my biggest problem with the FE

Please, can someone explain the southern sky problem to me? 
First Let me summarize my position:  I may be incorrect as to the causes for some things, but I at least have an idea that could possibly work in place of what we are told to believe by science and mathematics.  Once I started looking into the math formulas that are used to back up the RE claims and found pretty much all of them contain either constants and/or structure of the formulas that are explained to me as "that's what it is".  No real explanation about where that constant comes from or why this equals that.  The more complex formulas can be simplified down piecemeal until you get to these basics.  If these basics are incorrect then everything derived from them may be incorrect.  Who decided these basics?  This is why I continue to question. 
Second, my question:   I have a friend who seems to humor my questions without treating me like an idiot when we discuss my questions about the standard story of a round Earth.  We challenge each other with coming up with answers using our respective models (his is round, mine is flat) of the Earth.  His question last week has me stumped.  We both took a trip to Australia recently.  We were reviewing photo's of the trip when he asked me how the stars in Australia rotated around a different point and it was to the South.  It also rotated the opposite way around that point.  I have tried thinking of it as a mirrored effect, but the stars do not line up and it still won't work if I am to trust the words of people in South Africa and South America.  So I am in need of help to formulate a response to him. 

I am from Australia and when I look at the stars I don't see them rotating at all. They look pretty still. I think your friend is having you on about 'rotating stars'

Please, can someone explain the southern sky problem to me?

 
Provides another great reason to believe there is a 'south pole'.

It also rotated the opposite way around that point.

Incorrect, both the southern and northern stars appear to move in the same direction from our standpoint on Earth, both east to west. One rotates counterclockwise and the other clockwise since we are looking at them in different directions.

I have tried thinking of it as a mirrored effect, but the stars do not line up and it still won't work if I am to trust the words of people in South Africa and South America.

I have heard this explanation before, could you explain how you came to this conclusion? I would like to hear your reasoning.

You've hit the great conundrum of FE; how to explain the south celestial pole. 

Quote from: Realdeal on September 18, 2017, 08:29:44 AM

Please, can someone explain the southern sky problem to me?

 
Provides another great reason to believe there is a 'south pole'.

Quote

It also rotated the opposite way around that point.

Incorrect, both the southern and northern stars appear to move in the same direction from our standpoint on Earth, both east to west. One rotates counterclockwise and the other clockwise since we are looking at them in different directions.

Quote

I have tried thinking of it as a mirrored effect, but the stars do not line up and it still won't work if I am to trust the words of people in South Africa and South America.

I have heard this explanation before, could you explain how you came to this conclusion? I would like to hear your reasoning.

First, Why call what I stated as incorrect then restate pretty much the same thing I said.  You could have said it was for clarification, but the point is moot.
The reason the mirror doesn't work from what I saw personally and what I can examine in photos which agree with what I saw is the stars themselves do not match up with any reflection of the Northern stars.  When looking at time-lapsed video of the Southern sky, the point at which the stars rotate is much different than the one to the North.  Now, my eyes don't do time-lapsed videos but I did watch the sky long enough to notice the stars move overhead.  And enough to notice the direction they moved.  These are things I cannot find a proper explanation for.  I need something that he will not destroy very easily.  Much of the contents of my wallet will be used on beer to go into his belly if I cannot find a suitable answer that cannot be shown to be impossible.  If the answer is not impossible, I win.  I have until Friday to give him my explanation.

First, Why call what I stated as incorrect then restate pretty much the same thing I said.  You could have said it was for clarification, but the point is moot.

Because you claimed they rotate in the opposite direction, but they don't, so I corrected it.

The reason the mirror doesn't work from what I saw personally and what I can examine in photos which agree with what I saw is the stars themselves do not match up with any reflection of the Northern stars.  When looking at time-lapsed video of the Southern sky, the point at which the stars rotate is much different than the one to the North.  Now, my eyes don't do time-lapsed videos but I did watch the sky long enough to notice the stars move overhead.  And enough to notice the direction they moved.  These are things I cannot find a proper explanation for.  I need something that he will not destroy very easily.  Much of the contents of my wallet will be used on beer to go into his belly if I cannot find a suitable answer that cannot be shown to be impossible.  If the answer is not impossible, I win.  I have until Friday to give him my explanation.

It is therefore apparent that you are defending the south ice rim idea.
The reflection idea I heard of states that there is an star astroplate that rotates around the Polaris barycenter point, and there are two separate sides, the bottom side is visible as the northern stars. The top side reflects off of the firmament dome like a concave mirror, and so is visible as a reflection in the south. It is visible at all places due south since it reflects all around.
A basic illustration:
Otherwise, there isn't much basic explanation considering that it is supposed a south pole exists just like a north pole.

Thank you for the responses so far.  I still do not have anything that I feel confident use for defense of this yet. 

I will say, it seems very odd to me that on a site, that professes to be FE, that no one supporting FE will give me help in a supporting an argument against the FE model.
I can't just say that the South Pole is the center of the FE, because, first I do not support that, and second then the question switches to How the Stars move around the North pole.  I need an answer that matches those realities at the same time.  Sorry I am frustrated with this.   The only people that seem to answer me are mainly people either arguing against my point, I am asking for supporting arguments in Q&A here, or give me something pretty vague that really doesn't help.  I am not complaining about the people who have answered, thank you for taking the time to try to help me, I am chastising the ones who sit back and say nothing when they should have some answer to this question if they truly support a FE as ardently as they claim.  I claim to be unsure, and I am.

I am questioning, I have to try to ignore everything I have learned and some things I currently use in my field of work as far as physics and math to get to the point that I could look at FE with as open a mind as I could muster.  I feel I did a pretty good job with it, there were some pretty good reasons for letting go of my trust of certain aspects of math and physics.  I do not suggest alternatives to the RE models on a whim.  I actually try to find what would be possible with a FE model and test that hypothesis. 

With that being said, I will just accept my defeat, buy the damn beer.

With that being said, I will just accept my defeat, buy the damn beer.

You will do no such thing!

Consider this
You would have trouble distinguishing an object a few km away - some people cant even see more than a few feet away without glasses. Yet they expect us to believe we can see objects (stars) that are many trillions upon trillions of km away? I propose that they are not what they tell us.

It's plausible the dots of light we see are just projections from outside the dome cast onto it.

For those that don't believe in a dome consider the following picture


The Earth may be standing still (relatively speaking) but if the origin of the dots of light were close enough to the outside of the dome, they could move around and spin in any fashion you like and observers on the 'North pole' or centre would be seeing differently to those on the 'South pole' or outer rim

I think your friend owes you a beer

Thank you for the responses so far.  I still do not have anything that I feel confident use for defense of this yet. 

I will say, it seems very odd to me that on a site, that professes to be FE, that no one supporting FE will give me help in a supporting an argument against the FE model.
I can't just say that the South Pole is the center of the FE, because, first I do not support that, and second then the question switches to How the Stars move around the North pole.  I need an answer that matches those realities at the same time.  Sorry I am frustrated with this.   The only people that seem to answer me are mainly people either arguing against my point, I am asking for supporting arguments in Q&A here, or give me something pretty vague that really doesn't help.  I am not complaining about the people who have answered, thank you for taking the time to try to help me, I am chastising the ones who sit back and say nothing when they should have some answer to this question if they truly support a FE as ardently as they claim.  I claim to be unsure, and I am.

I am questioning, I have to try to ignore everything I have learned and some things I currently use in my field of work as far as physics and math to get to the point that I could look at FE with as open a mind as I could muster.  I feel I did a pretty good job with it, there were some pretty good reasons for letting go of my trust of certain aspects of math and physics.  I do not suggest alternatives to the RE models on a whim.  I actually try to find what would be possible with a FE model and test that hypothesis. 

With that being said, I will just accept my defeat, buy the damn beer.

It is hard to defend an idea that simply doesn't add up to observation. Sigma Octantis alone strongly suggests that there is a south pole.
The firmament reflection hypothesis is probably the best you'll get. There is also the anti-crepuscular ray perspective idea, but it is filled with many flaws too.
Otherwise, there is the basic notion that there is a south and north pole that you could consider.