Southern Cross and Polaris

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

if you want some insight into the (total lack of) expertise of the patron saint of flat earthers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham have a look at:
MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH, Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
You might find it quite " entertaining ".

I was going to quote some totally incorrect claims made by Rowbotham, but gave up because it demonstrates such an ignorance of astronomy, even in the Northern Hemisphere, that I'd have to quote the whole thing.

But here is his summary:

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

For me, living in the Southern Hemispher, this really takes the cake:

For flat earthers to follow the writings of such a self-proclaimed ignoramus is simply demonstrating their own abject ignorance!

I have read some of Rowb's rantings.
But find them wqanting.

I have asked the following several times
And received no response from the FE side.

Can someone in Australia see Polaris?
Can someone in Alaska see the Southern Cross?

We have to start somewhere.
Globe says you can't see Polaris from Australia.
Globe says you can't see Southern Cross from Alaska.

What does FE say?

Lotsa crickets.....

I have read some of Rowb's rantings.
But find them wqanting.

I have asked the following several times
And received no response from the FE side.

Can someone in Australia see Polaris?
Can someone in Alaska see the Southern Cross?

We have to start somewhere.
Globe says you can't see Polaris from Australia.
Globe says you can't see Southern Cross from Alaska.

What does FE say?

If there are some FE's in Australia and Alaska, why don't they just get off their P.C.'s, go outside (on the other side of the windows from where they look out) some dark night and just look up at the stars in the dark sky and report back on what they do see ?
RE's could do this, but the question seems to be asked for answers from FE's ?

I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic.  When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.   

I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic.  When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.   

Answer the freaking question.
Talk to fellow FEs and ask them:

What are your coordinates?
Can you see Polaris?
Can you see the Southern Cross?

If the FE movement is as big as you'd like us to believe
You should be able to get beau coup data.
Do some research, fact finding.

You need to realize some actual flat earthers think believing in a flat earth makes them smarter. It's a spiritual thing. Gotham hasn't answered a question in 10 years. He is just smarter than you because he thinks the earth is flat.

I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic.  When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.   

Not likely when I see how many errors your patron saint makes with his so-called Zeteticism.
He states:

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;

This is completely incorrect as the constellations "the constellations Ursa Major and Ursa Minor" cannot be seen "from every meridian simultaneously" when too close to the equator.
See here for more detail: Flat Earth Debate / Re: seems pretty obvious « Message by rabinoz on November 12, 2016, 05:24:42 PM »

So much for "Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881]"!

Your idol has clay feet!

Honestly, gotham, you should come out of your cave more and really observe the real world - it might surprise you!

Lotsa crickets.....

And this is how you distinguish between trolls and believers. Trolls just avoid something that doesn't match their claims. Believers will engage because they find the cognitive dissonance caused by a hole in their theory to be distressing.
And look how much engagement there is...

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

Generally they just say it's a matter of distance; it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here), assuming the stars shine like spotlights as the Sun is said to. When they get far away, the light from them doesn't reach you and shines down elsewhere.

Quote from: ER22 on December 31, 2017, 01:43:12 PM

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

Generally they just say it's a matter of distance; it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here), assuming the stars shine like spotlights as the Sun is said to. When they get far away, the light from them doesn't reach you and shines down elsewhere.

Which doesn't match observations of being physically obstructed by a horizon, and would also require angular distances between any two given stars to change as they moved across the sky, but hey, when has complete failure to match what is observed ever stopped FET? 

Quote from: ER22 on December 31, 2017, 01:43:12 PM

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

Generally they just say it's a matter of distance; it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here), assuming the stars shine like spotlights as the Sun is said to. When they get far away, the light from them doesn't reach you and shines down elsewhere.

OK, let me make sure I've got this right.
Since it's strictly a function of distance that obstructs the view
Shouldn't a telescope bring it back into view?
Isn't that what telescopes do?

But for fun, let's assume a telescope can't.
That would mean if "distance" obstructing the view is correct
Polaris can't be as far away (Over 400 light years)as the RE model says.

That's cause the tiny difference between 2 places on earth
Would add no meaningful amount to the distance.
So now we are in the land where the sun is 3 to 5 thousand miles over head.
Also close by would have to be the moon and all the stars.

This is where it gets complicated for the FE models.
I say models because it seems no 2 agree.
They all attack the problem from a different direction
And arrive at different answers.

OK, let me make sure I've got this right.
Since it's strictly a function of distance that obstructs the view
Shouldn't a telescope bring it back into view?
Isn't that what telescopes do?

Distance and angle; if you're viewing a spotlight from sideways-on, no amount of telescopes will let you see the light.

I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic.  When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.   

I must say it would be encouraging if FE became less Zetetic and became more realistic and more scientific.
When, and with a very big IF, you FE's  finally decide to become more like RE and become more realistic and scientific , you will understand why we do not just claim, but why we just KNOW that the earth is round , or a globe.

Distance and angle; if you're viewing a spotlight from sideways-on, no amount of telescopes will let you see the light.

How does YOUR "spotlight sun" explain the sun being essentially the same shape near the horizon till finally the bottom is cut off?
And how does YOUR spotlight sun illuminate the clouds from below at sunrise and sunset?Do you or your flat earth mates ever venture outside without dark glasses and really see these things?

Are you suggesting that YOUR spotlight sun has a hole in the side to illuminate the moon and more holes near the top to illuminate the clouds?

And I say YOUR spotlight sun because I have seen no flat earther being quite so inventive with hypotheses such as yours!

Quote from: ER22 on January 01, 2018, 01:52:28 PM

OK, let me make sure I've got this right.
Since it's strictly a function of distance that obstructs the view
Shouldn't a telescope bring it back into view?
Isn't that what telescopes do?

Distance and angle; if you're viewing a spotlight from sideways-on, no amount of telescopes will let you see the light.

Apparently you can't "see the light" either.
To view your spotlight from sideways-on and have it disappear
Wouldn't I have to be at the elevation of said spotlight?

BTW I am familiar with spotlights in the real world.
Although you may be out of the circle of the spotlight you CAN still see it.
Or is this where the magic comes in.
Please do explain this magical spotlight.

Height, size, distance from earth etc would be wonderful to hear about.
Also, how does it direct it's beam so tightly and privately?

Is Polaris a star like our sun?
Or something else?

You can see Polaris from the equator.
Any point on the equator.

Go a few degrees below the equator and Polaris is gone.
Cause the earth gets in the way.

Greetings and happy new year from sunny and warm New Zealand!

if you want some insight into the (total lack of) expertise of the patron saint of flat earthers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham have a look at:
MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH, Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
You might find it quite " entertaining ".

I was going to quote some totally incorrect claims made by Rowbotham, but gave up because it demonstrates such an ignorance of astronomy, even in the Northern Hemisphere, that I'd have to quote the whole thing.

But here is his summary:

Quote

The points of certainty are the following:--

...

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

The night of Dec 30 I was in Castle Rock, on the southeast coast of the North Island (latitude about 41.5° S). That evening soon after dark the southern cross was low in the south and upside down (Acrux was higher than Gacrux), so it's definitely circumpolar at that latitude. Capella (declination +46°) was not visible in the north, but that part of the horizon was obscured by some low hills; it would have been iffy whether it would have been visible at that time at all, though, since it wouldn't be more than a few degrees above the horizon at its culmination. Aldebaran, about 20° closer to the equator than Capella, was low in the NNE sky.

Not a whiff of Polaris, of course, since it would have been some 50° below the horizon.

Presuming rab's summary is accurate (it fits my recollection), it appears that Mr. Rowbotham's speculation about the lack of circumpolar southern constellations is not supported by actual direct observation.

Greetings and happy new year from sunny and warm New Zealand!

Quote from: rabinoz on December 31, 2017, 02:59:29 PM

if you want some insight into the (total lack of) expertise of the patron saint of flat earthers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham have a look at:
MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH, Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
You might find it quite " entertaining ".

I was going to quote some totally incorrect claims made by Rowbotham, but gave up because it demonstrates such an ignorance of astronomy, even in the Northern Hemisphere, that I'd have to quote the whole thing.

But here is his summary:

Quote

The points of certainty are the following:--

...

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

The night of Dec 30 I was in Castle Rock, on the southeast coast of the North Island (latitude about 41.5° S). That evening soon after dark the southern cross was low in the south and upside down (Acrux was higher than Gacrux), so it's definitely circumpolar at that latitude. Capella (declination +46°) was not visible in the north, but that part of the horizon was obscured by some low hills; it would have been iffy whether it would have been visible at that time at all, though, since it wouldn't be more than a few degrees above the horizon at its culmination. Aldebaran, about 20° closer to the equator than Capella, was low in the NNE sky.

Not a whiff of Polaris, of course, since it would have been some 50° below the horizon.

Presuming rab's summary is accurate (it fits my recollection), it appears that Mr. Rowbotham's speculation about the lack of circumpolar southern constellations is not supported by actual direct observation.

Thanks A2O,
This is what I don't understand
With the internet, face book etc.
The FEs do not contact each other and say
Where you at?
What do you see?

Rather than, this is the way it is
Let's make some shit up to make it fit.

How does YOUR "spotlight sun"
And I say YOUR spotlight sun because I have seen no flat earther being quite so inventive with hypotheses such as yours!

it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)

Also, not my problem you refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says. A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.

Apparently you can't "see the light" either.
To view your spotlight from sideways-on and have it disappear
Wouldn't I have to be at the elevation of said spotlight?
Height, size, distance from earth etc would be wonderful to hear about.

Depends on the exact shape of the rim of the light, if you want to view it as a literal spotlight. So long as the horizontal distance is large in comparison to the vertical, with the edges of the spotlight's light taken into account, it would pretty much vanish.
All it is, is light coming from one face of an object rather than all around, it's not too bizarre.

Sure, exact figures would be great. How would you suggest calculating them?

BTW I am familiar with spotlights in the real world.
Although you may be out of the circle of the spotlight you CAN still see it.
Also, how does it direct it's beam so tightly and privately?

I don't think there's any consensus between models. There are multiple explanations.
As far as not being able to see the spotlight's light, that much ought to be simple. Whatever light there is would be a hell of a lot fainter than light directly from the face of the star; best case scenario you'd see a faint glimmer if the sky was perfectly dark. But even beyond that's only even theoretically viewable in less developed locations without electric lights everywhere etc, and how the visible stars would still more than likely overpower it, where and what would you expect to see a ghost of a glow with basically zero height right on the horizon?

This is admittedly off-topic, fiction, but possibly remotely related to Titanic, astronomy and  and "Southern Cross  and Polaris ".
Would it have been possible to see Aldebaran in the Northern Hemisphere from Titanic  ?

In the movie "Titanic"(1953) a somewhat inebriated and de-frocked Priest , George Healey (Richard Basehart) is seen leaning over the railing looking at the stars.
He remarks "Answer up for roll call......Aldebaran, you lonely star...."
Would it have been possible to have seen Aldebaran from Titanic at that time of the year ?
(Setting was possibly intended to be the night of April 12-1 3 (?), 1912). ?
Titanic is nearing the collision point in the North Atlantic....perhaps a night or two before. 

Or is this just a bit of fiction ?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 01, 2018, 04:16:17 PM

How does YOUR "spotlight sun"
<< You mislaid a bit, here I found it for you! >>
explain the sun being essentially the same shape near the horizon till finally the bottom is cut off?

Sun near setting at Weipa

Sunset at Weipa

And how does YOUR spotlight sun illuminate the clouds from below at sunrise and sunset?

Clouds lit on the underside before sunrise

Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise

Clouds lit from underneath near Toogoolawah at Sunset

Do you or your flat earth mates ever venture outside without dark glasses and really see these things?

Are you suggesting that YOUR spotlight sun has a hole in the side to illuminate the moon and more holes near the top to illuminate the clouds?
<< >>
And I say YOUR spotlight sun because I have seen no flat earther being quite so inventive with hypotheses such as yours!

Quote from: Jane on January 01, 2018, 11:37:34 AM

it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)

Also, not my problem you refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says. A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.

I do not "refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says"!
I have read most of ENaG, the Wiki and most threads on sunrises and sunsets and have yet to see an explanation this even vaguely feasible.

So since you are claiming that your magic spotlight does all these things, I asked YOU to explain it.
YOU explain how your spotlight sun can look perfectly round until it appears to touch the ocean, when the lower part starts to disappear first.

YOU explain how your spotlight sun can have rays shining upward illuminating the underside of clouds even when the sun is still hidden.

Of course in another thread, jroa is claiming that people in the Northern Hemisphere can't see Crux, not because it is a "spotlight star", but because you can't see an infinite distance through dense air.

Funny how you flat earthers speak with many forked tongue.

There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects.  As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go.  For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole.  Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above.  That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot.  This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well. 

From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.

I do not "refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says"!

it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)

A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.

Clearly.

There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects.  As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go.  For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole.  Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above.  That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot.  This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well. 

From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.

Yep, that's a pretty decent argument. You can get good long exposures of star trails taken at the equator for evidence too, showing stars rotating around two points in the sky.
Most FE models don't really deal with it. The ones that do are bipolar models; the ice-wall-esque FE models are the most common by far, but there are a few others that act differently and have each pole existing as distinct locations. DET and the non-Euclidean models seem to be the most discussed on this site, but there's also a few other more typical models which do little more than alter the map. (And I'm saying that with the full knowledge Rab will likely use them to try and drag the subject away from any clear discussion).

There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects.  As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go.  For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole.  Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above.  That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot.  This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well. 

From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.

So you are claiming that a person standing in Sydney at night and someone else at Johannesburg at night can look and see the exact same constellations at the same time and day each year?

I think you are wrong.

Not only that, I think they might need to look different directions to match things up to a so called celestial pole...

Quote from: Gumwars on January 02, 2018, 01:29:52 AM

There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects.  As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go.  For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole.  Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above.  That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot.  This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well. 

From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.

So you are claiming that a person standing in Sydney at night and someone else at Johannesburg at night can look and see the exact same constellations at the same time and day each year?

I think you are wrong.

Not only that, I think they might need to look different directions to match things up to a so called celestial pole...

Select date, night without clouds.
Sydney observer at Sydney midnight sees the same night sky image as Johannesburg observer at Johannesburg midnight.
It will change as the months go by.

But longitude difference between Sydney and Johannesburg is nearly 120 degrees, solar midnights are about 8 hours.
At certain moment T Sydney 4am is Johannesburg 8pm. At that moment they both can see Sigma Octantis and nearby stars in the same direction: south.
For stars close to celestial equator to be seen simultaneously at the moment T it is normal for Sydney observer to look 60 degrees to the west and Johannesburg observer 60 degrees to the east.

As you can see, you are partly right, which fits very well into globe model.

Depends on the exact shape of the rim of the light, if you want to view it as a literal spotlight. So long as the horizontal distance is large in comparison to the vertical, with the edges of the spotlight's light taken into account, it would pretty much vanish.

That isn't true at all.  Light reflects off of ALL objects (otherwise they would be invisible..see: really clean glass).  You would still see light if you were outside of the "edge of the spotlight".  The light would not vanish to people in the dark...they would literally see a beam of light in the distance as well as other illuminated objects around the beam of light up to a distance in relation to the brightness of the light.  When you observe the sun, it is pretty clear that it isn't a spotlight.

That isn't true at all.  Light reflects off of ALL objects (otherwise they would be invisible..see: really clean glass).  You would still see light if you were outside of the "edge of the spotlight". 

You still need a line from the light source to the viewer, or from some object reflecting said light. When the Sun's far enough away it looks like it touches the horizon, and you're not getting any direct light from it, that severely limits your options.
Sure, there are some issues with it, but...

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.   

Quote from: ER22 on December 31, 2017, 01:43:12 PM

It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?

2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.

I have another problem.
If the earth was flat, would we have a horizon as we see it on the earth* ? (The globe, that is *)
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how far would it appear to be from the observer as we see it on the earth ? *
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, would the height of the observer affect how far away it appears to be  ? *
The horizon is defined as the line where  sky and land (or sea) appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth *
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth,  explain how  this would be if the earth was  flat ?

A little explanation of this "spotlight sun" would also be helpful.
Could it be a disc , too ?
If only the bottom was lighted, it would shine only downward , and then only in a circular shape ?
Or is there some kind of a something like a cylindrical lampshade with some kind of a lens to make the sun shine only downward in a
circle ?
In that case, wouldn't you see just the beam of light get smaller and fade away instead of the whole sun ?

Historical note on previous post, thanks to some research by a person on another website.:
The star Aldebaran could have possibly been seen from the decks of the Titanic on the nights of the 11th or the 12th of April , 1912 .
But possibly  not on the nights of the 13th or (the 14th, the night  of the sinking.)