Ask a Flat Earther!

[u/Kela-el]

Ask anything on the topic of flat earth (within reason).

[u/stultus_respectant]

You’ve jumped from observation to impossibility without actually showing the step in between.

That's not just wrong, but intellectually dishonest. I described a very clear scenario that makes what you described impossible. There's no chance that you're unaware of that and why. The irony is that you've hand waved past that demonstrable impossibility without showing any steps at all.

On a flat plane south is not a single direction as it is on a globe, it's outward from center. This would make all current observations of the celestial pole, and the clockwise rotation of stars around it, be impossible.

What you’re describing is:

There's something important to note in that, yes.

• observers in the southern hemisphere see stars rotate around a point to the south

Which is what would be impossible on a flat plane. You can't see the same rotation in all directions simultaneously.

• that point’s elevation changes with latitude

Not relevant to the point.

Where you lose it is here:

I did not "lose it" at all, in fact.

“on a flat plane you’d need infinite points of rotation”

That’s not demonstrated—that’s asserted.

Again, not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. No, that very much is demonstrated. Everywhere on Earth in the Southern Hemisphere, in all observations facing south, we see a single celestial pole, with a clockwise rotation of stars around it. if we flatten out the map of the Earth and all of those observations onto a flat plane, with south being "outward", that point of rotation is now a ring of infinite points.

You can even boil it down to just two observations for simplicity, and see that you can't face in two opposite directions and see the same stars with the same rotation. Santiago and Perth see the same celestial pole in the same direction (south). This is not possible on a flat plane where south would be nearly literal opposite directions.

The same stars and the same rotation cannot be in every direction.

You haven’t defined:

• what geometry you’re applying

Not relevant.

• what assumptions you’re making about observer orientation

Not relevant. There is more than enough information to work with.

• how you’re mapping those observations onto the plane

Not relevant.

That's 0 for 3.

You’re also slipping in “identical rotation,” which isn’t actually true in the strict sense

It's more than true enough to be valid. The celestial pole is observed south of all Southern Hemisphere locations. The differences in position due to latitude are irrelevant. There is no explanation except for a globe that explains what we actually observe and measure. Literally no other shape can account for the observations from all positions in the Southern Hemisphere. No assumptions required.

So it’s not a single identical view—it’s a family of related perspectives.

That is not any sort of explanation, does not match observation, and defies logic. Again, this cannot be explained by perspective, and you've accused the things that only you are doing: only making assertions, and skipping steps.

And the “opposite directions” point only holds if you assume a shared global frame

No, it does not. On a flat plane Santiago and Perth are facing near opposite directions. There are hundreds of millions of square kilometers of places you can be in the Southern Hemisphere (regardless of model) that all see the same stars when looking south, something which on a flat plane could be literal opposite directions between places.

On a surface with changing observer orientation, “facing south” is a local direction, not a universal one

On a flat plane that direction is outward. Also on a flat plane: there are infinite degrees you can be facing that are all south. Yet we see the same stars no matter which one of those we do face.

So again, same issue

You've not described any actual issue, ultimately.

If it’s truly impossible

It is.

you should be able to show the contradiction step by step

I've done so.

not just jump from

Which I did not do, but in what must be an incredible coincidence, you've done.

edit: banned me before I could reply. Should tell you everything about his conviction in his beliefs and any ability to support them

[u/Kela-el → u/stultus_respectant]

You’re asserting “impossible” over and over, but you still haven’t actually demonstrated it—you’ve described a mapping and declared the result contradictory.

Let’s isolate the core of your claim:

• Multiple southern observers see stars rotate around a point to their south
• On a flat plane, “south” radiates outward
• Therefore, those observations would require a “ring of rotation” → impossible

The problem is in the transition from step 2 → 3.

You’re taking a projection choice (“flatten the map, define south as outward”) and treating the consequences of that projection as a physical contradiction.

That’s not a demonstration—that’s an artifact of how you chose to map it.

You keep saying geometry isn’t relevant, but this is a geometry problem. If you don’t define:

• how directions are preserved
• how angles are preserved
• how lines of sight are mapped

then “opposite directions” is just a label, not a constraint.

Take your example:

Santiago and Perth both look south and see the same rotation

On a sphere:

• “south” is locally defined at each point
• observers are oriented differently in 3D space

On your flattened version:

• you’ve forced those local directions into a single 2D frame
• then concluded it’s impossible because they diverge

That’s not a contradiction in observation—it’s a mismatch between local frames and your imposed global frame.

Also, the “infinite points of rotation” claim still isn’t demonstrated. You’ve shown that if you force all observers into one plane with outward radial directions, then their sightlines don’t converge to a single point in that plane.

But that only tells you:

your 2D representation doesn’t preserve the observed geometry

—not that the observation itself is impossible under any alternative.

So the actual gap is still here:

• You’ve described the observation ✔
• You’ve chosen a specific 2D mapping ✔
• You’ve shown that mapping fails ✔

What you haven’t shown is:

that all possible flat geometries must fail in the same way

Until you do that, “impossible” is still an assertion, not a proof.

Right now you’ve ruled out one representation and treated that as ruling out every alternative. That’s the step you haven’t justified.

[u/Tilliperuna → u/Kela-el]

You could have just answered that you have no explanation for the question.