Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:05:26 PM »
If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Polaris would be 13.09 degrees above the horizon and being a less than 2 magnitude star, easy to see.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2016, 11:07:26 AM »
5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2016, 12:17:14 PM »
5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.
Have you tried the wiki? That's the usual response.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2016, 12:35:41 PM »
5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.
Have you tried the wiki? That's the usual response.
  :P Now why didn't I think of that?  :P
[quote the Wiki]Stars
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary (two) star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.
The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub.[/quote] No help here!

[quote the Wiki]DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible. What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.
This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars.[/quote]
 ::) Now surely that answers it! ::) Well, it might satisfy a dyed in the wool FEer! But, I'm not convinced, yet!

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2016, 12:52:53 PM »
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole.

One of the more easily disproven statements in the Wiki, of course.  Stars in the Southern hemisphere (sorry, spherical terminology), hemiplane (no, that's no good either) south of the equator, they rotate around the south pole (sorry again) a point south of the observer.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2016, 01:26:04 PM »
5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.
Have you tried the wiki? That's the usual response.

The problem with wiki link is the link ignores the math (grade school geometry) proving on a FE Polaris is ALWAYS WELL ABOVE the plain and refraction, in this case from a fast medium to a slow, (vacuum to air) bends the light up, making appear even higher over the FE plain.

So your wiki doesn't cover the question and is the reason I posted it here. And then I had to point out that the question had been read at least 30 times without any response in order to get a response.

From being on this site and other site it becomes clear that math is to avoided at all costs in dealing with FE believers.


*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2016, 02:15:41 AM »
5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.
Have you tried the wiki? That's the usual response.
  :P Now why didn't I think of that?  :P
[quote the Wiki]Stars
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary (two) star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.
The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub.
No help here!

[quote the Wiki]DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible. What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.
This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars.[/quote]
 ::) Now surely that answers it! ::) Well, it might satisfy a dyed in the wool FEer! But, I'm not convinced, yet!
[/quote]

I have asked for the following to be explained on numerous FE YouTube videos also... have never received a response... I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere at least half a dozen times and observed these phenomena myself... but no explanation ... ever !!

" 'Down' here (Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris) we see a different view of the moon (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg), and the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)"
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2016, 04:20:47 AM »
I have asked for the following to be explained on numerous FE YouTube videos also... have never received a response... I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere at least half a dozen times and observed these phenomena myself... but no explanation ... ever !!

" 'Down' here (Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris) we see a different view of the moon (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg), and the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)"
I don't live as far south, so I cannot even see the Southern Cross at all time - especially as lights obscure the Southern horizon.

There are so many questions posed on the Q&A that do not have meaningful answers in the Wiki and yet we get no response from any Flat Earth supporters.

I might have the answer. The answers to so many of these questions prove something impossible to explain with their Flat Earth model, so to answer the question honestly would force them to give up a precious belief. Maybe it is a case of cognitive dissonance?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8511
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2016, 07:21:34 AM »
That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2016, 09:39:41 AM »
That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?
Stop just waving you hands around and claiming that geometry does not work. You do not have the slightest evidence to claim that!
They say a poor workman blames his tools! You attitude seems one step worse that that.

I suppose you are going to claim a failure in geometry or arithmetic or something in this too:

The earth has been measured and mapped and it simply will not fit on a flat plane surface!

To top it off, if you check it out you will find that the circumference of the earth (around "Parallels of Latitude") at various latitudes is close to:
LatitudeSpaceCircumference
51.0°
Space
25,323 km
31.0°
Space
34,447 km
-10.0°
Space
39,388 km
-34.0°
Space
33,105 km
I have a lot more similar data if you want it!

These are from measuring (scaling) longitude spacings on a couple of very large and fairly old (USA 1887 and Australian 1855) survey maps.
In addition to the information from the maps I have measured distances in Australia at around 32° S latitude, and these are quite consistent with the data from these maps/
Yes, it is making maps like this that keeps these Geodetic Surveyors occupied. And the maps were made long before NASA was dreamt of, so you can't blame them.
And believe it or not all these distances agree fairly closely (not precisely - the is some error in reading a map, but much better than 1%) with Google Earth.

Yes, the circumference of the earth south of the equator is definitely less than the circumference at the equator! We have been trying to get that point over with all the posts about Southern Hemisphere airline flights.
All the flat earth supporters can come up with "of course there is no standard flat earth map" (well, it's about time) or "maybe those planes have souped up engines and fly at twice the speed of other planes".

Spare me from more such idiocy and come up with some reasonable answer as to why the circumference of the earth at a given latitude in the South is almost the same as at that latitude in the North!
Because that is just a simple fact of life. All intercontinental navigators know it!

Yes I know, you will ask whether I walked around every line of latitude and measured with my trusty Lufkin - no I didn't and when was the last time a Flat Earther actually measured anything!
Voliva didn't! Rowbotham tried and botched it - not a good record!

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2016, 02:29:23 PM »
That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?

The math of the OP has yet to be refuted, by  you or anyone else.

FE relies on prospective, which of course has its math and formulas which now you seem to ignore. Why? Could it be that the formula proves the the sun can touch the FE but never be seen to set below it? OR that the math proves the angles and distances involved, even with refraction prove it is impossible for the sun or moon to appear lower that the 26.50 degrees above the surface of a FE?

But I have to laugh at your;
Quote
That's merely a theory.

That is FET in a nutshell. Except that FET has nothing what so ever in observation, experimentation, and math to back it up.

And before you attempt to take the feeble fully discredited "We observe no curve, therefore..." The only way that "observation" works is deny all science, and all photographic proof.  You'd have an easier time proving Middle Earth was real.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8511
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2016, 04:28:39 PM »
That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?

The math of the OP has yet to be refuted, by  you or anyone else.

FE relies on prospective, which of course has its math and formulas which now you seem to ignore. Why? Could it be that the formula proves the the sun can touch the FE but never be seen to set below it? OR that the math proves the angles and distances involved, even with refraction prove it is impossible for the sun or moon to appear lower that the 26.50 degrees above the surface of a FE?

But I have to laugh at your;
Quote
That's merely a theory.

That is FET in a nutshell. Except that FET has nothing what so ever in observation, experimentation, and math to back it up.

And before you attempt to take the feeble fully discredited "We observe no curve, therefore..." The only way that "observation" works is deny all science, and all photographic proof.  You'd have an easier time proving Middle Earth was real.

Our theory is backed up with observation.

The theory of the ancients that two parallel lines pointed away from the observer will appear to recede forever and never meet is based on, well, nothing at all.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2016, 06:36:03 PM »
That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?

The math of the OP has yet to be refuted, by  you or anyone else.

FE relies on prospective, which of course has its math and formulas which now you seem to ignore. Why? Could it be that the formula proves the the sun can touch the FE but never be seen to set below it? OR that the math proves the angles and distances involved, even with refraction prove it is impossible for the sun or moon to appear lower that the 26.50 degrees above the surface of a FE?

But I have to laugh at your;
Quote
That's merely a theory.

That is FET in a nutshell. Except that FET has nothing what so ever in observation, experimentation, and math to back it up.

And before you attempt to take the feeble fully discredited "We observe no curve, therefore..." The only way that "observation" works is deny all science, and all photographic proof.  You'd have an easier time proving Middle Earth was real.

Our theory is backed up with observation.

The theory of the ancients that two parallel lines pointed away from the observer will appear to recede forever and never meet is based on, well, nothing at all.

You ever get dizzy running on that wheel?

You are describing prospective, of which there are many mathematical proofs. And in fact is used my FET to explain the setting sun/moon. Now you are saying prospective doesn't work.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8511
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2016, 03:11:41 AM »
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2016, 10:35:53 AM »
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.




*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2016, 12:06:20 PM »
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".


P&O Ships wake to horizon

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2016, 12:11:32 PM »
Our theory is backed up with observation.
You mean the observation that the sun appears the same circular size in the sky and sets below the horizon casting light on the underneath of the clouds?
You mean the observation that as ships sail away they disappear from the bottom leaving only the top visible?
You mean the observation that the entire earth sees the moon in the same phase on the same day?
You mean the observation that a flight from Sydney to South America only takes 14 hours?
You mean the observation that laser ranging places the moon greater than a couple of thousand kilometres above the surface of the earth?
You mean the observation of photos from space that show the earth as a globe?
You mean the observation that shows satellites orbiting the earth?
You mean the observation that wireless  communications have to take the curvature into the calculations to work?
You mean the observation that shows the horizon as a clear line instead of fading into the distance?
You mean the observation of solar flares interacting with the earth's magnetic field at night time?
You mean the observation that shows the stars circling in opposite directions in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that the constellations are different in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that shows rockets leaving the earth and not hitting any "firmament"?
You mean the observation that shows the moon and sun not to fall to the earth due to universal acceleration?

Should I continue?

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2016, 10:04:13 PM »
Our theory is backed up with observation.
You mean the observation that the sun appears the same circular size in the sky and sets below the horizon casting light on the underneath of the clouds?
You mean the observation that as ships sail away they disappear from the bottom leaving only the top visible?
You mean the observation that the entire earth sees the moon in the same phase on the same day?
You mean the observation that a flight from Sydney to South America only takes 14 hours?
You mean the observation that laser ranging places the moon greater than a couple of thousand kilometres above the surface of the earth?
You mean the observation of photos from space that show the earth as a globe?
You mean the observation that shows satellites orbiting the earth?
You mean the observation that wireless  communications have to take the curvature into the calculations to work?
You mean the observation that shows the horizon as a clear line instead of fading into the distance?
You mean the observation of solar flares interacting with the earth's magnetic field at night time?
You mean the observation that shows the stars circling in opposite directions in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that the constellations are different in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that shows rockets leaving the earth and not hitting any "firmament"?
You mean the observation that shows the moon and sun not to fall to the earth due to universal acceleration?

Should I continue?

It wouldn't help. 1. most are here just piss people off and pat themselves on the back. The True Believer is just that, a believer and facts and science and math be damned. It is a religion of faith. where nothing else matters.

I have seen every single one and more, of your listed points, blithely  dismissed by The TB, then they cherry pick one small specific math to use as proof of their faith in the same post where they just dismissed the exact same math.

I come here for story ideas and for help in creating odd and interesting characters. I have learned more about the craziness of people than I have anyplace else.

If you take this as anything more that cheap entertainment, you're going to become as RBSC as The TB are.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8511
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2016, 10:36:49 PM »
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2016, 10:41:00 PM »
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

How do we agree? Your take is the sun/moon sink below the surface of a FE. This is mathematically impossible. You can keep playing at semantics, but the math proves prospective as applied to FE will NEVER be possible. You know it, I know it and the rest of RE knows it.