That is incorrect. There exists solid/valid FE explanations of the stars/constellations of both the northern and southern hemispheres.
No, there definitely are not. Note also that the existence of a southern HEMISPHERE is also a feature of the ball-shaped Earth.
It appears that you also fail to understand that these heliocentric "scientists" did not gain any wisdom from observations of the already mapped out constellations etc. All they did was assume/imagine/postulate a heliocentric model/system.
The constellations are observed to be distributed in a rigid, unchanging, geometrical SPHERE, fixed over both time (seconds to years) and location up to tiny angles. Here is a description of the sky as seen from any location on the planet.
- The hemisphere of the Earth determines which pole of the sky you can see.
- The pole of the sky is at an angle equal to the latitude angle from the equator
- The sky rotates around the appropriate pole at every location
There is definitely no flat earth explanation for this. Flat Earthers aren't even aware the South Pole exists! (Note that at the South Pole, the sky simply rotates around the zenith, during the 24 hour winter nights). Just like at the North Pole (but the opposite pole of the sky). There is no overlap between the part of the sky visible at the two poles - it is the two HEMISPHERES of the sky (for locations near the poles but not at them, the overlap is the stars near the plane of the ecliptic - where the zodiac constellations are located. This is the equator of the sky.
Eratosthenes first imagined a distant sun and a spherical earth before his little shadow experiments. He could have just as easily proved a stationary level earth had he first went with his own observations and the demonstrably locale sun/light source.
No.
A simple fact he discovered was that the North Pole of the sky fell to a lower angle as he moved South. This angle is the latitude and gives the tilt of the ground relative to that at the same longitude on the equator.
No-one can ever see Polaris from the entire Southern hemisphere (they can infer from the location of other stars that it is PERMANENTLY BELOW THE HORIZON.
You have no explanation for that.
My task is very difficult. I have to give you the capability to understand things like the above. You will be too lazy even to address the key points, I predict.
That is incorrect. There exists solid/valid FE explanations of the stars/constellations of both the northern and southern hemispheres. Not my problem that you have failed to do the necessary investigation/research in order to locate/understand them.
It appears that you also fail to understand that these heliocentric "scientists" did not gain any wisdom from observations of the already mapped out constellations etc. All they did was assume/imagine/postulate a heliocentric model/system. Once those assumptions/imaginations were/are "intact" they attempted/attempt to create mathematics to fit those imaginations...not observations.
That is why heliocentric theories change, as you have pointed out. Beginning with Copernicus claiming the sun approximately 3 million miles away etc. etc. etc.
I do not understand why that appears to be beyond your comprehension/understanding!?
I believe you are just being coy! ?
Please tell me how in the heck anyone can claim that Copernicus first "observed" a sun 3 million miles away and then decided upon a heliocentric model?
Eratosthenes first imagined a distant sun and a spherical earth before his little shadow experiments. He could have just as easily proved a stationary level earth had he first went with his own observations and the demonstrably locale sun/light source.