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? :P5 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 sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole.
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.
No help here!:P Now why didn't I think of that? :P5 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.
[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.
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 !!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.
" '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)"
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!
| Latitude | Space | Circumference |
51.0° | Space | 25,323 km |
31.0° | Space | 34,447 km |
-10.0° | Space | 39,388 km |
-34.0° | Space | 33,105 km |
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?
That's merely a theory.
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;QuoteThat'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.
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;QuoteThat'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.
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'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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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?
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?
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.
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!
No, I do not agree! I really think you view it all screwed up. Can't you see the difference between appear to merge and simply to merge?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!
You are really slow! You just need a sprinkle of magic dust [1], bendy light[2] and whatever else needs dreaming up (dark energy?).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?
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.
Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!
You claimed "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!"Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!
Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'
We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.Please explain how this actually occurs?
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.
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.
They dont know and they dont care. They dont even really believe this stuff. At best, its an exercise in extreme skepticism. In practice, however, its just a troll job.
You cant come at these people directly. Even though they're not that smart, they have experience with direct attacks. You'll have to come up with a half-assed troll job yourself, to get any responses.
You claimed "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!"Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!
Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.
Can't you see the difference! You said "perspective lines appear to merge" sure they do appear to converge!
But then you go on to say "in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge"!
There is no contradiction! The "math", as you call it, does not say that they will never appear to merge it says they will never merge. So no I do not agree at all. That word "never" is so crucial.
I think you are still trying to prove those Greek Philosophers wrong! But, guess what, the only things that have survived are those that have stood the test of time, and Euclid has been one. He hasn't been proved wrong in this area, but different geometries (spaces) have been developed. So much else from that era has dropped by the wayside.
Seems that your philosophy is a bit likeQuote from: Charles Lutwidge Dodgson'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'
We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?
Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.
We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.
What do you disagree with?
Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.
We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.
What do you disagree with?
Let's compare the train track scenario with the sun scenario.
Observations:
- The distance between the parallel train tracks appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
- The distance between the sun and the horizon appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
Since we know that the train tracks are parallel to each other, it seems plausible that the sun's path might also be parallel to the earth, right? Excellent! Flat earth for life!
Let's think about it a little deeper though. What determines the apparent distance between the train tracks? The deciding factor is the ratio of the actual distance between the tracks, to the distance to the point we are looking at. If we are standing on one of the tracks, the angular diameter of the tracks at a given distance is:
a = arctan(w/d)
a = angular diameter of the tracks at the specified distance. This decreases, approaching zero, as the tracks recede into the distance. Notice: a only becomes zero when w/d is zero.
w = physical distance between the tracks. This stays constant if the tracks are parallel.
d = the distance to the point on the tracks we are looking at. Notice: w/d is only zero when d is infinite. Of course, d can't actually be infinite in reality, so w/d is never actually zero. It can be very very small though, and appear to the human eye to be zero.
Now let's apply this to the sun scenario:
a = angular diameter between the sun and the horizon.
w = physical distance between the sun and the earth. 3000 miles seems to be the most quoted number by flat-earthers.
d = the distance between you and the spot the sun is hovering over the earth. For someone on the equator, during the equinox, the maximum this can be is the equatorial diameter of the earth. About 8000 miles.
Now, we want to see how small we can make the angle between the sun and the horizon be. To do that, we have to find the smallest possible value of w/d = 3000/8000. This gives a corresponding value for a = arctan(3000/8000) = 21 degrees.
Therefore, the SMALLEST angle possible between the sun and the horizon would be 21 degrees on a flat earth.
The difference between the train tracks and the sun is that the train tracks continues in a straight line. The ratio between the width of the tracks to the distance from the tracks continues to get smaller. The sun takes a circular path, and the ratio of the distance between the earth and the sun to the distance away from the sun never gets very small before the sun loops back around.
Therefore, a circular path of the sun above the earth is impossible. A similar argument can be made for the setting of Polaris behind the horizon as latitude decreases.
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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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".(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/PandO%20Ships%20wake%20to%20horizon_zpshmlf2gcl.png)
P&O Ships wake to horizon
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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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".(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/PandO%20Ships%20wake%20to%20horizon_zpshmlf2gcl.png)
P&O Ships wake to horizon
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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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".(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/PandO%20Ships%20wake%20to%20horizon_zpshmlf2gcl.png)
P&O Ships wake to horizon
(http://i.imgur.com/rHnAkHP.jpg)
I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.
On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, (http://s1075.photobucket.com/user/RabDownunder/library/?sort=3&page=1) all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/25/3a/4b/253a4b4edc1b741767323bca5351e791.jpg)
Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada).
FE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles. The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.
Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.
Oh, rubbish! What are you doing? Trying Tom Bishop style perspective. I am still wondering just what you'd "hate to break to "me.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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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 wake 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".(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/PandO%20Ships%20wake%20to%20horizon_zpshmlf2gcl.png)
P&O Ships wake to horizon
(http://i.imgur.com/rHnAkHP.jpg)
I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.
On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, (http://s1075.photobucket.com/user/RabDownunder/library/?sort=3&page=1) all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.
Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada).
Yes... I didn't claim otherwise. I just said it is constant, and that the ratio of width to distance is small. Why start the sentence with "except"?QuoteFE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles. The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.
Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.
Did you actually read my entire post? I also used the 3000 mile distance. I used someone standing at the equator instead of the poles since the equator is much more accessible. I also gave flat-earthers the benefit of the doubt by using the distance to the sun at midnight (long after it has actually set). A better distance would be the distance to the sun at 9pm, which would be 4000*sqrt(2), which gives a = arctan(3000/(4000*sqrt(2))) = 28 degrees.
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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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".(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/PandO%20Ships%20wake%20to%20horizon_zpshmlf2gcl.png)
P&O Ships wake to horizon
(http://i.imgur.com/rHnAkHP.jpg)
I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.
On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, (http://s1075.photobucket.com/user/RabDownunder/library/?sort=3&page=1) all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/25/3a/4b/253a4b4edc1b741767323bca5351e791.jpg)
Completely dishonest. You used an arbitrary reference point, one designed to get the results YOU need, rather that the wake disturbance that is clearly parallel the POV.
(http://i.imgur.com/rHnAkHP.jpg)
I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.
Completely dishonest. You used an arbitrary reference point, one designed to get the results YOU need, rather that the wake disturbance that is clearly parallel the POV.
Are you kidding me? I used an actually horizontal line obviously parallel to the ground. Why would the wake be the right thing to use anyway? First of all, it would be maybe 15-20 feet below the point of view. Secondly the wake tapers out as you move, not sure if you've ever seen wake behind a boat or not.
So tell me again, who arbitrarily chose something to draw lines on something?
Do you see the horizontal lines on the wall?
The other one is just a reflect of that.
Even if you trace from the other physical line on the wall It will reach the same point.
The laws of perspective aren't up for debate. They are very clean cut,
the fact some here say a vinishing point doesnt "exist" is astounding.
The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.
Um, there is a complete difference between the back of the cloud and the underside. It would be impossible for the underside to be illuminated if the sun was above the cloud, unless you take into account the magic bendy light caused the the FE aether.We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?
The sun is also going behind a lot of atmosphere as it recedes. When it is near the horizon it is already dimmed by an order of magnitude than when it overhead at noonday. You can look directly at it without squinting. After it merges into the horizon the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes several hours for the blackness of night to set in, which indicates that the opacity of the atmosphere has increased significantly.
The clouds appear to illuminate from the "bottom" because the sun's rays are hitting the backside of that cloud at a more horizontal angle. You are standing beneath the cloud, so you are only seeing that back end which is illuminated, which looks like the "bottom" since the backside is further from you than the frontside of the cloud.
The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.
The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.
There have been studies on it and while it varies a bit with wind direction, typically it varies fairly slowly and might be be
100 m wide 1000 m from the ship, and
180 m wide 6000 m from the ship.
These figures are from 100s of actual measurements on a very large cruise ship, though not the P & O one in the photo.
But, the only inference I made from the wake photo was that was not zero width at the visible horizon.
How about simply posting an appropriate example rather than waves behind a ship?
If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?Does this "someone" have a name, or does he only exist in your imagination?
If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?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.
If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?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.
Not quite what you are asking for but:The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.
There have been studies on it and while it varies a bit with wind direction, typically it varies fairly slowly and might be be
100 m wide 1000 m from the ship, and
180 m wide 6000 m from the ship.
These figures are from 100s of actual measurements on a very large cruise ship, though not the P & O one in the photo.
But, the only inference I made from the wake photo was that was not zero width at the visible horizon.
How about simply posting an appropriate example rather than waves behind a ship?
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!
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
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)
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)
4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)
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.
Quote2. 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.
Quote3. 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.Quote4. 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.
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.I would need a tremendous lot more evidence than William Carpenter!
DECLINATION OF THE POLE STARI cannot find where "Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter", though that does not mean he doesn't, but the above statement by Rowbotham from "the Wiki" seems to contradict William Carpenter's claim!
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.
| 8. | If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best because the truest thing for the.navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe. |
| 10. | That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the schoolbooks, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe. |
| 11. | As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.[/b] |
| 13. | As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe. |
| 20. | The common sense of man tells him if nothing else told him that there is an "up" and a "down" in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense yes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe. |
| 22. | God's Truth never no, never requires a falsehood to help it along. Mr. Proctor, in his "Lessons," says: Men "have been able to go round and round the Earth in several directions." Now, in this case, the word "several will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and a proof that Earth is not a globe. |
| 29. | If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics no matter its size as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe. |
| 37. | If the Earth were a globe, there would, very likely, be (for nobody knows) six months day and six months night at the arctic and antarctic regions, as astronomers dare to assert there is: for their theory demands it! But, as this fact the six months day and six months night is; nowhere found but in the arctic regions, it agrees perfectly with everything else that we know about the Earth as a plane, and, whilst it overthrows the "accepted theory," it furnishes a striking proof that Earth is not a globe. |
| 55. | The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe. |
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.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
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".(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/PandO%20Ships%20wake%20to%20horizon_zpshmlf2gcl.png)
P&O Ships wake to horizon
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.
Simply because Polaris would be more than 60° below the horizon!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.
If the Earth is globe and "spinning, turning" why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?
Simply because Polaris would be more than 60° below the horizon!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.
If the Earth is globe and "spinning, turning" why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?
Simply because Polaris would be more than 60° below the horizon!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.
If the Earth is globe and "spinning, turning" why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?
I replied to Round fact mister! What's it to you? You're doing what you criticize. Shame on you mister, shame on you shameless man!
It is not impartant what the angel between Polaris and earth. Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin. Why does'nt this happen?
Simply because Polaris would be more than 60° below the horizon!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.
If the Earth is globe and "spinning, turning" why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?
I replied to Round fact mister! What's it to you? You're doing what you criticize. Shame on you mister, shame on you shameless man!
It is not impartant what the angel between Polaris and earth. Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin. Why does'nt this happen?
Polaris IS well below the horizon on globe. Only on a FE could it AND WOULD it be seen from points south of the equator. But the FACT is, Polaris is NOT seen from south of the equator. Proof of a globe earth.
This also applies to the sun, see my thread on that subject.
Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin. Why does'nt this happen?
This is disprove of the earth spinnig, rotating and moving. It is impossible to see the polaris as same place if everything is moving.
Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin. Why does'nt this happen?This is disprove of the earth spinnig, rotating and moving. It is impossible to see the polaris as same place if everything is moving.
Now that you've said this same thing twice, I'm sure I understand you and will reply. As you say, we claim the earth is continuously turning, spinning, rotating, yes. And for everything else in the sky, it is true that they will not be in the same place, and the angle would change. Polaris happens to be located in a unique position, however: the rotational axis of the earth points at the spot in the sky occupied by Polaris. This is why its angle never changes, and it appears to spin in place (in actual fact, it is slightly off-axis, a little less than 45 arc-minutes, or 3/4 of a degree. This means it does actually describe a very small apparent circle in the sky, but very tiny) and the whole northern hemisphere sky appears to rotate around it.
Consider an analogy: place a video camera on a record player's turntable, pointing at a wall. If you film the room while turning the record, everything in the image will be moving. Point the camera upwards at a 45 degree angle, same result. But if you point the camera along the spin axis (at the ceiling) and run the test, you will find a spot on the ceiling that does not move within the image, but turns in place. THAT'S where Polaris would be.
Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin. Why does'nt this happen?This is disprove of the earth spinnig, rotating and moving. It is impossible to see the polaris as same place if everything is moving.
Now that you've said this same thing twice, I'm sure I understand you and will reply. As you say, we claim the earth is continuously turning, spinning, rotating, yes. And for everything else in the sky, it is true that they will not be in the same place, and the angle would change. Polaris happens to be located in a unique position, however: the rotational axis of the earth points at the spot in the sky occupied by Polaris. This is why its angle never changes, and it appears to spin in place (in actual fact, it is slightly off-axis, a little less than 45 arc-minutes, or 3/4 of a degree. This means it does actually describe a very small apparent circle in the sky, but very tiny) and the whole northern hemisphere sky appears to rotate around it.
Consider an analogy: place a video camera on a record player's turntable, pointing at a wall. If you film the room while turning the record, everything in the image will be moving. Point the camera upwards at a 45 degree angle, same result. But if you point the camera along the spin axis (at the ceiling) and run the test, you will find a spot on the ceiling that does not move within the image, but turns in place. THAT'S where Polaris would be.
Lucky thing it just so happens to be the brightest star in the sky. Also good thing that the stars are so so far away that their relative positions never ever change during our 530 million mile elliptical orbit. That certainly made navigation for 99% of human history a heck of a lot easier.
Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin. Why does'nt this happen?This is disprove of the earth spinnig, rotating and moving. It is impossible to see the polaris as same place if everything is moving.
Now that you've said this same thing twice, I'm sure I understand you and will reply. As you say, we claim the earth is continuously turning, spinning, rotating, yes. And for everything else in the sky, it is true that they will not be in the same place, and the angle would change. Polaris happens to be located in a unique position, however: the rotational axis of the earth points at the spot in the sky occupied by Polaris. This is why its angle never changes, and it appears to spin in place (in actual fact, it is slightly off-axis, a little less than 45 arc-minutes, or 3/4 of a degree. This means it does actually describe a very small apparent circle in the sky, but very tiny) and the whole northern hemisphere sky appears to rotate around it.
Consider an analogy: place a video camera on a record player's turntable, pointing at a wall. If you film the room while turning the record, everything in the image will be moving. Point the camera upwards at a 45 degree angle, same result. But if you point the camera along the spin axis (at the ceiling) and run the test, you will find a spot on the ceiling that does not move within the image, but turns in place. THAT'S where Polaris would be.
Lucky thing it just so happens to be the brightest star in the sky. Also good thing that the stars are so so far away that their relative positions never ever change during our 530 million mile elliptical orbit. That certainly made navigation for 99% of human history a heck of a lot easier.
Polaris is the North StarFrom Polaris the Present Day North Star (http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/polaris-the-present-day-north-star).
The North Star or Pole Star – aka Polaris – is famous for holding nearly still in our sky while the entire northern sky moves around it. That’s because it’s located nearly at the north celestial pole, the point around which the entire northern sky turns. Polaris marks the way due north. As you face Polaris and stretch your arms sideways, your right hand points due east, and your left hand points due west. About-face of Polaris steers you due south. Polaris is not the brightest star in the nighttime sky, as is commonly believed. It’s only about 50th brightest. But you can find it easily, and, once you do, you’ll see it shining in the northern sky every night, from N. Hemisphere locations. Follow the links below to learn more about Polaris.
History of Polaris.Same reference.
Polaris hasn’t always been the North Star and won’t remain the North Star forever. For example, a famous star called Thuban, in the constellation Draco the Dragon, was the North Star when the Egyptians built the pyramids.
But our present Polaris is a good North Star because it’s the sky’s 50th brightest star. So it’s noticeable in the sky. It served well as the North Star, for example, when the Europeans first sailed across the Atlantic over five centuries ago.
And Polaris will continue its reign as the North Star for many centuries to come. It will align most closely with the north celestial pole – the point in the sky directly above Earth’s north rotational axis – on March 24, 2100. The computational wizard Jean Meeus figures Polaris will be 27’09” (0.4525°) from the north celestial pole at that time (a little less than the angular diameter of the moon when at its farthest from Earth).
That's strange, because if I took a picture of the sky I see, the north star is pretty much the only one I can see a lot of nights. I live in a major metro area full of light pollution and could only dream to see the stars as you incredible astronomers that live in the boondocks.I'm not an astronomer, so I am going by what they say, but they would have no reason tho try to mislead on something like that.
That's strange, because if I took a picture of the sky I see, the north star is pretty much the only one I can see a lot of nights. I live in a major metro area full of light pollution and could only dream to see the stars as you incredible astronomers that live in the boondocks.
That's strange, because if I took a picture of the sky I see, the north star is pretty much the only one I can see a lot of nights. I live in a major metro area full of light pollution and could only dream to see the stars as you incredible astronomers that live in the boondocks.
I find an argument is only worth having if the opposition is coherent, informed and at least show that they practice what they preach.
If you are a sailor out beyond the site of land you will look for a method of fixing your position from what is available, which pretty much means the sky. If you have ever looked up at the sky you will notice that the nearer you look to the horizon the more the stars move, both through the night and the year, in the northern hemisphere looking up to the north the constellation Ursa major pivots around Polaris, using Rounders analogy of the turntable there will always be one part of the sky that remains stationary, in the north there is a star there, in the south there isn’t, so a “lucky thing” in only 50% of the planet, not much room for a conspiracy there then.
Incidentally, in 320 BC the Greek navigator Pytheas described the celestial pole devoid of stars.
As the stars are not fixed, they move position, Polaris won't be there in a couple of thousand years.
Is polaris everytime 60 degrees angle to North Pole?No, it is presently inclined at +89° 15′ 50.8″
Is polaris everytime 60 degrees angle to North Pole?No, it is presently inclined at +89° 15′ 50.8″
Yes in the southern hemisphere I've never seen it?!?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?!?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.
There is no answer FE can give that will NOT make Polaris visible at night form any place on a FE.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
You'll do well here with the rest of shallow FE minds incapable of grasping a simple question. Welcome to the site.
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?
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.
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.Quote2. 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.Quote3. 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.Quote4. 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 !!
ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!
Proof?
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
ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!
Proof?
DECLINATION OF THE POLE STARFrom Shifting Constellations (http://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations)
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.
Wiki as a proof. How persuasive. :)Stop being so smart when you do not know what you are talking about. Look again!
DECLINATION OF THE POLE STARFrom Shifting Constellations (http://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations)
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.
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
Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation
Where is your proof?
Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation
Where is your proof?
Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.
The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles
Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?
Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/)
Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation
Where is your proof?
Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.
The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles
Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?
Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/)
Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?
Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/)
Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?
Okay! I live in England. I watch the skies, I have this and it is 100% accurate here, anybody else from around the world?
Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/)
Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?
Okay! I live in England. I watch the skies, I have this and it is 100% accurate here, anybody else from around the world?
Did you chart every star in the night sky in the last 2 hours since I last posted to prove that Stellarium is 100% accurate? ???
Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/)
Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?
You are just amazing!Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation
Where is your proof?
ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!
Proof?
Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation
Where is your proof?
Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.
The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles
Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?