True/False proof of who is wrong: RE vs FE

Got a very simple proof of who is going to be wrong.   This proof doesn't say if one is right but will merely exclude 1 model of the earth.  This proof uses something widely reconised and easily seen by the naked eye.  This test is repeatable and can be done by anyone.

Have a look at the southern cross.  Its orientation is on the Australian flag.  What is important is the orientation of the stars.  Using the stars themselves and pair nearby (toliman) you can calculate south.
You could take a picture with your own camera if you liked for future reference.

Now imagine your in South Africa.  This should put you on the other side of the southern hemisphere.  The southern cross in this country will determine who is right when you face south:

FE:  The calculation of south must be reversed

RE: The calculation of south will remain unchanged.

There is only 1 possibility.  Only 1 can exist.  It doesn't prove anything being correct, but it does make 1 model impossible.

More info on the Southern Cross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_cross

Edit: Trying to less confuse people and a slight correction of facts.  I had the right heart, slightly off idea on how it worked :S

What are you talking about? According to the RE model, the cross rotates as night passes, so it has no right side to be up - it's orientation is constantly changing, and reverses every 11 hours, 58 minutes.

Skeptical beat me to it. Can you have a look at my version of the Southern Cross (linked in my sig), Skeptical?

I'll have to make sure it's clear that it's taken from the one position.

Ok i'm going to reword the proof as it must be confusing people.  You can use the southern cross to navigate south.  This would have to be reversed completely in South Africa in the FE world but not reversed in the RE world.  It relates specifically which direction it appears to face in the sky, not whether its left or right.

Forget about South Africa.

The more important issue is that from the one location when you use the Southern Cross and the pointers to locate south it is the same direction despite the stars shifting their position in the night sky.

What both of you are getting at is the existence of a South celestial pole, which certainly is inconsistent with the FE model, and is actually the reason for my avatar. (The picture is of star trails over an observatory in Australia, which clearly shows a South celestial pole). Of course this has been brought up before, but if you're using it as evidence, it's best not to make false statements...

What both of you are getting at is the existence of a South celestial pole, which certainly is inconsistent with the FE model, and is actually the reason for my avatar. (The picture is of star trails over an observatory in Australia, which clearly shows a South celestial pole). Of course this has been brought up before, but if you're using it as evidence, it's best not to make false statements...

So that's why it's being ignored. What was the outcome of that discussion? Do you have a link for it?

Thanks.

What i am getting at is the magnetic south.  The magnetic south in south africa is pretty close to the opposite direction to how it is in Australia should the earth be flat.  Imagine south africa is up the top of the flat earth map and Australia is at the bottom.  Your compass would be pointing you in different directions at those too points (because magnetic north was in the centre).  However the south cross star constellation would remain unchanged. Therefore the method using the southern cross in Australia to find south would find northish in south africa.

I'm talking about the celstial south pole. Can you give me a link, skeptical?

The topic is here.

There's no shortage of good arguments that the Earth is round, but there's also no shortage of bad ones. Of course, it's much more fun to post in the bad argument threads about how dim the original posters were, so you can't be surprised when they get more attention. If you're waiting for a flat Earther to reply to a thread with, "Oh, I hadn't thought of that; I guess the Earth really is round," then you had best give up now.

(I am in fact an REer who spends 99% of my time here either posting in Everything Else or pointing out that various RE arguments are full of shit - I made a few posts arguing that the Earth is round, but its only really fun if you can come up with an original argument, which is getting pretty hard these days. Making fun of RE noobs, however, never gets old.)

Thanks.

Does that mean because nobody made fun of me in my thread that it wasn't a bad argument, just one they'd heard before?

So just to clarify.  What exactly is your problem with my proposal?

Is it that you can find south with the constellation or that you feel shouldn't matter whether you are in south africa or Australia on an FE world?

My problem was that it seemed you were suggesting the orientation of the constellation in the sky was different, not that the direction of south was. You fixed it.

Cool glad we got that sorted.  I wasn't sure if you still had an issue.


To keep this discussion going.  Do you agree now that this proposal has merit to seek an impartial test?

I hold the opinion that if this group is serious, a test such as this should be sort and tested.  Particularly since this one is designed to be simple, require no equipment and the meaning of the answer is determinable before conducting the test.  Lastly the answer to the test is not as easy to dispute.

Is this a serious website???

I think it would be a good idea for the few people who actually think the Earth is flat to conduct such a test, yes. However, there are only about two people on these forums who actually seem to think the Earth is flat, and both of them seem thoroughly irrational.

Who are they?

I think I've given enough spoilers already.

Is this argument original? sun not setting directly west[/rising directly east] when it should at the equinox on FE.  In fact, if on the equator on the equinox, the sun would "set" (see http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10571.0) directly northwest.

Due to the FE view on the sun and its relation to the earth its a very different arguement.  Based on the FAQ the sun rotates around us.  This specific proof idea would not work for the sun.

absolute, look at the locations and time of year he gives.

Have you been to the equator on the equinox splox?

(am i getting the hang of it ss?)

I have not been to the equator at the equinox.  I'm not sure what that would suggest.  I thought the sun setting directly west on equinox was common knowledge enough that an eye witness personal attestment wouldn't add anything.  I'm not sure what absolute meant about how this proof idea wouldn't work.

I'm not disputing his idea.  I'm just clarifying that mine is original in its own right.  I'm not going to be the first person to use geography and celestral body positioning to find holes in FE theory.  I wanted to point out where mine had a point of difference.

I think I understand, I don't disagree with your argument being original.  I was asking if "the following argument" is original

AHAH ok.  I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comments on "FEers are silly" "No they aren't" type banter.  I'm hoping this thread stays constructive.  I'm more hoping that an FE'er would read this thread and add to this discussion.  I'm also hoping someone knows someone in south africa that could give us a bit of perspective here.

I'm also hoping someone knows someone in south africa that could give us a bit of perspective here.

Provided he/she can give an honest observation.

I feel these arguments are extremely difficult for a FE'er to disprove: a celestial rotation around a point in the south; ratio from horizontal distance and vertical distance to sun to show the sun can't "set"; and showing that a FE would have sunsets in much different places than is observed. 

True, although my thoughts are this proof might be a little easier to visualise to the average person.  Some people may find it difficult to see quite how the sun changes its orientation during the year. 

FE seems really really bias towards northern hemisphere.  Eurocentric comes to mind.

FE seems really really bias towards northern hemisphere.  Eurocentric comes to mind.

Excellent point, It would make just as much sense to argue the south pole is the very center of our world.  There is just as much evidence for that.  I'd like to know how a FE'er would prove that the south pole is not the center and the north pole isn't a 150 foot ice wall stretching 70,000+ miles around the earth.

Exactly.  Except the north pole wall of ice is guarded by santa clause and his carnivorous raindeer.  The north pole is more accepted due to a government conspiricy and the russians made up the penguin story to through everyone off.

In another thread preferabley.  No more diluting of my proof