the effect ONLY IF THE EARTH IS ROUND.  If the earth were flat, so that everyone's head was upward in the same direction, this effect would not be possible.

So the fact that you see the Moon upside down compared to how someone in the Northern Hemisphere sees it is, itself, strong evidence that the earth is round.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 17, 2017, 11:35:48 AM

Quote from: Cartog on June 17, 2017, 10:58:27 AM

Apart from the questions about the history and make-up of the dome,  nobody is answering the point I made about 10 entries up, about the stars going counterclockwise around the North Pole and going clockwise around the South Pole, and how is this possible with a Flat Earth model.   I believe this is a very significant point and it deserves some attention.

First, it isn't possible on a FE.  But here are 3 typical FE BS answers:
1. Celestial gears/aetheric whirlpools/dome reflection or whatever.  Thats pretty much it, no further explanation.
2. You are mistaken, no one lives south of the equator to see such things... yeah I have seen it

Yes, probably mistaken. But I have wondered what is wrong with my camera as all my photos of the moon turn out upside down.

My photos of the moon turn out like this Just look, it's rotated 180°, summat's up!

But those on the internet look like this.

.

Quote from: Mikey T.

3.  You are lying / do not know what you are saying / brainwashed.

Mikey T. , you seem a bright bloke! Should I
1) Buy new camera, one that doesn't lie to me when I take photos of the moon?
2) Or assume that Google is lying to me to cover up some deep dark secret?

I'd be most appreciative of any help that you can offer.

Thanks in advance,
RABINOZ,  (near) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

I think the problem with your camera is that you and it does not really exist.  I mean, I don't think you are lying, but for FE to be really real, Australia cannot be inhabited.  That does pose a problem for Mick and James who I voicehat regularly with while playing an online game.  They like the competition of the American servers over the Oceanic ones that these imaginary people play on from Australia, so they overlook the ping sometimes.  I will have to ask them in the morning, we have a raid scheduled.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 17, 2017, 05:46:37 PM

I'd be most appreciative of any help that you can offer.

Thanks in advance,
RABINOZ,  (near) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

I think the problem with your camera is that you and it does not really exist.  I mean, I don't think you are lying, but for FE to be really real, Australia cannot be inhabited.  That does pose a problem for Mick and James who I voicehat regularly with while playing an online game.  They like the competition of the American servers over the Oceanic ones that these imaginary people play on from Australia, so they overlook the ping sometimes.  I will have to ask them in the morning, we have a raid scheduled.

Thanks, maybe that explains why I've felt a bit a  not all here  .

BTW If you charge for online consultations, please drop the invoice down the nearest rabbit hole.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 17, 2017, 07:58:26 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 17, 2017, 05:46:37 PM

I'd be most appreciative of any help that you can offer.

Thanks in advance,
RABINOZ,  (near) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

I think the problem with your camera is that you and it does not really exist.  I mean, I don't think you are lying, but for FE to be really real, Australia cannot be inhabited.  That does pose a problem for Mick and James who I voicehat regularly with while playing an online game.  They like the competition of the American servers over the Oceanic ones that these imaginary people play on from Australia, so they overlook the ping sometimes.  I will have to ask them in the morning, we have a raid scheduled.

Thanks, maybe that explains why I've felt a bit a  not all here  .

BTW If you charge for online consultations, please drop the invoice down the nearest rabbit hole.

We will make this first one free of charge sir.  I am also not sure what to charge a no existent being since I really do not know how to use non existent money...   Oh well. Mack didn't make it this morning, as per usual.  I like to think he is out hunting feral kangaroos when he misses our raids, I think he hates me doing that but he plays along in good sport and has some really good comebacks about me meeting up with cousins for romantic interludes because of my heavy Southern drawl.  All good fun, especially since they do not "really" exist and all.

There is no "answer to the stars on a flat earth model".  There is no way to reproduce the effect of the stars rotating around the North Pole and South Pole on a flat earth model.  There is no way to reproduce the effect of people in Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctica seeing the moon upside down compared to how people north of the equator see it.
These effects are possible only on a Round Earth that revolves.  They are not at all possible on a flat earth whether or not it moves.

There is no way to reproduce the effect of people in Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctica seeing the moon upside down compared to how people north of the equator see it.

Ignoring the issues with position, it is possible.

It is summed up quite nicely in this:


The main issue is the direction to it and it not turning.