[Max_Almond]

Similar to the ways we can calculate the altitude of the sun by measuring our viewing angle to it, it ought to be even easier to do the same to the north star, which doesn't orbit above us like the sun does.

For some reason, though, I've never seen an answer to this question.

Anybody know what it is?

[Huge]

Are you asking the distance between Polaris and Earth? if that's the case a simple google search will tell you that people are debasing 434 to 323 light years.
Also my knowledge of astronomy is limited but i think that up and down is relative only to humans and in outer space is not an actual thing

[Max_Almond]

Thanks. I was wondering what the flat earth answer is.

[Huge]

Ohh i'm sorry, i'm just here because i'm curious about flat earth theory. They don't believe in space?

[Max_Almond]

I'm not sure.

But given that we can all see the north star - well, 90% of us - I think it's pretty safe to say they believe in that.

[Max_Almond]

Think of it this way: if you've got three guys in a field and they're looking at a floodlight, if they have a tool to measure the approximate angle to the floodlight and a way to measure how far they are from the base of the floodlight, then they can get a good idea of how high the floodlight is.

Guy A is 50 metres from the base of the floodlight and measures an angle of 22°.

Guy B is 30 metres from the floodlight and measures an angle of 34°.

Guy C is 20 metres from the floodlight and measures an angle of 45°.

The results they get are: 20.2m, 20.24m, and 20m.

Given they were only measuring to a whole degree, that's not bad: the floodlight was actually 20 metres high (well done Guy C!)

Now do the same for the north star: a point of light above us at a measurable angle.

[edby]

Not a maths whiz, but will try. Circumference of earth about 40,000 km. Suppose we are looking up at the pole star from 80 degrees north. Then about 10 deg from the pole, therefore 10/360 times 40,000  =  1,111 km. Also assume that I am looking upwards at 80 degrees, per the pole star rule.

OK everything so far assumes round earth, but anyone could replicate these measurements, even flat earthers, although they would have a different explanation.

Then I work out tan(80), which gives opposite/adjacent of about 5.5. Finally, to get the adjacent, i.e. height of Pole start = 5.5 * 1,111  =  6,000 km  =  3,800 miles.

This is within the range of what FEers claim is the height of the celestial plane.

Problem: I saw a RE YouTube which said this was problematic. The further you go South, the more distorted it gets.


[edit]
degrees lat    80    70           60          50          40          30           20           10
km                  6,301    6,106   5,774   5,297   4,662   3,849   2,831   1,567

Works OK for northerly lats, seems to break down at southerly ones. Need to check my calculations

[AATW]

Shouldn't the size of stars vary quite significantly depending on where you are on earth?
If you're at the north pole and Polaris is pretty much right above you then that's a lot closer (if the starts are mere thousands of miles away) than if you're in England looking at it because you're then at an angle to it, you could work out the new distance using Pythagorus.

I know there's this "atmospheric magnification" thing but I thought that was only for bright lights, for dimmer stars they should change size or not be visible at all as you move away from them, shouldn't that? In the RE model this is not an issue because the stars are many light years away so moving a few thousand miles here and there doesn't make any difference.

[Max_Almond]

One thing at a time: this is looking at the altitude, rather than the size (for that, see: issues with the sun not changing size during the day).

Edby makes a good point: unlike the fellas looking at the floodlight, the angles at which people at different distances look at the north star don't intersect.

What's going on there then?

[sandokhan]

Sirius - Earth distance: less than 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

Sirius meridian transit points data:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Solar disk:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Earth - Sun distance 15-20 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818

Earth - Sun distance 10 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.

[edby]

[..irrelevant claims..]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.

And please tell us how we solve the problem above.

[sandokhan]

The author of the video is a physics illiterate.

He has no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

Then, there are different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether.

[AATW]

Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.

Right. So if you're at the North Pole it is 50km above your head, straight up.
If you're in London, 4,000km away from the north pole, it's nearly 100 times further away, but you see it the same size and brightness?


Wow...

[edby]

So the refraction makes a body appear higher than it should.

And at the equator the pole star appears to be on the ground, ergo it appears higher than it should.

Ergo the pole star is underground. 

[edby]

The author of the video is a physics illiterate. He has no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment:
 

Interesting. The video was about the height of the Pole star. You assume he has no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment because he does not mention the Ruderfer experiment, and you would expect him to have knowledge of this because he is discussing the Pole star.

But does Ruderfer discuss the implications for the Pole star in that paper? If not, which subsequent paper by him or others discusses an effect which would clearly have wide ranging implications for the astrophysics community. Citations please!

[sandokhan]

Relativists are abandoning in droves Einstein's relativity because they have to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

They have two choices: either admit that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, or else embrace the Lorentz ether theory.

Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally the first null result in the history of ether drift: since both the orbital Sagnac effect and the solar gravitational potential effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

Between the Sun and the Earth, the GPS satellites and the Earth, we have a FIELD OF ETHER, each layer having a different index of refraction.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

This extremely important fact was obviously overlooked by the author of the video: he is assuming a perfect vacuum of outer space, which is completely wrong.

Most definitely Sirius orbits above the Earth at a distance of less than 50 km.

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

[edby]

Where did Martin Ruderfer prove mathematically and experimentally that previous scientific beliefs about the Pole Star were incorrect? If it was not he, which subsequent paper came to this conclusion?

Can you point me to any published work on this? Please no links to flat earth websites, or YouTube videos etc. You have claimed that the author of the video is a physics illiterate. Then show me peer reviewed papers that back your claim up.

[hexagon]

Martin Ruderfer, another great scientist... Published later in journals like "Journal of Parapsychology" or "Speculations in Science and Technology". Now I understand, why I never heard about that guy up to now...

[sandokhan]

"Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society. As also confirmed by various measurement standards, which include the Journal Citation Reports impact factor and the journal h-index proposed by Google Scholar, many physicists and other scientists consider Physical Review Letters to be one of the most prestigious journals in the field of physics."

Ruderfer's classic experiment was published in the Physical Review Letters Journal in 1960.


The author of the video has not done his homework at all. He is assuming the existence of the vacuum of outer space. He should have made sure that this is an absolute scientific fact, because otherwise he would expose himself to criticism. A brief incursion into the subject of ether drift is linked to the works of Ron Hatch, one of the world's leading experts on GPS technology:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070315063351/http://egtphysics.net/Index.htm (select the Ether Drift article option)

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf

He reviews the Ruderfer experiment in the context of the missing Sagnac effect: just like Dr. Su, R. Hatch has to accept the existence of a local-aether model.

The Ruderfer experiment means that there is a field of ether above the atmosphere of the Earth.

As such, the basic assumption made by the author of that video is false: he simply had no idea of the Ruderfer experiment and of the missing Sagnac effect, which prove immediately the existence of ether.

Ether = A DIFFERENT INDEX OF REFRACTION

All of you, so far, have been avoiding the fact that Sirius has to orbit above the surface of the Earth at an altitude of less than 50km:

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

Sirius - Earth distance: less than 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

Sirius meridian transit points data:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662


The existence of Koronium has changed everything:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

A lighter than hydrogen element which is found between the Sun and the Earth in abundance.



The first state of ether made visible: a confirmation of the Ruderfer experiment and of the acceptance by many relativists of the local-aether model.

The author of the video had no knowledge, no idea of the existence of a lighter than hydrogen element, found in abundance, Koronium, which defies the accepted only vacuum of outer space model.

Mendeleev's table of periodic elements did include Koronium:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2045088#msg2045088

[edby]

Again, for a third time, if Martin Ruderfer did not prove mathematically and experimentally that previous scientific beliefs about the Pole Star were incorrect, which subsequent paper came to this conclusion? Which paper made this precise statement, and how was it received by the astrophysicist community?

Given the widespread implications of this, which other papers have taken it up?

All of you, so far, have been avoiding the fact that Sirius has to orbit above the surface of the Earth at an altitude of less than 50km

We can come to that, when you have replied to the query above.