Science deals in the falsifiable. However, what you have just done is basically give me something I have no way of proving, short of spending money I don't have in gas/planes and passports to look at a sky that you say is there.
Firstly, falsifiability is about disproving, not proving.
But more importantly, you not being able to do something without spending a lot of money doesn't mean it isn't falsifiable.
Plenty of people have lived or visited the southern hemisphere and made these observations.
If you want to reject so many observations because you can't verify them, then that just means you are choosing to be wilfully ignorant of reality.
This means you have nothing to show Earth isn't round.
You're right, you probably would destroy me, because I'd be making up stuff. I'm leaving it to this guy.
You mean a known conman who is quite happy to spout whatever lies they can to try and pretend a FE works, while ignoring massive issues?
And the first comment that appears on the video is great:
How does this explain how someone in Chile and someone in Australia can both look south and see the same thing at the same time since on a flat earth their “souths” are pointing in completely opposite directions?
So how about instead of just linking to a useless video, tell us what timestamp in that video it explains how everyone looking due south sees the same point due south.
(Interesting how my parabola of perceptionTM is still a thing)
It's not a real thing. It is a pathetic excuse made by FEers to pretend their model works, but it still fails entirely.
What I can say is that the night sky in the northern hemisphere would a lot different in a true globe.
You can say all sorts of BS, that doesn't make it true.
You already tried this BS in another thread and had it refuted.
The sky we observe in reality matches that expected for a globe.
The sky we observe in reality does not match that observed for a FE.
And yet again, due to your complete inability to defend your delusional model, you just resort to lying about the RE.
Just like your high priest Eric Dubay, who in a video to try and describe how the southern stars work, instead of explaining how the southern stars work he attacks the RE model.
So let me ask you this. Why can't you see a different sky in the eastern and western hemisphere?
What was wrong with the first time it was answered?
Why do you insist on bringing up the same refuted BS to try and pretend there is a problem with a RE, when you have already been provided with an explanation that shows there is no problem.
Earth is not magically fixed in place. It rotates.
This means that if you pick a given latitude, then everyone at that latitude will see roughly the same sky over the course of a sidereal day, with the main things that appear different being those close to Earth, i.e. the moon and sun and planets.
For example, if you consider someone in New York, watching the night sky, roughly 12 hours later, someone in northern China (near Bayannur) will be seeing the same night sky.
If you want to boldly claim that it should be different, you need to explain why, including accounting for the rotation.
The only difference in the sky is that they can see different parts at different time, with everyone seeing just over a hemisphere of the sky (assuming no mountains).
This also explains why it would be night in New York and day in Bayannur (depending on the time of year).
Even accounting for rotating, you have all these other factors like tilt and precession and eccentricity
You mean things which are observed?
Axial tilt accounts for the seasons quite well.
Eccentricity accounts for why the time between equinoxes is different.
The effect of both can be observed through the analemma.
Precession takes a lot more time, but explains why the north pole star has changed over time.
You have no chance of observing that yourself given the relatively short human life span compared to the time it takes to complete a full precession.
But by looking at historical documents we can tell that the north pole star has changed.
And more importantly, if the Earth really orbited the sun, how can we have a star chart at all?
Distance.
Yet again this is an example of FEer dishonesty, spouting pure nonsense to make those desperate to think there is a problem with the RE feel justified, while not thinking about it at all.
In the RE model, excluding the sun, the closest star is roughly 4 light years away. That is roughly 38 Pm. (38 trillion km).
That is so far it isn't funny.
And here you are claiming that moving a mere 300 Gm (300 million km) should cause a massive change in how the constellations appear.
That is a change of roughly 1 part in 125 000.
To get an idea of just what that is like, assuming your eyes are 5 cm apart, then that is equivalent to looking at an object over 6 km away, first through your left eye, and then through your right eye.
You aren't going to see any significant difference. You need highly accurate measuring devices to measure that.
Yet you do whatever you can to reject that such a thing should occur in your FE fantasy, and want to pretend it should be fine for the constellations to look exactly the same.
This includes constellations that can be observed near the celestial equator, and thus observed all over Earth, including by people roughly 20 000 km apart at the same time.
Yet FEers commonly claim that the sky is a mere 5000 km above us. That is a chance in distance of 1 part in 0.25
This shows the extreme dishonesty and double standard of FEers.
So for FEers, a change in position of 4 times the distance to the object should cause no apparent change.
But a much smaller relative change of 1 part in 125 000 should now magically cause a change?
If you think this is an issue for the RE, it is a massive problem for the FE (At least 500 000 times as large a problem), and would completely destroy the FE model (as it does).
For a RE, that change in apparent position of the star is tiny.
This is known as stellar parallax. It is measured, and can be used to calculate the distance to "nearby" stars, e.g. stars in our own galaxy.
But even for the closest star (excluding sol), it is less than 1 arc second.
The only star that there is a significant affect on is Sol, and the effect on it can be observed with the naked eye, as shown by different stars being visible at night at different times of the year.
this whole system is spiraling the galaxy.
No it isn't.
It is orbiting the galactic centre in a more up and down motion. The "spiral" is really a helix, and it is describing the path of Earth through the galaxy.
It would wind up being a seasonal and yearly and century thing
Why?
You have pulled periods out of no where.
Firstly, there are yearly variations in the stars we can see at night, as Earth is pointing in a different direction at night throughout the year.
But the cycle for the orbit of the sun is not 1 year, or a century, it is around 200 million years.
And yes, that will actually be a cycle, but it will take 200 million years to complete.
You have no chance at all of seeing all that by yourself, and will need to rely upon the historical record.
But the other important thing to note is that the other stars are moving as well.
Again, showing you can easily produce a crappy fake doesn't magically mean everything is fake.
If you want to go down that path of claiming everything is fake, then you being here is entirely pointless as you will never accept anything that shows you are wrong.
Actually, it does.
No, it doesn't.
You being able to produce a fake does not mean everything is a fake.
That is like saying because a dog can pee on the ground, any time the ground is wet, it is because a dog peed on it.
It is pure nonsense.
The best you could do is show it could be a fake, not that it is fake.
And like I said, if you are doing that, then you asking anyone for evidence is pointless, as you will just dismiss it as fake if it shows you are wrong.
Here's an urbanism map.
Urbanisation is not the same as technological progress.
It is possible for rural societies to have lots of technology.
It is possible for urban societies to have very little technology.
This, in addition to low population means that we basically don't have their information. We have reports of the constellations and drawings and pictures, but this isn't verified by most of the world.
No, that is just yet another pathetic excuse by FEers to dismiss evidence that shows they are wrong.
Of these, how many are likely to be involved in astronomy? Even less. How many are going to present accurate pictures for the rest of us involving the entire night sky.
And how many do you actually need to get the data? Very few, not even a thousand.
And you can't forget about people visiting there.
For example, a long time ago, James Cook went sailing to the south to observe the transit of Venus.
He didn't live in the southern hemisphere, he just went on a voyage to observe the sky from a point in the southern hemisphere.
So let's move on. Nvm all that, answer this question instead.
Or, how about you address the issues with the OP or otherwise try to defend your FE fantasy or admit you have absolutely no basis for thinking Earth is flat?
Here they are again:
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink (while other objects do)?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?