The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: leo on February 14, 2020, 06:59:25 AM

Title: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: leo on February 14, 2020, 06:59:25 AM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 11:36:49 AM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.
This is simply not true.

Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: RoundLurker on February 14, 2020, 12:05:51 PM

This is simply not true.


- Do you know the distance required for Polaris (apparent magnitude of 1.97v) to stop being visible to the naked eye?
- What % of that distance passes through our atmosphere versus no atmosphere? (or atmo*whatever)
- How far away is Polaris under FET?
- Have you travelled "away" from Polaris to measure the point at which is stops being visible / has anyone?
- Did it fade from view gradually as you moved away?

If you can't answer these, you can't categorically call a statement untrue.  Everybody has a theory and that's what this place is for, but TL consistently makes dismissive statements like this without any supporting commentary. Tedious.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2020, 12:18:53 PM
Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object.

How far away do you reckon Polaris is, and by how much does that distance vary by people moving upon what you regard as the Flat Earth?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 12:30:38 PM
Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object.

How far away do you reckon Polaris is, and by how much does that distance vary by people moving upon what you regard as the Flat Earth?
I have not measured it using the similar triangles method.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2020, 12:32:29 PM
I have not measured it using the similar triangles method.

Have you measured it with any other method?

If not, how can you cite "Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object." as a reason for not seeing Polaris? 
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 12:36:23 PM
I have not measured it using the similar triangles method.

Have you measured it with any other method?

If not, how can you cite "Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object." as a reason for not seeing Polaris?
No.

I have not measured it by any other method.

I can state that you cannot see an object once you are far enough away from that object to see it because it is a verifiable fact that once you are far enough away from an object to see it, you can no longer see it.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2020, 12:43:00 PM
I have not measured it by any other method.

I can state that you cannot see an object once you are far enough away from that object to see it because it is a verifiable fact that once you are far enough away from an object to see it, you can no longer see it.

Can you state the latter as a reason for not seeing Polaris, when you have no information for the former to confirm that the actual distances make a material difference?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 12:50:02 PM
I have not measured it by any other method.

I can state that you cannot see an object once you are far enough away from that object to see it because it is a verifiable fact that once you are far enough away from an object to see it, you can no longer see it.

Can you state the latter as a reason for not seeing Polaris, when you have no information for the former to confirm that the actual distances make a material difference?
I need to clarify something here.

I often see RE bring up the issue of kangaroos and knowing they are real and indigenous to Australia, despite the fact being one has never actually seen one alive and hopping in Australia.

Allow me to use the same method of argumentation here.

I have traveled far enough away from certain objects, and certain objects, especially in the sky, have traveled far enough away from me, to achieve a loss of personal visual contact.

So, yeah, utilizing the kangaroo method, I can state the latter (you are standing too far away to see Polaris) as a reason.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 12:56:04 PM
I can state that you cannot see an object once you are far enough away from that object to see it because it is a verifiable fact that once you are far enough away from an object to see it, you can no longer see it.

Correct, but objects don't just go from "you can see it" to "you can't see it".
A bright object will appear dimmer and smaller until you can't see it.
Does his happen with Polaris? No. The elevation of it gets lower by 1 degree for every degree of latitude until you can't see it because it's under the horizon.
Perfectly consistent with the observations you'd expect on a globe. On a FE then if it's just distance then why does the magnitude remain constant?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 01:14:05 PM
I can state that you cannot see an object once you are far enough away from that object to see it because it is a verifiable fact that once you are far enough away from an object to see it, you can no longer see it.

Correct, but objects don't just go from "you can see it" to "you can't see it".
Most objects actually do.
A bright object will appear dimmer and smaller until you can't see it.
Polaris is typically hard to make out, especially for older people, even in the Northern regions of the earth because it simply isn't that bright of a star and because of "light pollution."
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
Yes it does.
The elevation of it gets lower by 1 degree for every degree of latitude until you can't see it because it's under the horizon.
Actually, objects that rise above the flat earth plane and those occupying the atmolayer above the earth eventually obscure it.
Perfectly consistent with the observations you'd expect on a globe. On a FE then if it's just distance then why does the magnitude remain constant?
Absolute magnitude is a characteristic of self luminescent objects and not the observer.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 01:28:39 PM
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
Yes it does.

Can you provide some evidence for this. Thanks.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 01:46:24 PM
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
Yes it does.

Can you provide some evidence for this. Thanks.
Yes.

Polaris is a star of variable magnitude.

You are welcome.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 01:57:05 PM
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
Yes it does.

Can you provide some evidence for this. Thanks.
Yes.

Polaris is a star of variable magnitude.

You are welcome.
That isn't evidence, that's just you stating something :)
Can you provide evidence that the magnitude of Polaris varies by latitude and, more specifically, that it gets dimmer the further south you go and thus the further away you are from it in your model?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 03:26:20 PM
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
Yes it does.

Can you provide some evidence for this. Thanks.
Yes.

Polaris is a star of variable magnitude.

You are welcome.
That isn't evidence, that's just you stating something :)
Can you provide evidence that the magnitude of Polaris varies by latitude and, more specifically, that it gets dimmer the further south you go and thus the further away you are from it in your model?
I am stating a scientific fact.

You know that magnitude is strictly a characteristic of the light source.

The magnitude of the light source is not dependent on distance and I never wrote it was.

Stop strawmanning.

Now, issues of light pollution and other terrestrial and atmoplanar effects will affect the ability of any star's ability to be to be perceived by an observer.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: RoundLurker on February 14, 2020, 03:36:01 PM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.
This is simply not true.

Some evidence to support this point would be lovely, alternatively just concede that you can't possibly make such a definitive statement ?

Kangaroo logic might be sufficient to make some sort of claim, but certainly not to disprove the OP.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 03:45:30 PM
The magnitude of the light source is not dependent on distance and I never wrote it was.
Of course it is - the observed magnitude is. The further you are from a light source, the dimmer it appears.
Shine a torch right in your eyes and it's uncomfortably bright. Observer it from 50 yards and it's much dimmer and smaller.
So if we can't see Polaris from the southern "hemisphere" because it's too far away then we should observe a gradual dimming of it as you get further away to the point where it can't be seen any more. That isn't what is observed at all. It just gets lower in the sky - again, a degree lower for each degree of latitude - until we can't see it any more because it is "under" the horizon.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 03:50:39 PM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.
This is simply not true.

Some evidence to support this point would be lovely, alternatively just concede that you can't possibly make such a definitive statement ?
What evidence would you like?

Can you see your neighbor's back door?

Why not?

Something in the way?

No...my written statement stands.
Kangaroo logic might be sufficient to make some sort of claim, but certainly not to disprove the OP.
I'm not trying to disprove the OP as he never wrote a truthful statement to begin with.

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

The OP wrote that people should be able to see Polaris from wherever they are standing on the earth if the earth was flat.

That statement is just flat out false.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: RoundLurker on February 14, 2020, 03:59:09 PM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.
This is simply not true.

Some evidence to support this point would be lovely, alternatively just concede that you can't possibly make such a definitive statement ?
What evidence would you like?

Can you see your neighbor's back door?

Why not?

Something in the way?

No...my written statement stands.
Kangaroo logic might be sufficient to make some sort of claim, but certainly not to disprove the OP.
I'm not trying to disprove the OP as he never wrote a truthful statement to begin with.

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

The OP wrote that people should be able to see Polaris from wherever they are standing on the earth if the earth was flat.

That statement is just flat out false.

The sun is 150 million km away and I can see that.  Your statement is just flat out false.  This is a fun game isn't it?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 04:02:06 PM
The magnitude of the light source is not dependent on distance and I never wrote it was.
Of course it is - the observed magnitude is. The further you are from a light source, the dimmer it appears.
Shine a torch right in your eyes and it's uncomfortably bright. Observer it from 50 yards and it's much dimmer and smaller.
So if we can't see Polaris from the southern "hemisphere" because it's too far away then we should observe a gradual dimming of it as you get further away to the point where it can't be seen any more. That isn't what is observed at all. It just gets lower in the sky - again, a degree lower for each degree of latitude - until we can't see it any more because it is "under" the horizon.
The absolute magnitude of Polaris varies and is not dependent on the observer.

Apparent magnitude, of which you write, is a different measure altogether.

And your claim that Polaris simply becomes lower and lower for each degree of latitude is true, but there is more.

There is always the issue of atmoplanar effects and terrestrial objects that will eventually interfere with the ability to see any object.

But, really I find all of  this quite rich!

Here, AATW writes:
A bright object will appear dimmer and smaller until you can't see it.
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
But here, he flips the script and starts arguing with...himself:
Of course it is - the observed magnitude is. The further you are from a light source, the dimmer it appears.
Shine a torch right in your eyes and it's uncomfortably bright. Observer it from 50 yards and it's much dimmer and smaller.
So, which position are you arguing again?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 04:04:32 PM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.
This is simply not true.

Some evidence to support this point would be lovely, alternatively just concede that you can't possibly make such a definitive statement ?
What evidence would you like?

Can you see your neighbor's back door?

Why not?

Something in the way?

No...my written statement stands.
Kangaroo logic might be sufficient to make some sort of claim, but certainly not to disprove the OP.
I'm not trying to disprove the OP as he never wrote a truthful statement to begin with.

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

The OP wrote that people should be able to see Polaris from wherever they are standing on the earth if the earth was flat.

That statement is just flat out false.

The sun is 150 million km away and I can see that.  Your statement is just flat out false.  This is a fun game isn't it?
The Sun is a lot closer than that, according to many sources.

I have performed a similar triangles measure of the sun.

I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 04:22:41 PM
But, really I find all of  this quite rich!

Here, AATW writes:
A bright object will appear dimmer and smaller until you can't see it.
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
But here, he flips the script and starts arguing with...himself:
Of course it is - the observed magnitude is. The further you are from a light source, the dimmer it appears.
Shine a torch right in your eyes and it's uncomfortably bright. Observer it from 50 yards and it's much dimmer and smaller.
So, which position are you arguing again?

It's quite simple. In RET you are no further from Polaris at the North Pole than you are at the equator.
Because in RET Polaris is over 300 LIGHT YEARS away from earth. So a few thousand extra kilometers here and there on that scale makes no difference, you would not expect to see any difference in apparent magnitude.

If FET claims that the stars are much closer though then you would expect the magnitude to dim the further south you go as the difference in distance would be significant. That isn't what is observed.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 04:24:38 PM
But, really I find all of  this quite rich!

Here, AATW writes:
A bright object will appear dimmer and smaller until you can't see it.
Does his happen with Polaris? No.
But here, he flips the script and starts arguing with...himself:
Of course it is - the observed magnitude is. The further you are from a light source, the dimmer it appears.
Shine a torch right in your eyes and it's uncomfortably bright. Observer it from 50 yards and it's much dimmer and smaller.
So, which position are you arguing again?

It's quite simple. In RET you are no further from Polaris at the North Pole than you are at the equator.
Because in RET Polaris is over 300 LIGHT YEARS away from earth. So a few thousand extra kilometers here and there on that scale makes no difference, you would not expect to see any difference in apparent magnitude.

If FET claims that the stars are much closer though then you would expect the magnitude to dim the further south you go as the difference in distance would be significant. That isn't what is observed.
Oh, you are now claiming the ability to determine the simultaneous apparent magnitude of a star for all observers?

Please, let us know more...
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 04:34:40 PM
I'm not claiming anything. You said

Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object.

So if your claim is that we can't see Polaris from the southern "hemisphere" because you're too far away then you should surely be able to provide some data which indicates that the further south you go the dimmer Polaris gets until it can no longer be seen.
In fact what we observer is that the further south you go the closer to the horizon Polaris gets until it can't be seen because it is "under" the horizon.
RET has an explanation for that observation. Does FET?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 04:44:22 PM
I'm not claiming anything. You said

Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object.

So if your claim is that we can't see Polaris from the southern "hemisphere" because you're too far away then you should surely be able to provide some data which indicates that the further south you go the dimmer Polaris gets until it can no longer be seen.
Yeah I wrote that.

That statement is undeniable fact.

What data do I need to provide that Polaris would get dimmer?

Even the Sun gets dimmer as it moves farther away...
In fact what we observer is that the further south you go the closer to the horizon Polaris gets until it can't be seen because it is "under" the horizon.
RET has an explanation for that observation. Does FET?
Yeah, and I have provided it here.

I don't see the need to repeat myself.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2020, 05:58:18 PM
The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

I have performed a similar triangles measure of the sun.
I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.

Do you consider the Moon to be closer than the Sun?
Do you agree that Venus and Mercury have been observed to transit between Earth and Sun?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 06:10:39 PM
The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

I have performed a similar triangles measure of the sun.
I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.

Do you consider the Moon to be closer than the Sun?
I don't know as I have yet to do a similar triangle measurement for the moon.
Do you agree that Venus and Mercury have been observed to transit between Earth and Sun?
I have not seen it, but that doesn't mean that hasn't happened.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: TomInAustin on February 14, 2020, 07:23:59 PM

I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.


If that is true how can you see it?  if this is true?

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

Are you arguing with yourself?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: iamcpc on February 14, 2020, 08:55:50 PM
if the earth is flat, people in south(people over the equator) should see the Polaris like the people in the north do. But they actually don’t. Can someone please explain this?

Or is it that the flat earth has an oval surface, so the people in south have their vision blocked by the curve? but is it curved that much?

thanks a lot.


Well it would help if I knew what FE model you were talking about


I'm going to respond as if you are talking about this model or some model which is relatively similar to this.

(https://ctl.s6img.com/society6/img/ybtbSsQsKeFealhLkzyYe9fDILQ/w_700/canvas/~artwork/s6-0056/a/23543855_4646560/~~/flat-earth-map-wall-clock-canvas.jpg)



1. The place you are calling south pole does not exist in this model. Can you please mark on this map what point you would like to consider the south pole. This is the biggest problem with answering a question in these types of models because you are trying to compare a single square miles to a circle composed of thousands of square miles which are thousands and thousands of miles apart.

For the sake of trying to give you a few possible responses i'll just say that the south pole can be any random point on or around the outer perimeter.

2. You can't see the star from the outer perimeter because of the way the light refracts through the vacuum then dome and atmosphere (for models that have a dome)
3. You can't see the star from the outer perimeter because of the way the light refracts through the vacuum of space then the atmosphere (for models that don't have a dome)
4. You can see the star from the outer perimeter
5. No one has been to the outer perimeter (for a large numbers of different reasons depends on the subset of this model) so no one knows if you can see the star from the outer perimeter or not.
6. You can't see the star from the square mile randomly picked as the south pole because the RE south pole is on the opposite side of the circle.
7. You can't see the star from the outer perimeter because it's too far away.
8. You can't see the star because of limitations to the human visual system.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 09:12:21 PM

I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.


If that is true how can you see it?  if this is true?

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

Are you arguing with yourself?
Actually no.

The visual acuity figure I presented is relative to objects not emitting their own light. I should have clarified that statement when I wrote it, so thanks for bringing it up.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: leo on February 16, 2020, 03:24:10 PM


Well it would help if I knew what FE model you were talking about


I'm going to respond as if you are talking about this model or some model which is relatively similar to this.

(https://ctl.s6img.com/society6/img/ybtbSsQsKeFealhLkzyYe9fDILQ/w_700/canvas/~artwork/s6-0056/a/23543855_4646560/~~/flat-earth-map-wall-clock-canvas.jpg)



1. The place you are calling south pole does not exist in this model. Can you please mark on this map what point you would like to consider the south pole. This is the biggest problem with answering a question in these types of models because you are trying to compare a single square miles to a circle composed of thousands of square miles which are thousands and thousands of miles apart.

For the sake of trying to give you a few possible responses i'll just say that the south pole can be any random point on or around the outer perimeter.

2. You can't see the star from the outer perimeter because of the way the light refracts through the vacuum then dome and atmosphere (for models that have a dome)
3. You can't see the star from the outer perimeter because of the way the light refracts through the vacuum of space then the atmosphere (for models that don't have a dome)

i did not say south pole, i said people in the south, and that “in the south” means “over the equator”. but that’s alright, i guess in that map, the south pole would be the circle line.

so if you can’t see the Polaris in the south in FET, it may be because of refraction?
i would like to know how it refracts, the way it goes. i’m not able to simulate it by myself because i don’t know what a dome is. is it the curve? or something else. i really like to know about the FET model, even if (maybe you)and i don’t agree with it.

thank you
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Regicide on May 26, 2020, 01:35:52 PM

I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.


If that is true how can you see it?  if this is true?

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

Are you arguing with yourself?
Actually no.

The visual acuity figure I presented is relative to objects not emitting their own light. I should have clarified that statement when I wrote it, so thanks for bringing it up.

If the figure is relative to objects not emitting their own light, then why is it relevant, seeing as Polaris does in fact emit its own light.

Polaris has been observed to be consistently directly overhead at the North Pole. From there, it drops by one degree in the sky until you get to the equator, where it is at the horizon. This phenomenon has been consistently used for celestial navigation for years. Sailors would use an instrument called a sextant to precisely measure the angle between Polaris and the horizon, which allowed them to gauge their precise latitude. However, this falls apart if any flat earth model is used. In the unipolar model, latitude lines are a regular distance apart, so let us use this to construct a mathematical model. If there is a star at a height of any number of units, and a viewer is directly beneath it, then it will always appear to be at an angle of 90 degrees to the horizon. If the viewer is 1 unit away, which will represent 1 line of latitude, then the height of the star does matter, so let us set it at 1 unit as well. If this is so, then the viewer will perceive the star at 45 degrees above the horizon, rather than 89. So, the height of the star must be raised. In fact, it must be raised to approximately 57.28996 units. With a latitude width of 69 miles, this works out to 3953.01 miles up. That's high, but nowhere near the RE number. However, the numbers diverge as one travels south. As the viewer moves away, each degree away results in a drop in angle that is slightly less than 1 degree, and this disparity gets worse the further the viewer travels away. At 45 units, the viewer would see an elevation of 51.8 degrees, which is 6.8 more than expected. At 60 degrees away, the viewer sees an elevation of 43.65 degrees, which is 13.65 more than expected. At 70 degrees, the viewer sees an elevation of 39.27 degrees, at 80 they see 35.59, and by the time the viewer reaches 90 degrees and should see an elevation of 0 degrees, or in other words a star on the horizon, the viewer sees an elevation of 32.46 degrees. Obviously, something is going on. This something is the sphericity of the earth.

If a similar scenario is constructed but with the viewer on the side of a circle, then an interesting phenomenon occurs. As the viewer moves over the side of the sphere, changing latitudes, the angle of the star, positioned above the North pole, can be found. If this is found relative to the viewer's horizon, or the tangent at the point that the viewer is at, then the angle is much less than the supposed angle IF the star is 1 unit above the north pole. However, in this scenario, as the star is moved further and further away from the north pole, the angle observed does not pass the theoretical angle. Rather, it approaches it. If a viewer is at 80 degrees and the star is 10,000 units away, then the observed angle is 79.899. If the star is 100,000 units away, then the observed angle is 79.990. With the RE figure of Polaris being 433 lightyears away, that works out to the star being 3.688E13 units away. This would make the observed difference tiny.

The results speak for themselves. One scenario, Flat Earth, fails in this scenario, while the other works. This is without using any fancy math, anyone with a basic understanding of trigonometry can crunch these numbers. What does Occam's Razor say?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: IronHorse on May 27, 2020, 12:22:07 PM
That discussion about Polaris makes fascinating reading.  Yes the apparent brightness (visual or apparent magnitude) does vary for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons relate to physical characteristics of the star itself (i.e. its a variable star) others due to their elevation. or angle above the horizon.

Taking Polaris specifically.  As an example of a classic Cepheid variable, Polaris pulsates. This makes the absolute magnitude vary a little as well since absolute magnitude depends on both the radius and the temperature of a star. Absolute magnitude is the apparent magnitude as observed from a standard distance of 10pc or 32.6 lightyears. That allows us to compare directly the luminosity of one star against another. Some stars appear bright to us because they are nearby (Sirius for example) while others appear bright because although they are more distant, they are also very luminous (Deneb for example).

The apparent magnitude of Polaris will be the same for all observers at the same latitude. However atmospheric extinction will also cause a dimming effect of the apparent brightness of a star to observers at different latitudes. This will be greatest for an observer just north or the equator and least for an observer at the north pole because they will be looking through the thinnest possible layer of atmosphere.

Whatever latitude you are stars near the horizon will appear dimmer. So if I am looking at a star near my south horizon at 45N say then that star will appear dimmer to me than it will do for an observer further south who will see that same star higher up in the sky.

So Totallackey is approximately right in some of what he says, but wrong in others.  His answers have been carefully worded to as to be true to an extent but also so that they suit his flat Earth belief. AATW is also right in that the differences in brightness that we see have nothing whatsoever to do with variations in the distance of Polaris from the observer.  However apparent brightness of stars drops off according to the inverse square law of light intensity.  A star equal to Polaris in absolute magnitude but twice as distant would appear to us only a quarter as bright.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: J-Man on May 29, 2020, 03:44:56 AM
Of course when you realize the dome is like molten glass, you can only see the creators stars in your general vicinity.   
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: IronHorse on May 29, 2020, 07:20:07 AM
So what would be your estimate of 'general vicinity'... 4 light years, 8 light years, 50 light years, 3500 light years? Talking of creators, who was the creator of this dome you mention then?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 01:17:32 PM
If the figure is relative to objects not emitting their own light, then why is it relevant, seeing as Polaris does in fact emit its own light.

Polaris has been observed to be consistently directly overhead at the North Pole. From there, it drops by one degree in the sky until you get to the equator, where it is at the horizon. This phenomenon has been consistently used for celestial navigation for years. Sailors would use an instrument called a sextant to precisely measure the angle between Polaris and the horizon, which allowed them to gauge their precise latitude. However, this falls apart if any flat earth model is used. In the unipolar model, latitude lines are a regular distance apart, so let us use this to construct a mathematical model. If there is a star at a height of any number of units, and a viewer is directly beneath it, then it will always appear to be at an angle of 90 degrees to the horizon. If the viewer is 1 unit away, which will represent 1 line of latitude, then the height of the star does matter, so let us set it at 1 unit as well. If this is so, then the viewer will perceive the star at 45 degrees above the horizon, rather than 89. So, the height of the star must be raised. In fact, it must be raised to approximately 57.28996 units. With a latitude width of 69 miles, this works out to 3953.01 miles up. That's high, but nowhere near the RE number. However, the numbers diverge as one travels south. As the viewer moves away, each degree away results in a drop in angle that is slightly less than 1 degree, and this disparity gets worse the further the viewer travels away. At 45 units, the viewer would see an elevation of 51.8 degrees, which is 6.8 more than expected. At 60 degrees away, the viewer sees an elevation of 43.65 degrees, which is 13.65 more than expected. At 70 degrees, the viewer sees an elevation of 39.27 degrees, at 80 they see 35.59, and by the time the viewer reaches 90 degrees and should see an elevation of 0 degrees, or in other words a star on the horizon, the viewer sees an elevation of 32.46 degrees. Obviously, something is going on. This something is the sphericity of the earth.

If a similar scenario is constructed but with the viewer on the side of a circle, then an interesting phenomenon occurs. As the viewer moves over the side of the sphere, changing latitudes, the angle of the star, positioned above the North pole, can be found. If this is found relative to the viewer's horizon, or the tangent at the point that the viewer is at, then the angle is much less than the supposed angle IF the star is 1 unit above the north pole. However, in this scenario, as the star is moved further and further away from the north pole, the angle observed does not pass the theoretical angle. Rather, it approaches it. If a viewer is at 80 degrees and the star is 10,000 units away, then the observed angle is 79.899. If the star is 100,000 units away, then the observed angle is 79.990. With the RE figure of Polaris being 433 lightyears away, that works out to the star being 3.688E13 units away. This would make the observed difference tiny.

The results speak for themselves. One scenario, Flat Earth, fails in this scenario, while the other works. This is without using any fancy math, anyone with a basic understanding of trigonometry can crunch these numbers. What does Occam's Razor say?
Because I was asked a question and answered it.

If you cannot understand my answer to the question, thinking somehow it is I (rather than TomInAustin who was off base) then I suggest you have no grasp of any of the material you provided in your trope, let alone Occam's razor.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: IronHorse on May 29, 2020, 01:48:43 PM
Quote
I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am

What makes you believe the Sun is approximately 5000 miles away from your location at 10am in the morning no less? 
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Regicide on May 29, 2020, 03:24:54 PM
I haven't seen any FE rebuttal of my previous argument as to the 1 degree angular change. Any FE explanation for that?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: J-Man on June 01, 2020, 10:31:46 PM
I think I did, aren't there only like 5 people on this site talking to themselves?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: IronHorse on June 01, 2020, 11:03:08 PM
Quote
The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

This is an interesting quote from Totallackey which I note he made earlier on. I wonder what leads him to conclude it?  Across land you certainly can't see 350km. On the other hand the Moon is an 'object' which is 384,400km away and then the planets are 100s of millions of km away.  So what leads him to say this is beyond me.  It is true though that seeing across millions of km into space doesn't depend on the shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Regicide on June 02, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
If the figure is relative to objects not emitting their own light, then why is it relevant, seeing as Polaris does in fact emit its own light.

Polaris has been observed to be consistently directly overhead at the North Pole. From there, it drops by one degree in the sky until you get to the equator, where it is at the horizon. This phenomenon has been consistently used for celestial navigation for years. Sailors would use an instrument called a sextant to precisely measure the angle between Polaris and the horizon, which allowed them to gauge their precise latitude. However, this falls apart if any flat earth model is used. In the unipolar model, latitude lines are a regular distance apart, so let us use this to construct a mathematical model. If there is a star at a height of any number of units, and a viewer is directly beneath it, then it will always appear to be at an angle of 90 degrees to the horizon. If the viewer is 1 unit away, which will represent 1 line of latitude, then the height of the star does matter, so let us set it at 1 unit as well. If this is so, then the viewer will perceive the star at 45 degrees above the horizon, rather than 89. So, the height of the star must be raised. In fact, it must be raised to approximately 57.28996 units. With a latitude width of 69 miles, this works out to 3953.01 miles up. That's high, but nowhere near the RE number. However, the numbers diverge as one travels south. As the viewer moves away, each degree away results in a drop in angle that is slightly less than 1 degree, and this disparity gets worse the further the viewer travels away. At 45 units, the viewer would see an elevation of 51.8 degrees, which is 6.8 more than expected. At 60 degrees away, the viewer sees an elevation of 43.65 degrees, which is 13.65 more than expected. At 70 degrees, the viewer sees an elevation of 39.27 degrees, at 80 they see 35.59, and by the time the viewer reaches 90 degrees and should see an elevation of 0 degrees, or in other words a star on the horizon, the viewer sees an elevation of 32.46 degrees. Obviously, something is going on. This something is the sphericity of the earth.

If a similar scenario is constructed but with the viewer on the side of a circle, then an interesting phenomenon occurs. As the viewer moves over the side of the sphere, changing latitudes, the angle of the star, positioned above the North pole, can be found. If this is found relative to the viewer's horizon, or the tangent at the point that the viewer is at, then the angle is much less than the supposed angle IF the star is 1 unit above the north pole. However, in this scenario, as the star is moved further and further away from the north pole, the angle observed does not pass the theoretical angle. Rather, it approaches it. If a viewer is at 80 degrees and the star is 10,000 units away, then the observed angle is 79.899. If the star is 100,000 units away, then the observed angle is 79.990. With the RE figure of Polaris being 433 lightyears away, that works out to the star being 3.688E13 units away. This would make the observed difference tiny.

The results speak for themselves. One scenario, Flat Earth, fails in this scenario, while the other works. This is without using any fancy math, anyone with a basic understanding of trigonometry can crunch these numbers. What does Occam's Razor say?
Because I was asked a question and answered it.

If you cannot understand my answer to the question, thinking somehow it is I (rather than TomInAustin who was off base) then I suggest you have no grasp of any of the material you provided in your trope, let alone Occam's razor.

totallackey, you handily sidestepped this question without any answer provided, and then went on to attack my knowledge of the situation.  Please refrain from strawmanning. In my post I pointed out a flaw in your argument, and then went on to posit my own. Namely, my argument was that there seems to be no flat earth explanation for the observation of the North Star sinking 1 degree per degree of latitude. I've yet to see any counterargument by an FE proponent, and I do understand Occam's Razor quite well. The simplest solution is often the correct one. The Round Earth scenario fits this observation without any meddling with the model, and the Flat Earth scenario does not. Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the most likely, and RE is the simplest solution for these observations.

I also found it quite interesting how the main argument in this thread- that Polaris cannot be observed from the Southern Hemisphere due to light falloff- handily contradicts the FE belief of zetetics. I'm actually proud of you for following the conventional scientific method. You found a question: Why can Polaris not be seen from the Southern Hemisphere?. You came up with a hypothesis: It's because of light falloff. However, when you get to observation, your hypothesis will likely be disproved. Polaris has a uniform magnitude from all latitudes that it can be seen from. There is some fluctuation in magnitude, but it varies only between 1.83 and 2.13. That's something that I notice- Flat Earthers will often point out small variations in observed figures without noting their insignificance. The variation of the apparent magnitude of Polaris is also not latitude dependent, and is instead dependent on Earth's orbit, atmospheric conditions, etc.

Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 03, 2020, 01:21:14 AM
Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the most likely, and RE is the simplest solution for these observations.

Actually, FE provides the simplest solutions.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

Quote
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious and highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
Title: Re: why can%u2019t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Stagiri on June 03, 2020, 06:03:52 AM
The Occam's razor is getting duller and duller these days. The idea of how simple a hypothesis is depends pretty much entirely on your own judgement and so on your own beliefs and opinions. In other words, it's subjective, not objective. This is true for everyone, FEers and GEers alike.

EDIT: what I mean to say is that, while sometimes helpful, the Occam's razor can hardly be used as a valid argument in a sirious discussion.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2020, 10:29:29 AM
Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the most likely, and RE is the simplest solution for these observations.

Actually, FE provides the simplest solutions.
Does it though? I mean, "simplest" is subjective but a distant Polaris sitting (roughly) above the North Pole of a globe earth explains why the observed angle to Polaris matches our Latitude (simple geometry). It explains why Polaris maintains a consistent angular size and magnitude (no significant change in distance) and it explains why we can't see it from the southern hemisphere (shape of the earth means no line of sight).

On a FE you have to invoke separate and unexplained mechanisms to account for all of these things.

Your Occam's Razor page is written in a way which invokes a lot of argument from incredulity. I'd suggest it wouldn't be difficult to write it in a different way to make the FE explanation sound like the silly one. Just one example:

You talk about your eyes "constantly being deceived", I presume you mean because we observe a flat horizon, but that is what you'd expect to see on a globe this size. There are other ways of telling the earth is a ball. You use things like EA and "magnification at sunset" to explain why observations don't match what you'd expect on a FE. "Sure, the sun is much further away at sunset but it looks the same angular size, because...". Isn't that you trying to explain why your eyes are deceived in FE?
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: Regicide on June 03, 2020, 02:48:22 PM
I was applying Occams Razor as an argumentative point, but it was hardly the point of my argument. Tom, you are the second FE proponent so far to straw-man my argument without giving any actual rebuttal to my points. If no argument against a point can be found, then the opposition must concede.
Title: Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
Post by: talfearth on September 19, 2020, 10:10:54 PM
i think the answer is pretty easy. Polaris shine is directed towards north. Thus the restricted path of light.