*

Offline ElTrancy

  • *
  • Posts: 484
  • God help and forgive me
    • View Profile
North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« on: March 22, 2019, 02:51:36 PM »
Polaris, the North Star, something that travelers have used for hundreds, if not thousands of years to navigate. And because it is the North Star, on a RE it's not visible from very southern parts of our world, like Australia and some places in Brazil. On a RE this is explained, obviously you can't see through the ear at something that's hidden behind it. But what about on a FE? Why can't you see it, if it's clearly in the same range of view. It's fairly obvious that it SHOULD be seen on a FE, but isn't. Why?
Please fucking launch a mininuke at me, I've become hopelessly lost.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2019, 03:06:31 PM »
Polaris, the North Star, something that travelers have used for hundreds, if not thousands of years to navigate. And because it is the North Star, on a RE it's not visible from very southern parts of our world, like Australia and some places in Brazil. On a RE this is explained, obviously you can't see through the ear at something that's hidden behind it. But what about on a FE? Why can't you see it, if it's clearly in the same range of view. It's fairly obvious that it SHOULD be seen on a FE, but isn't. Why?

It’s too far away. Look up vanishing perspective.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline ElTrancy

  • *
  • Posts: 484
  • God help and forgive me
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2019, 03:09:58 PM »
What exactly makes it too far away? It doesn't change in shape or size no matter where you stand in the Northern Hemisphere, but it's too far away in the bottom most parts of the southern hemisphere? Also, it's not like it gets too small to see...or anything like that, it just suddenly vanishes, almost as if blocked by something...
Please fucking launch a mininuke at me, I've become hopelessly lost.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2019, 03:11:13 PM »
What exactly makes it too far away? It doesn't change in shape or size no matter where you stand in the Northern Hemisphere, but it's too far away in the bottom most parts of the southern hemisphere? Also, it's not like it gets too small to see...or anything like that, it just suddenly vanishes, almost as if blocked by something...

It “suddenly vanishes”? I doubt it. Do you have evidence that it suddenly vanishes? I doubt that too.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline ElTrancy

  • *
  • Posts: 484
  • God help and forgive me
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2019, 03:12:27 PM »
You're telling me that is slowly fades away as you go from the northern parts of the world to the southern? Where is your evidence it does this?
Please fucking launch a mininuke at me, I've become hopelessly lost.

*

Offline ElTrancy

  • *
  • Posts: 484
  • God help and forgive me
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2019, 03:17:02 PM »
It doesn't "suddenly vanish" it appears to, because the Earth would be blocking it from sight...
Please fucking launch a mininuke at me, I've become hopelessly lost.

manicminer

Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2019, 03:22:06 PM »
Polaris is a classical Cepheid variable so we are able to determine its distance quite accurately by using the well established period luminosity law that relates to all cepheid variables.  It is also 40" or just over one Sun/Moon diameter from the actual north celestial pole. Polaris is also a multiple star system so we have been able to determine its mass (compared to the Sun) as well.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2019, 03:52:42 PM »
This topic has already been covered and has sat in the forum for almost a year with no refutations.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9410.0

(I find it funny that I found this topic doing a google search for "photographs of the north star in the southern hemisphere").

It is possible to see the north star in the southern hemisphere, though, but only if you are at extremely high elevations - such as the peak of Chimborazo.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 03:54:37 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

manicminer

Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2019, 04:54:08 PM »
It would have to be at high elevation because the both celestial poles are on the north and south respective horizons as seen from the equator. Lots of atmospheric extinction at the horizon level so the visibility of Polaris will be very much diminished even before you get to the equator.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 04:59:51 PM by manicminer »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: North star (well not really on a flat earth)
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2019, 04:55:06 PM »
You're telling me that is slowly fades away as you go from the northern parts of the world to the southern? Where is your evidence it does this?

No, you don’t get to turn this around. I didn’t claim anything. YOU claimed that it suddenly vanishes. It’s  not my problem to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself correct.

Do proceed.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior