Refuting the Flat-Earth theory

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Better still, north pole v. south pole. Two completely different skies that can be seen at the same time, via TV.

[FlatAssembler]

Better still, north pole v. south pole. Two completely different skies that can be seen at the same time, via TV.

I don't think that's a good argument, for three reasons.
You don't see from those two skies that constellations shift but have a constant shape. Constant shape of constellations is important, as it demonstrates that stars do not shift simply because they are close to us.
Also, how clearly can you even see stars during a polar day? When it's polar night on the North Pole, it is a polar day at the South Pole.
Also, many Flat-Earthers claim much of what we think we know about Antarctica is a part of the conspiracy.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be useless to address some bad idea rationally when the person who holds it is fully willing to declare that antarctica is part of the conspiracy.

[FlatAssembler]

It would be useless to address some bad idea rationally when the person who holds it is fully willing to declare that antarctica is part of the conspiracy.

You are right. Perhaps I should add something like "If you are willing to claim that Antarctica is a part of a conspiracy, do you realize there are plane routes flying from Australia to South America over the Antarctica?" to the "polar day and polar night on Antarctica" argument in the OP.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Better still, north pole v. south pole. Two completely different skies that can be seen at the same time, via TV.

I don't think that's a good argument, for three reasons.
You don't see from those two skies that constellations shift but have a constant shape. Constant shape of constellations is important, as it demonstrates that stars do not shift simply because they are close to us.
Also, how clearly can you even see stars during a polar day? When it's polar night on the North Pole, it is a polar day at the South Pole.
Also, many Flat-Earthers claim much of what we think we know about Antarctica is a part of the conspiracy.

I don't find your arguments convincing enough to refute.

[FlatAssembler]

I don't think that's a good argument, for three reasons.
You don't see from those two skies that constellations shift but have a constant shape. Constant shape of constellations is important, as it demonstrates that stars do not shift simply because they are close to us.
Also, how clearly can you even see stars during a polar day? When it's polar night on the North Pole, it is a polar day at the South Pole.
Also, many Flat-Earthers claim much of what we think we know about Antarctica is a part of the conspiracy.

I don't find your arguments convincing enough to refute.

OK, whatever. I used to be a Flat-Earther, so I am one good data point about how they think and what they might find convincing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't find your arguments convincing enough to refute.

OK, whatever. I used to be a Flat-Earther, so I am one good data point about how they think and what they might find convincing.

The constellations are different when viewed from the North Pole and South Pole.

[HappySkeptic]

I think he is asking for a view from North America and South America, with some constellations in common.

Not only are some different constellations visible, but the common ones don't shift shape (nullifying the argument that the different constellations are because the "dome of the heavens" is really close to us).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the Southern Cross is an example what you can see once you go far enough south, while Polaris disappears at some point on that trip. Flat can't explain that.

[arewethereyet]