Where is Sigma Octantis if the Earth is flat?

• Sigma Octantis is currently the closest thing we have to a southern pole star.  It is also known as Polaris Australis.
• It is viewable by anyone in the southern hemisphere by simply looking southwards.
• It is not viewable by most people in the northern hemisphere no matter which direction they look.

These are three observable facts.  Now consider the following placement for Sigma Octantis.  It is one of many possible placements.



All of the following must be observably true in order for the Earth to be flat:

• A person at blue will always be able to see the star by looking south.  This is true on a flat Earth.
• A person at red should sometimes be able to see the star by looking south.  This is true on a flat Earth.
• A person at yellow should sometimes be able to see the star by looking north past the north pole.  This is untrue on a flat Earth.
• A person at green should always be able to see the star by looking north.  This is untrue on a flat Earth.

And if the problem is distance, then consider that a person at green can ALWAYS see the star in reality despite being further away from yellow who can NEVER see the star in reality.  This all begs the question.  Where is Sigma Octantis on a flat Earth? 

They dont believe stars are what we think stars are.

They dont believe stars are what we think stars are.

True enough. But whatever they are, there needs to be an astonishing explanation why it can be seen due south from wherever you are in the Southern Hemisphere; often simultaneously. And scientific evidence to back it up.

I would say a logical conclusion could be that everyone at those locations would be seeing a different star and we only think we're all looking at the same star.  Unfortunately, given some coordination across multiple locations, it should be fairly easy to determine that, yes, that is the same star we're all looking at to the south in the southern hemisphere. 

Others believe south of the eqautor doesnt actually exist and is made up to fool everyone.

Others believe south of the eqautor doesnt actually exist and is made up to fool everyone.

I've never heard any flat Earther even remotely hint at this.  Have any video or article? 

I'm not so much interested in "smashing" the flat Earth theory as I am curious as to how a flat Earther - a true flat Earther - would explain this.

There once was a above dweller (upper forum) named rab who claimed to live in australia.
But he got too fiesty and was banished to the underworld (lower forums).

I've never heard any flat Earther even remotely hint at this.  Have any video or article? 

I'm not so much interested in "smashing" the flat Earth theory as I am curious as to how a flat Earther - a true flat Earther - would explain this.

The true flat earthers avoid this problem like the plague.  The more notable responses that I recall are Danang's reversing the issue (the south pole is in the middle and the north pole is where the ice wall is).  The others will not directly address this issue other than to say you can't prove it.  And by prove it, they mean proving the paradox of Sigma Octantis.  Like you need more than one person in the southern hemisphere, at night, looking south at the southern polar star and saying they both see it due south of them.  I know, that sounds nuts but hey, we have found ourselves in this remote corner of the internet, discussing, of all things, how to prove the Earth isn't flat.  Like that is actually something that needs proving...

Do a Google search for "flat earth southern star rotation". You are responsible for researching your opponent's position.

Do a Google search for "flat earth southern star rotation". You are responsible for researching your opponent's position.

We're not talking 'star rotation', we're talking how one can observe sigma octantis on a flat earth from multiple southern hemisphere locations. On a flat earth, AE north pole centered model, you can't. However, on a globe earth you can and it is observably shown to be so. In other words, the globe model matches reality, the flat model does not.

Do a Google search for "flat earth southern star rotation". You are responsible for researching your opponent's position.

Well you are an established Flat Earth Believer. Why not just answer his question?

Do a Google search for "flat earth southern star rotation". You are responsible for researching your opponent's position.

That is not even remotely my question.  The issue is the location of this one particular star.  Sigma Octantis doesn't really move much in the sky anyways like other stars do. That's the point of selecting this specific star.  Let's focus on one topic at a time, shall we?

Sigma Octantis is only magnitude 5.5.  That's pretty faint for naked-eye observation, and I reckon plenty of Southern hemisphere residents have never seen it - even if they know where to look!  So perhaps if there are any FE'ers south of the equator, they probably aren't that bothered anyway.

What they should be bothered about - if they go to somewhere in the Southern hemisphere but not too far from the equator (e.g. Peru) and look north, they may see the Plough but upside down, with the two 'pointers' leading to a point below the horizon.  Answer me that!  Where's Polaris? 

Do a Google search for "flat earth southern star rotation". You are responsible for researching your opponent's position.

While one could say a side in a debate has some responsibility for researching their opponents position, they have no burden to provide arguments for their opposition.
The person claiming Earth is flat needs to provide it.
Also, a common tactic with those with no answers is to tell people to search for the answers which they claim already exist.

If it is so simple, it should be easy for you to provide the answers.

The south celestial pole (and its corresponding star) show there must be a south pole.
This cannot be a point out in wildly different directions.
It shows that if you go due south on Earth, it needs to converge to a point (or be a cylinder).

This shows that the north pole centred AEP presented as the common FE map, cannot be a true map of a flat Earth.

You could switch to a south pole centred one, but that just shifts the problem to the north with the north pole star.

You could switch to one centred on the equator to get a bipolar one, but that just shifts the problem to the equator with the sun on the equinox.

The only actual solution to the problem (rather than just pushing the problem around) is to make Earth into a roughly spherical, cylindrical or bi-conical shape.

If you think there is another solution, feel free to present it, clearly explaining why a point can be observed looking outwards, in completely different directions.

Do a Google search for "flat earth southern star rotation". You are responsible for researching your opponent's position.

Is every FE proponent as dense as you are?  The question has nothing to do with rotation, star trails, or how stars south of the equator move through the night sky.  It has to do with Sigma Octantis's location in the night sky relative to multiple observers in the southern hemisphere looking due south.  Its a problem that you, John Davis, or any other FE cultist has not been successful at figuring out.

All of that is addressed, if you only expend minimal effort to search and find where the models are described. 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=flat+earth+southern+star+rotation

All of that is addressed, if you only expend minimal effort to search and find where the models are described. 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=flat+earth+southern+star+rotation

If your model cant be modeled then why are you harping in another thread about 3body math?

Here's Tom's answer then, which is the same as having no answer. 

Q. How can two people on opposite sides of the earth in Australia and South Ameirca both see the same South Pole Stars simultaneously?
A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Sigma  Octantis is in fact visible at the
same time from Australia and South America for a few days each year, or from South America and South Africa. Another FE fail.

All of that is addressed, if you only expend minimal effort to search and find where the models are described. 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=flat+earth+southern+star+rotation

I did google it and none of it explains why observers looking south in the southern hemisphere can see sigma octantis on a globe but not all observers on a flat earth can. This is the OP question, nothing about star rotation.

Why not address the OP rather than going off topic?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2019, 03:42:24 PM

All of that is addressed, if you only expend minimal effort to search and find where the models are described. 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=flat+earth+southern+star+rotation

I did google it and none of it explains why observers looking south in the southern hemisphere can see sigma octantis on a globe but not all observers on a flat earth can. This is the OP question, nothing about star rotation.

Why not address the OP rather than going off topic?

That's funny. I found the explanation in the first link of that search. Sounds like you need to look harder.

All of that is addressed, if you only expend minimal effort to search and find where the models are described. 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=flat+earth+southern+star+rotation

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

So, I'll repeat it again as your cognitive faculties appear to be defective:

Explain the paradoxical location of Sigma Octantis if the world was flat.  Why, in the real world, viewers in South America and Australia are able to both look due south and see Crux but if we observe the Gleason map, we find that each viewer is looking in different directions? 

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:23:16 PM

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

How does it work for when both SA and Africa are in darkness:



Versus

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:23:16 PM

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you mental?  This answer (first link, fourth SENTENCE, as there is only one paragraph on the page):

A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Does not address the problem, not even remotely.  Care to try again?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2019, 04:24:40 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:23:16 PM

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you mental?  This answer (first link, fourth SENTENCE, as there is only one paragraph on the page):

A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Does not address the problem, not even remotely.  Care to try again?

What you quoted shows your error. It is an error to think that people at different times of the day can see the same stars simultaneously.

This response on Quora explains the issue very well, with diagrams:

https://www.quora.com/How-does-Flat-Earth-theory-account-for-the-Southern-Cross

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2019, 04:24:40 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:23:16 PM

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

How does it work for when both SA and Africa are in darkness:



Versus

The explanation says that a wide range of stars is squished into a small area. Why can't those locations see the same stars at the same time?

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:29:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2019, 04:24:40 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:23:16 PM

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you mental?  This answer (first link, fourth SENTENCE, as there is only one paragraph on the page):

A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Does not address the problem, not even remotely.  Care to try again?

What you quoted shows your error. It is an error to think that people at different times of the day can see the same stars simultaneously.

I'm afraid it shows your ignorance or delusion, not my error Mr. Bishop.  If this is the extent of FE rebutting the paradox of Sigma Octantis, you might as well hang it up.  Your response is that they can't see it at the same time, as if the oceans are devoid of sailors, and there is never a point in time where more than one landmass is night long enough to see the same constellation.  If that is truly your answer, then you are an idiot.

I've noted that you rarely, if ever, respond with more than a single sentence.  Why is that, I wonder?  An individual that claims such intellectual prowess surely is capable of formulating a reply beyond "go google it", am I right?  No, you've fooled no one.  The fact that you've chosen this particular hill to die on merely confirms what most already know about you. 

Ignorant.  Deluded.  Lost.  or just a plain old liar. 

All of that is addressed, if you only expend minimal effort to search and find where the models are described.

Again, if it was so easily addressed, you would provide it here, rather than just avoiding providing the explanations and instead appealing to their existence.

I have expended plenty of effort to find an answer and found none. I have found plenty of distractions, but no answers.

So why do you expend the minimal effort and provide an explanation?

That's funny. I found the explanation in the first link of that search. Sounds like you need to look harder.

That's funny. I found a complete avoidance of the issue where it claims that they aren't actually seeing the same stars, appealing to people 12 hours apart, ignoring the fact that during winter, they can see the south celestial pole at the same time.

It also ignores the fact that it isn't just these 2 extremes.
You can have 2 people separated by 2 minutes seeing the same south celestial pole, and then another 2 minutes, and another and another and so on.

If they were separate stars, people would not only see it due south. Instead it would also be seen east or west of due south, and some people would see 2 of them. (In fact, with the stars just being in a plane well above us, everyone should be able to see them all.)

So do you actually have an answer, or just avoidance of the issue?

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:29:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2019, 04:24:40 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 04:23:16 PM

Did you even bother to actually look at what your search yields?  I'm guessing if you did, you'd see that the problem presented IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ON THE PAGE.

Actually, it is. First link, fourth paragraph in.

Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you mental?  This answer (first link, fourth SENTENCE, as there is only one paragraph on the page):

A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Does not address the problem, not even remotely.  Care to try again?

What you quoted shows your error. It is an error to think that people at different times of the day can see the same stars simultaneously.

So... visualize that: The star doesn't move. It remains due South from dusk til dawn. All other stars rotate around it. Then, as soon as the Sun Rises, it zips thousands of miles around to get ready for the next light show in another continent??? Seriously??? Do you honestly think nobody has ever been on a boat in the South Pacific at night??? 

Edit: What about two people only a hundred miles apart on the same continent? They are both looking at two different due Souths and still seeing the same stars.