[Round fact]

Is polaris everytime 60 degrees angle to North Pole?

No, it is presently inclined at +89° 15′ 50.8″

Which means that on a FE it should be seen from all locations at night barring cloud cover.

Yes in the southern hemisphere I've never seen it?!?

Thats my point and the reason for my question.

I am asking so I can work the math out.

IF FE says the stars are 3k miles up, then Polaris is at a minimum 7.13 degrees above the FE as viewed form the Antarctic "Ice Wall"

At the Equator it would be 14.04 degrees.

If we double the hight we double the angles. And we make it easier to see.

There is no answer FE can give that will NOT make Polaris visible at night form any place on a FE.

[Tom Bishop]

There is no answer FE can give that will NOT make Polaris visible at night form any place on a FE.

The existence of day and night is a proof that not all celestial bodies can be seen at all times.

[Round fact]

There is no answer FE can give that will NOT make Polaris visible at night form any place on a FE.

The existence of day and night is a proof that not all celestial bodies can be seen at all times.

Seriously? Word games?

It is responses like this, that tend to prove to everyone, that even the "True Believers," don't really believe deep down where it counts. No instead, a deliberate misunderstanding is created in order to dodge the issue.

The original question logically assumes the conditions of viewing require that the observer look for Polaris at night.

So... inorder to remove the bogus ambiguity in the question, I'll re-phrase; Durning the NIGHT, why can't Polaris not be seen from the coast of Antartica?

[Tom Bishop]

There is no answer FE can give that will NOT make Polaris visible at night form any place on a FE.

The existence of day and night is a proof that not all celestial bodies can be seen at all times.

Seriously? Word games?

It is responses like this, that tend to prove to everyone, that even the "True Believers," don't really believe deep down where it counts. No instead, a deliberate misunderstanding is created in order to dodge the issue.

The original question logically assumes the conditions of viewing require that the observer look for Polaris at night.

So... inorder to remove the bogus ambiguity in the question, I'll re-phrase; Durning the NIGHT, why can't Polaris not be seen from the coast of Antartica?

Not a word game. The fact that the sun is invisible for some parts of the day is a proof that not all celestial bodies are visible at all times.

[TotesNotReptilian]

There is no answer FE can give that will NOT make Polaris visible at night form any place on a FE.

The existence of day and night is a proof that not all celestial bodies can be seen at all times.

Seriously? Word games?

It is responses like this, that tend to prove to everyone, that even the "True Believers," don't really believe deep down where it counts. No instead, a deliberate misunderstanding is created in order to dodge the issue.

The original question logically assumes the conditions of viewing require that the observer look for Polaris at night.

So... inorder to remove the bogus ambiguity in the question, I'll re-phrase; Durning the NIGHT, why can't Polaris not be seen from the coast of Antartica?

Not a word game. The fact that the sun is invisible for some parts of the day is a proof that not all celestial bodies are visible at all times.

He actually makes a fair point. Basically, if you have managed to convince yourself that the sun can set while actually remaining 3000 miles above the earth, it's not too much of a mental stretch to think that Polaris can do the same.

Of course, there are several problems with this.

During summer in the Southern Hemisphere, the sun is visible for considerably over half the day. This means that the sun would have to be further away than Polaris when it actually sets and rises. And yet Polaris remains stubbornly below the horizon.

You also would have to ignore that the sun setting despite being 3000 miles above the earth has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

[Round fact]

The entire FET is fuzzy. Its like trying to grasp hold of ice cube just out of reach on freshly cleaned ice rink. Just when you touch it, it slides away further out of reach.

And so far as I can find there is not one bit of math that makes it work

[magic]

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.

I haven't been to Antarctica, but once I get there and if I can see it, I'll post a photo.

[Rounder]

I haven't been to Antarctica, but once I get there and if I can see it, I'll post a photo.

Is this a hypothetical, or are you really going?  If so I'm jealous, that would be awesome to go there!

[Round fact]

I haven't been to Antarctica, but once I get there and if I can see it, I'll post a photo.

Is this a hypothetical, or are you really going?  If so I'm jealous, that would be awesome to go there!

Can you run 13.1 miles? OF course you can. If I can, anyone can. But the catch? Well the cost of such a trip runs from $6,990 to $9690. This does NOT include airfare to Buenos Aires or the race entry fee of $200.

They are booking tips now for 2017. 

Training for a half marathon takes from 12 to 16 weeks, depending on the program you choose.

Expedia lists flight round trip from your location for $1,303. So the total tip should be from $8,292 to $10,993 plus the race entry fee and fun money on board the ship and all the race photos. Figure around $15k. Which is why I haven't run this race. Retirement is a Politically Correct Term for poor. 

[Setec Astronomy]

You'll do well here with the rest of shallow FE minds incapable of grasping a simple question. Welcome to the site.

Nice attitude. I'm sure you believe you know everything despite your evidence being only hypotheticals you assume to be facts. I do wonder about the feverish insecurity and sadism present in someone who seeks e-fellowship with people - whom he is convinced are possessed with delusional ideas - for the sole purpose of openly mocking them.

Are you on the "coast" of Antarctica?
Have you ever been there to see the view?
Or are you just believing stories you've been told? <---this one is correct, isn't it?

[Round fact]

You'll do well here with the rest of shallow FE minds incapable of grasping a simple question. Welcome to the site.

Nice attitude. I'm sure you believe you know everything despite your evidence being only hypotheticals you assume to be facts. I do wonder about the feverish insecurity and sadism present in someone who seeks e-fellowship with people - whom he is convinced are possessed with delusional ideas - for the sole purpose of openly mocking them.

Are you on the "coast" of Antarctica?
Have you ever been there to see the view?
Or are you just believing stories you've been told? <---this one is correct, isn't it?

Your first post post in this thread;

Does this "someone" have a name, or does he only exist in your imagination?
If he only exists in your imagination, I suggest he cannot "see" anything, including the sun, moon, and any stars.

It show an amazing lack of a basic understanding of the original question posted which started this thread.

It also indicated from the start your hostile anti-science, anti-logic, anti-math, attitude.

But more than all that, it shine the light on your fear the truth doesn't match your fantasy.

Why am I here? I am a writer. I came here to research an out of date concept in the hope of finding out why, in the 21st Century, a group of people can believe something that everyday grade school math so easily proves is impossible.

And you have contributed to the answer. You didn't read the the first post in this thread, or if you did, you ignored it. Your FIRST response was to mock some some un-named observer, then double down with your last post.

The math is not hard, and I have posted several times, links to calculators that will help you, if you can't do geometry.

I have been to Antartica? Nope. Does that mean Antarctic is not real? I have never seen you in person, does that make you not real?

Now stick to the subject in the OP, IF the earth is flat, why can't Polaris,  the 47th brightest star in the night sky, be seen, some 12,000 miles away on the coast of Antartica?

[Venus]

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg

In the Flat Earth literature William Carpenter tells us of accounts where Polaris was seen beyond the equator. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator.

2. In the southern hemisphere 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)

The stars are rotating against each other like two gears. I prefer the bi-polar Flat Earth model where the center of these gears are over the two poles.

3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)

This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

This has the same explanation of above.

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !! This is documented FACT ... why don't you travel to Indonesia (my favourite travel destination) or Brazil and check it out???

Gears??? Really??? Along with Shadow Objects??? In other words you cannot explain any of those observations using the FE Model ... unless you lie or your answer is just total baloney !!

This is an excellent video which refutes the gear/bipolar model

[Tom Bishop]

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

[Round fact]

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

Oh, say a thousand YEARS of navigation, not to mention almost four thousand years of recored history

[İntikam]

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

Oh, say a thousand YEARS of navigation, not to mention almost four thousand years of recored history

This means there is no proof. Just a superstition.

[rabinoz]

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

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.

From Shifting Constellations

Now I know this is just the introduction to the "DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR" section, but it explicitly states "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."

What more proof do you need?

There is also the fact that celestial navigation has relied on the accuracy star elevations above the horizon for centuries.

Since you are challenging well accepted facts, it is up to you to provide proof.

[İntikam]

Wiki as a proof. How persuasive. 

[rabinoz]

Wiki as a proof. How persuasive. 

Stop being so smart when you do not know what you are talking about. Look again!

The Wiki I quoted from was not "Wikipedia", but "the Wiki" on the TFES Web pages. You did not even bother to check the link I gave you!

So, have another look at it:

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.

From Shifting Constellations

[Tom Bishop]

Actually it says that it's an argument used by Round Earthers that is thought to prove rotundity. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. The very next sentence of your excerpt says "This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to."

Indeed, Rowbotham and other writers say that polaris could be seen at latitudes beyond the equator:

"If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”

[Round fact]

Actually it says that it's an argument used by Round Earthers that is thought to prove rotundity. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. The very next sentence of your excerpt says "This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to."

Indeed, Rowbotham and other writers say that polaris could be seen at latitudes beyond the equator:

"If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation