[Clyde Frog]

If the stars were just a reflection off a dome like you say, based on what you are showing here it seems like people at the same latitudes would expect to see the constellations of stars rotated differently. That doesn't seem to be the case when observing the stars. Instead, they seem to be pretty much the same on any given day when viewed from the same latitude, sort of moving and rotating a bit throughout the year but at all times appear not to be rotated when compared to other locations of the same latitude. What's your take on that situation?

[Tron]

Edit: Clyde I found a few errors on the map which I'll correct soon.     

I'll keep my original response below for general purposes:
----------

The original reflection map plots the constellation directly overhead at a certain latitude every two hours- it doesn't capture movement.  How the stars can rotate counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south over time, is a property of moving objects seen through a dome..


Credit:  https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation#Glass_Dome_Example

This is a map of the Cepheus Constellation and the Milky Way Galaxy and how they appear to rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris during the day from 30N latitude.



Other properties of a dome can be seen here..



 Stars with high altitudes such as the northern stars can duplicate there images.  Stars with lower altitudes such as the southern stars do not duplicate.

[stack]

If I'm at 30N latitude, let's say in the middle of the Atlantic, trying to navigate, which Polaris would I use to head North? It looks like I would have several to pick from.

[Tron]

You should only see one image of Polaris.  Its image follows you as you move around the world. 

[stack]

What if I’m not moving?

[Tron]

It stays still.

[stack]

I think I'm not following. I'm guessing if Polaris is being reflected all around the rim of the dome, then I would see Polaris's all over the place, facing left, right, and center, at the same time. Am I missing something?

[Tron]

Good question...   You can only see a certain distance around you before objects fade out of view... 

[stack]

Agreed. But when I'm in that position, there would be multiple Polaris's evenly in my view or am I missing something?

[Tron]

Stack, there's only one image of Polaris that everyone see's at night.  I cannot adequetly explain why the light from Polaris reflects in different directions off a dome and only one image is shown to each viewer.  I'll try more demonstrations perhaps like the images I posted to ClydeFrog. 

[stack]

Stack, there's only one image of Polaris that everyone see's at night.  I cannot adequetly explain why the light from Polaris reflects in different directions off a dome and only one image is shown to each viewer.  I'll try more demonstrations perhaps like the images I posted to ClydeFrog.

I'm still unclear how navigation works. In reference to this earlier:

New Yorker & Londoner facing North, both looking at Polaris, at the same time, they are facing according to these arrows?



You said:

Yes - And I see your point earlier.   The "image" of Polaris can always be seen around the world pointing directly north.  I just picked a few locations to plot it.

So I'm guessing not everyone is looking at the same Polaris at the same time. If the Londoner wanted to sail due West at the same time the New Yorker did, they'd be travelling in wildly different directions:



How does navigation using Polaris actually work for everyone at the same time?

[Tron]

Again, Polaris will follow every ship around the world, and always point directly to the northern edge of a disc.  You can only see Polaris at a certain viewing angle so that's why you can't see another man's north star. 

Polaris, your compass, and lines of longitude will be parallel to each other.  You will not travel in a straight line on a disc (or even a globe) and you need to make corrections to travel along a particular line of latitude.

[stack]

Again, Polaris will follow every ship around the world, and always point directly to the northern edge of a disc.  You can only see Polaris at a certain viewing angle so that's why you can't see another man's north star. 

So the reflection of Polaris would have to be a ring of lights around the rim so that everyone, no matter which way they are outwardly facing on the disk, will always see it to the north rim?

In other words, all of these ships are facing their own Polaris at the same time and all the spaces in between each ship must have their own Polaris due North as well:

Polaris, your compass, and lines of longitude will be parallel to each other.  You will not travel in a straight line on a disc (or even a globe) and you need to make corrections to travel along a particular line of latitude.

What corrections do you have to make on a line of latitude on a globe? If I travel on 30 N latitude, no corrections are needed, it's a straight line:

[Tron]

The first image is correct..     

The second idea probably isn't worth looking into for our purposes.

[stack]

The first image is correct..     

The second idea probably isn't worth looking into for our purposes.

Your map-under-a-magnifying-glass dome images don't show how Polaris could be reflected around the rim for all of those ships. It's more like an opposing mirror image. So how do all those ships all see Polaris at the same time and all things/people between those ships all see their own Polaris too? Is it a ring of Polaris's, like this, and which one is the actual Polaris:

[Clyde Frog]

Ships sailing north from different lines of latitude converge toward each other. They don't get further away from each other. That is the reality modern navigation has revealed to us. Leaving the discussion of rotated constellations behind (because it is definitely unresolved), you don't account for converging paths as people move north from various longitudes.

[jimster]

Do I understand Metatron's explanation of Polaris appearing directly north of any observer on FE be summed up as: "I don't know anything about how other than vague speculation about projection and reflection, it just does."? Sort of like "unknown forces with unknown equations" in the FAQ re Electromagnetic Acceleration? We can add unknown reflective properties of the FE dome?

Meanwhile, is there any flaw in the RE explanation for where Polaris appears? It requires only the known tested properties of physics, the light doesn't have to bend, no dome with mysterious reflective properties? Does RE explain this with simple geometry? What is the reason to prefer an explanation that has no explanation rather than one that has explanation consistent with geometry and physics?

[Tron]

Jimster your comments are valid...   But I'd just reinforce that a new science theory may not have all the details worked out or explained properly, but it doesn't make it inconsistent with science.

[RonJ]

Ships sailing north from different lines of latitude converge toward each other. They don't get further away from each other. That is the reality modern navigation has revealed to us. Leaving the discussion of rotated constellations behind (because it is definitely unresolved), you don't account for converging paths as people move north from various longitudes.

The courses of two ships would converge on a Northbound voyage assuming that they are both North of the equator. If they were South of the equator the courses would continue to diverge until they reached the equator.

[jimster]

To say things are not how they appear and offer no explanation or evidence is absolutely inconsistent with science. FE is absolutely inconsistent with RE. RE has experiments, observations, mathematics, and much confirmation daily. FE has "RE is wrong but we haven't figured it out yet."

Well, suggestion: Posting a wild thought about how things might be is just bla bla bla. Posting a consistent explanatory theory with experimental evidence that contradicts known science, you got something there. Why post until you have that? Suggest not posting util you have that.

The Electromagnetic Acceleration has the explanation "unknown forces with unknown equations". Even if you want to continue exploring the idea, you might want to keep quiet until you can explain, and certainly not go around saying it is true until the forces are known and confirmed with experiments.

Please find a real mathematician and/or physicist and ask them to explain coordinate transformation and basis.  If they have the patience, tell them your idea that coordinate transform changes shape and physical properties are the same.

Also, per you, we can't know the shape of the earth. We can know the precise location of many many points on the earth and the distance between them. We can plot them on the surface of a globe. If all the distances match up, the earth might be round. If there was such a map of FE, the earth might be flat. Until someone produces a FE map with accurate distances between all points, there is no known possible FE.