[pablozablo]

There are a couple of points made about polaris on the wiki and the visibility of it from different points on the Earth. In one, using info from Rowbotham, there is the claim that polaris has been observed on numerous occasions by navigators as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. The second point is the usual one about perspective being the reason that polaris gets lower in the sky the further south you travel. In this debate post I want to address the first point, assuming flat earth believers accept the claim.

Regarding the first point, despite the claim there is no evidence presented to back it up. Especially nowadays, given the internet, social media and sites like this, it would be very easy for someone to provide evidence to support this claim. Just get someone located between Capricorn and the Equator to take a photo of polaris and post it on here. Given the abundance of diagrams and memes, can anyone explain why no-one has been able to do this?
I propose that the reason no-one has done this is because it is not possible. Can any flat earth believers refute this and provide evidence? Thanks.

[round earther]

because the earth is round

[AATW]

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

[Westprog]

There are a couple of points made about polaris on the wiki and the visibility of it from different points on the Earth. In one, using info from Rowbotham, there is the claim that polaris has been observed on numerous occasions by navigators as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. The second point is the usual one about perspective being the reason that polaris gets lower in the sky the further south you travel. In this debate post I want to address the first point, assuming flat earth believers accept the claim.

Regarding the first point, despite the claim there is no evidence presented to back it up. Especially nowadays, given the internet, social media and sites like this, it would be very easy for someone to provide evidence to support this claim. Just get someone located between Capricorn and the Equator to take a photo of polaris and post it on here. Given the abundance of diagrams and memes, can anyone explain why no-one has been able to do this?
I propose that the reason no-one has done this is because it is not possible. Can any flat earth believers refute this and provide evidence? Thanks.

It's part of how the flat Earth belief really comes from people who only knew their local area. If you were living inland several thousand years ago, and never travelled, astronomical issues didn't arise. It was accepted that the sun rotated around the Earth, because that's what it looked like. The moon did the same. As people moved around, this simple view was no longer tenable. Quite quickly, the counter-intuitive view that the world was a sphere became generally accepted - because people are quite good at accepting evidence when it mounts up.

So being a flat Earth supporter when we really know how everything works is really difficult. For many, many years it was an entirely obscure, joke belief. However, such is the power of the internet that that handful of people were able to link up. The number of people worldwide who actually really believe it is tiny, but they can get together and produce ludicrous YouTube videos. The people who have no real interest in the shape of the world will bump up the polls because they don't know or care.

There's nothing about the position of the stars that makes sense. How can we see stars in the direction where the Sun is supposed to be, when the Sun itself has disappeared? How does that make any sense in any possible way? Try to figure out how the different constellations in the Southern hemisphere are supposed to work.

[juner]

because the earth is round

Keep the shitposting in CN/AR. Warned.

[pablozablo]

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

Hi AllAround, I think you missed my point. I know the wiki explains that perspective is the reason that at certain latitudes Polaris ceases to be visible. I'm looking for an explanation or evidence from Flat Earth people to support the other claim from Rowbotham that "polaris has been seen from as far south as Capricorn". I want to know what evidence they have to support this claim, and if it is true why has no-one yet photographed it. Not seen any answers yet.

[Westprog]

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

Hi AllAround, I think you missed my point. I know the wiki explains that perspective is the reason that at certain latitudes Polaris ceases to be visible. I'm looking for an explanation or evidence from Flat Earth people to support the other claim from Rowbotham that "polaris has been seen from as far south as Capricorn". I want to know what evidence they have to support this claim, and if it is true why has no-one yet photographed it. Not seen any answers yet.

Yes, but that's the way FE theory works. "Perspective shows that you can't see Polaris from the Southern Hemisphere, and you shouldn't expect to. But we have evidence that you can anyway, which is like double proof, flat Earth rules." You're looking for a consistency that doesn't exist.

[AATW]

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

Hi AllAround, I think you missed my point. I know the wiki explains that perspective is the reason that at certain latitudes Polaris ceases to be visible. I'm looking for an explanation or evidence from Flat Earth people to support the other claim from Rowbotham that "polaris has been seen from as far south as Capricorn". I want to know what evidence they have to support this claim, and if it is true why has no-one yet photographed it. Not seen any answers yet.

Right. Well as Westprog said if you're looking for consistency then you're going to be disappointed.
Far as I understand you can't see Polaris below 1 degree south of the equator. If Rowbowtham claims that it has been seen as far south as  as that then he is wrong.
But then, he's wrong about pretty much everything. When he is shown to be conclusively wrong like with things like this or the risible claim that the moon is translucent it's ignored and for some reason Flat Earthers never seem to let these obvious falsehoods cast any doubt on the things they so treat as gospel. A more rational response would be to think "well...if he's wrong about this then maybe he's not right about these other things."

[Tontogary]

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

Hi AllAround, I think you missed my point. I know the wiki explains that perspective is the reason that at certain latitudes Polaris ceases to be visible. I'm looking for an explanation or evidence from Flat Earth people to support the other claim from Rowbotham that "polaris has been seen from as far south as Capricorn". I want to know what evidence they have to support this claim, and if it is true why has no-one yet photographed it. Not seen any answers yet.

I am pretty certain it has not been seen.

Only annecdotal, third party claims are the source of the “evidence” no photographic or other evidence is offered, and the annecdotal third hand accounts are not recent.

However, if it is perspective, and the earth is flat, then it should ALWYS be seen above the horizon far to the south of the equator. It is not. And there are no reliable reports of it.

Does any one believe with the millions of amateur astronomers in the world that one of them at some point wouldn’t get on the net and say “hey look at this guys, i have just seen the impossible!” Fame fortune and riches would ensue. I am awaiting such a credible claim.

The absence of a credible claim to have seen Polaris way below the equator is in itself not proof of the round earth, but it really does put a dent in the FE theory.

[Westprog]

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

Hi AllAround, I think you missed my point. I know the wiki explains that perspective is the reason that at certain latitudes Polaris ceases to be visible. I'm looking for an explanation or evidence from Flat Earth people to support the other claim from Rowbotham that "polaris has been seen from as far south as Capricorn". I want to know what evidence they have to support this claim, and if it is true why has no-one yet photographed it. Not seen any answers yet.

I am pretty certain it has not been seen.

Only annecdotal, third party claims are the source of the “evidence” no photographic or other evidence is offered, and the annecdotal third hand accounts are not recent.

However, if it is perspective, and the earth is flat, then it should ALWYS be seen above the horizon far to the south of the equator. It is not. And there are no reliable reports of it.

Does any one believe with the millions of amateur astronomers in the world that one of them at some point wouldn’t get on the net and say “hey look at this guys, i have just seen the impossible!” Fame fortune and riches would ensue. I am awaiting such a credible claim.

The absence of a credible claim to have seen Polaris way below the equator is in itself not proof of the round earth, but it really does put a dent in the FE theory.

Once people around the world were able to compare astronomical observations, then any possibility of a flat Earth theory that even managed to be internally consistent was gone. We have the claim that the flat Earth is just what people see in their everyday experience, but in order to fit the astronomical observations, there's a whole nest of bizarre optical theories which claim that everything we see in the sky involves ever more esoteric optical illusions.

[Tontogary]

Last night i went out onto the bridge wing (part of the bridge of a ship) and looked for Polaris.

Our latitude was about 12 degrees North, and although cloudy i did manage to see it, although as there was no moon, i could not get a sextant altitude of it, as there was no real horizon to be able to use as a reference, but it was about where it was supposed to be ie, 10 to 15 degrees above the horizon.

I will again look this evening, we will be about 7 degrees north this evening, but there a fair amount of scattered clouds around at present, so it will be hit or miss i think if i see it.

I will keep you posted.

This does however lead me to another interesting examination.
I know a lot has been written about perspective, however i will try to do show with maths, why we should always see the pole star, and actually at what altitude we should see it at different latitudes if the world were flat

[Westprog]

Last night i went out onto the bridge wing (part of the bridge of a ship) and looked for Polaris.

Our latitude was about 12 degrees North, and although cloudy i did manage to see it, although as there was no moon, i could not get a sextant altitude of it, as there was no real horizon to be able to use as a reference, but it was about where it was supposed to be ie, 10 to 15 degrees above the horizon.

I will again look this evening, we will be about 7 degrees north this evening, but there a fair amount of scattered clouds around at present, so it will be hit or miss i think if i see it.

I will keep you posted.

This does however lead me to another interesting examination.
I know a lot has been written about perspective, however i will try to do show with maths, why we should always see the pole star, and actually at what altitude we should see it at different latitudes if the world were flat

N.B. For Parallax and the similarly minded people raging at Tontogary - this is what you should be doing. This is observation and measurement, attached to theory. The fact that posting this kind of thing provokes rage and denial should make you question not just your beliefs, but your entire worldview. If your theory isn't strengthened by Tontogary doing these measurements, then what kind of theory is it?

Every time someone takes a measurement and records it, we know more about the world.

[Tontogary]

I have just been out on the bridge wing again, its turned into a lovely evening, new moon this evening, so no or little light pollution, and only a very few scattered clouds low on the horizon.

We are about 6 1/2 degrees North, and heading generally south, so Polaris was seen behind us, around the correct altitude, but again as there is no horizon with no moon, (well not clear enough for an accurate sextant altitude) the best i could do was around 06 degrees 15 minutes of altitude. With dip, etc that works out about right, but not good enough for navigation.

Ursa Major is very helpful to us for pinpointing Polaris as the last two point to Polaris. If you dont know what i am saying, there are hundreds of images available. A line from Merak to Dubhe will always point to Polaris.

Right now Ursa Major is above Polaris where we are at around 120E long, so anyone can check my facts if they wish, but the point i am making is that i know how far approximately from Dubhe Polaris is, and we will be on about the equator by this time tomorrow, and i doubt i will see Polaris so low, as it will be right on the horizon, but i will be able to see Ursa Major, and will know exactly where to look for Polaris. Weather and clouds permitting of course.

Purely for illustration only, follow this link, and the 4th picture down will show you what i see from here with reference to Polaris being below Ursa Major,

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2015/05/06/ursa-major-makes-a-daytime-appearance-in-duluth/

At present it is just after 13:00 GMT, and my facts and observations can be checked by anyone who has a knowledge of the stars.

The constellation of Orion is setting to the west, and Sirius was still visible, we have a destination that is around 16 degrees south, so i will be able to keep an eye out and if i see Polaris i will certainly let you know!

One other observation i need to make is that if the stars revolve around Polaris, which i dont dispute, even though Polaris is not perfectly aligned I’ve geographic pole, then why does the southern constellations revolve around a point where a southern star would be positioned? There is no southern Polaris star, at least not bright enough for sailors to use effectively, but it is clearly seen from the southern constellations, and stars such as A centuri that there is a southern axis to the stars, and yet the constellations where the southern and northern stars meet is seamless?

No grinding, or displacement. The stars that have a low declination ie that would pass overhead at the equator, rise in the east, set in the west, and keep their relative positions in the heavens.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Westprog]

[Westprog]

[Tontogary]

So last night there were some clouds in the sky when i observed Ursa Major, and following it to find Polaris as described earlier, gues what, NO POLARIS.

Hardly surprising as the ships latitude was just below the equator, and close to the horizon is not the best place to see a relatively dim star. (Second magnitude)

However as we are still heading southwards ahead of us shining brightly was the southern cross, which is the constellation of Crux.
This was approx 30 degrees above the horizon. The star at the bottom of the long axis is Acrux, and the top Gacrux. They point to a place in the heavens where a South Pole star should be.

They were aligned approx like the hour hand of a clock would be at about 11 o’clock, ie a line drawn from Gacrus to Acrux made a 30 degree angle to the vertical.
This was at about 21:00 Local time.

I have attached a picture, taken from the net, but it is what the constellation looked approximately like at 9PM

Also of note were that Orion was in the west, almost due west, libra and Scorpio were low in the east, and Leo was high above.

I was also on the bridge at about 03:00 this morning for an unrelated matter, however i also observed the same constellation, Crux to have rotated as though on the axis of where Gacrux to Acrux met the horizon and was now making an angle of approx 2 o’clock to the horizon.

The axis was around about the horizon, and had rotated approx 90 degrees in 6 hours.
Also it appeared that Orion had set, Leo was low on the horizon, and Scorpio etc were high above us.

So to summarise the stars that were east of us had risen in a constant direction, and were still in the same relative positions without distortions to each other to be above us, however the southern constellations had rotated around an axis that was near to the horizon, however were not distorted, and still at the same distances, and angular measurement from each other, but had rotated through about 90 degrees.

The stars that were directly east of us had risen by a similar amount, ie 90 degrees.

Just what one would expect if one were looking at the inside of a gigantic sphere. (What we call a celestial sphere.)

Can an FE model replicate what i have seen, observed and measured over the last few days? I would be absolutely thrilled to hear if is can be expolained!

[Tontogary]

Last night I went to the bridge to observe Ursa Major again, and it was a fantastic evening, hardly a cloud in the sky, no light pollution, and no moon. Perfect for seeing stars, Planets and, yes satellites!

The vessel was around 11 degrees south at the time.

Ursa Major was lower in the sky, with Merak and Dubhe pointing almost directly north, but closer to the horizon, and it was clear that Polaris was well below the horizon, taking the distance from Merak and Dubhe and extanding it to where Polaris should be, meant that Polaris was in fact below the horizon.

Also what was seen was that Crux (southern cross)  was higher in the sky than previously, and taken through the night it was clear that while not yet visible at these latitudes, if we were to keep steaming further south then it would be circumpolar (always visible above the horizon) if the sun was not shining. In fact this is the testimony of many thousands, if not millions of people who i live in the latitudes below 30S. (Or there abouts)

Stars were still rising in the east, setting in the west, and passing more or less overhead, but it was seen that some of the stars with a more northerly declination passed further north in their path. Antares was above the horizon to the ENE, and still rising.

All of the above leads me firmly to the conclusion that;
1, Polaris cannot be seen above the horizon when south of the equator, as seen and recorded above.
2, the stars are as described on a celestial sphere, which rotates around us, or us inside, rotating as inside a sphere.

Nothing else can produce the effects I have described, and I have seen in a week or so of travelling from northern to hemisphere that the axis of rotation in the north is approx around Polaris (not disputed by FE theory as far as i know) and that the second axis is about 3 degrees south of Dubhe, and that the position of the stars in between are not distorted relative to each other as they traverse overhead from east to west.

Any comments on the above? Which I firmly believe provide Empirical proof that the Earth is a globe.