Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 04, 2019, 08:31:49 PM »
I search on wiki and FAQs and found none about this.

First the numbers, according to FE available maps:
Distance from North Pole to Equator: 10,000 km
Distance from North Pole to Australia or South of Argentina: 15,000 km
Distance from North Pole to South Pole Ice Wall:  20,000 km.

Then, the Control experiment:
Any northern country, Canada, USA, Iceland, Russia, Norway, can easily see Polaris few degrees out of vertical on North Pole, almost simultaneously during winter time, January, since the darkness of the sky allows it.  That is an unquestionable fact, accepted by FE and RE.

Then, the Text experiment:
Any southern country, south of Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, can easily see Alpha Crucis (the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation), almost simultaneously during winter time, July, since the darkness of the sky allows it.  That is a fact for millions that live on the very southern hemisphere, they can even take pictures with date/time to show it.

The test conclusion questions:
1. How come (see the picture below for reference illustration) when Alpha Crucis is visible for the Argentina because it will very high in the sky over the South Pole for them, and obviously on top of them on FE map, the people from Australia also can see it, even when the star is over the ice wall in the opposite side of the FE disc, 35000 km (land distance) away, and they can not see Polaris that is less than half way the distance, 15000km (land distance)?

2. How come in RE the Australia and Argentina see the Crux Constellation rotated in the sky, the same way Canada and China see Ursa Major also rotated?  It is understandable that the Canadians and Chinese are facing each other when looking to Ursa Major, but based on FE map, Argentinians will be facing the ice wall to see Alpha Crucis, but the Australians will be facing all over the FE to see the same star, and would see in the constellation in the same angle as the Argentinians.

3. On the FE map, the visible measurable distance between the stars (Alpha, Beta, Gama and Epsilon Crucis) in the Crux Constellation would be different when measured form Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia or Australia, due different distances from them to the stars that are just few thousands kilometers up. In RE they are exactly the same with great precision.

4. In the FE, stars and the whole sky make a full rotation over FE once a day.  Then why the Crux Constellation appears almost at the same position in the South, rotating pivoted to a common point close to it, during the period of 24 hours?  As a fast rotating carousel, we should have several different stars occupying the same place of the Crux, but it is not what is being observed, that is a similar rotation as the North Pole sky, in opposite direction.

   

Additional data:
According to FE maximum visibility by perspective, you can not see further than North Pole - Equator distance, 10,000 km.  Even so, a person in Equator can see the Sun for 12 consecutive hours, what makes 90+90° on FE map's equator line, such line of view is a land distance of 14100 km before sunset (hypotenuse of an isosceles triangle), not even considering the Sun should be 41% smaller at sunset than noon time.  Based on that, people from Rio de Janeiro (latitude 22.9°S), 12971 km from the North Pole, should be able to see Polaris easily, but they are unable to do so.  Also, FE perspective doesn't change angles by object brightness.  Feel free to replace the Sun with any other star on the sky's Equator, visible for 12 hours, same brightness as Polaris.

If this subject was extensively debated previously in the forum with non productive results, please inform and point, so I can remove this post.

   
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 08:33:51 PM by spherical »

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2019, 10:05:07 PM »
Then, the Text experiment:
Any southern country, south of Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, can easily see Alpha Crucis (the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation), almost simultaneously during winter time, July, since the darkness of the sky allows it.  That is a fact for millions that live on the very southern hemisphere, they can even take pictures with date/time to show it.

Easy answer: no. As reported by Rowbotham, see https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm, Sir James Clarke Ross could not see Sigma Octantis for a fair while, even if he was supposed to see it as RET states. So your test experiment cannot work. From your computations it's clear you're assuming RE before proving it, so you're biased.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2019, 10:14:24 PM »
Quote
the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation
Just to be clear, the absolute magnitude of a star is the brightness it would have as viewed from a standard distance of 10pc (32.6 lightyears) and not from Earth. At that same distance the Sun would shine at only +4.8 magnitude making it quite difficult to see with the naked eye, especially from urban areas.

The observed magnitude of Alpha Cruxis (Acrux) is 0.77 which is still a respectably bright star only slightly fainter than Vega.  Magntiude -4.14 is closer to the apparent brightness of Venus.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 10:17:39 PM by manicminer »

Offline Science Supporter

  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Globe Earth is Only Earth
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2019, 10:22:32 PM »
Then, the Text experiment:
Any southern country, south of Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, can easily see Alpha Crucis (the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation), almost simultaneously during winter time, July, since the darkness of the sky allows it.  That is a fact for millions that live on the very southern hemisphere, they can even take pictures with date/time to show it.

Easy answer: no. As reported by Rowbotham, see https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm, Sir James Clarke Ross could not see Sigma Octantis for a fair while, even if he was supposed to see it as RET states. So your test experiment cannot work. From your computations it's clear you're assuming RE before proving it, so you're biased.
Whether you believe in a flat earth or round earth, you must accept the fact that some stars are/aren't visible depending on your relative location. These are simple observations done by people who aren't even interested in this conspiracy theory, probably don't even know about it.

About Sir James Clarke Ross not seeing Sigma Octantis, that depends on his relative location.
"We are not here to directly persuade anyone [...] You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."
-Pete Svarrior

"We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"
-Tom Bishop

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2019, 01:33:43 AM »
From the posted link:
"If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. "

One should notice that the Crux Constellation is not positioned vertical from the South Pole as "almost" Polaris is on the North Celestial Pole.
As "out of luck", the south has not a easily visible polar star or constellation, the Crux is the easier recognized and closer we have to the South Pole, it is out of alignment, so the entire constellation rotates around a common empty center (at naked eye) on the South Celestial Pole.

From wikipedia:
"At magnitude +5.42, Sigma Octantis is barely visible to the naked eye, making it unusable for navigation, especially by comparison with the much brighter and more easily visible Polaris. Because of this, the constellation Crux is often preferred for determining the position of the South Celestial Pole."

So, Sir James Clarke Ross could indeed not see Sigma Octantis better than myself at naked eye.  I was only able to see it using a 6" Schmidt–Cassegrain telescope in a very clear and dark night.  Great Sir James, an early Antarctica explorer in 1840.  On my first cruise trip over Atlantic waters I took a good Pentax binoculars, not telescope since the vacation ship rocks enough to make you crazy with a telescope.  I initially thought I woud be able to see Atlantic's sky better than from dark home, silly me, the ocean mist and high humidity atmosphere (almost a constant thin fog) make it horrible and dirt to even get close to see the Orion's Nebula, that I can easily see (faint) form my backyard. Nothing better than deep Arizona. I am not surprised that Sir James would have difficult to spot easily the very small and dim Sigma Octantis aboard the rocking HMS Erebus on high seas.  He was a fantastic Royal Navy explorer and deserves our greatest respect.

I was born in the very south of Brazil, live there until my 37 years old, loved astronomy and gazed the southern skies whenever was clear.  I was never surprised by NOT SEEING the Crux Constellation at clear night sky.  Returning home any time at night it was always there, as a friend to make my companion, I could almost say the right time by its rotation in the sky. 

Below a picture showing how to locate the South Pole based on the Crux Constellation.  You need to extend the long line of the cross four and a half times and then vertical down will be the South Pole.   This demonstrate the constellation is not exactly over the South Pole and it "rotates" with 24 hours period.

No strong navigation beacon would be so much used for centuries, if not visible all the time in the southern hemisphere night sky.  That is a fact.

But lets not deviate from the other questions I posted, including how come a FE observer at the Equator CAN see the Sun (or any other star) after raising on the East or almost setting on the West horizon 141000 km away, but an observer in Rio de Janeiro CAN NOT see Polaris at North at only 12910 km away.



From: https://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/crux-constellation/
"Crux is not visible north of +20° in the northern hemisphere, and it is circumpolar south of 34°S, which means that it never sets below the horizon. On the celestial sphere, Crux is exactly opposite the constellation Cassiopeia."

From: https://earthsky.org/favorite-star-patterns/the-southern-cross-signpost-of-southern-skies
"When to see the Southern Cross from the N. Hemisphere At 35 degrees south latitude and all latitudes farther south, you can see the constellation Crux – otherwise known as the Southern Cross – at any hour of the night all year around. In that part of the Southern Hemisphere, the Southern Cross is circumpolar – always above the horizon."
« Last Edit: May 05, 2019, 01:53:43 AM by spherical »

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2019, 01:57:17 AM »
Quote
the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation
Just to be clear, the absolute magnitude of a star is the brightness it would have as viewed from a standard distance of 10pc (32.6 lightyears) and not from Earth. At that same distance the Sun would shine at only +4.8 magnitude making it quite difficult to see with the naked eye, especially from urban areas.

The observed magnitude of Alpha Cruxis (Acrux) is 0.77 which is still a respectably bright star only slightly fainter than Vega.  Magntiude -4.14 is closer to the apparent brightness of Venus.

You are quite correct.  My mistake on that, it is indeed magnitude around 0.77.

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2019, 09:53:43 AM »
Amusing that you don't realize that a star perfectly knows the shape of Earth, since I can see it from the sky (at least the Northern hemisphere). But can you see that whatever non-sense sounds like a FE "reasoning"?

Anyway, if you dig the forum you'll see that no "real" FE will discuss this topic, so I put a possible reply. From the wiki

"Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars"

And also Rowbotham used his famous Bedford Canal Experiment to prove that (since Atmospheric Refraction is just fiction) "deny the existence of rotundity, and to declare that, "to all intents and purposes," absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, THE EARTH IS A VAST IRREGULAR PLANE."

So it comes by necessity that if your diagrams prove Earth is a globe, than your diagrams must be wrong, or at least have a (albeit tiny) measurement error that casts an unacceptable doubt upon your conclusions, because "those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative"
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2019, 10:36:19 AM »
Amusing that you don't realize that a star perfectly knows the shape of Earth, since I can see it from the sky (at least the Northern hemisphere). But can you see that whatever non-sense sounds like a FE "reasoning"?

Anyway, if you dig the forum you'll see that no "real" FE will discuss this topic, so I put a possible reply. From the wiki

"Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars"

And also Rowbotham used his famous Bedford Canal Experiment to prove that (since Atmospheric Refraction is just fiction) "deny the existence of rotundity, and to declare that, "to all intents and purposes," absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, THE EARTH IS A VAST IRREGULAR PLANE."

So it comes by necessity that if your diagrams prove Earth is a globe, than your diagrams must be wrong, or at least have a (albeit tiny) measurement error that casts an unacceptable doubt upon your conclusions, because "those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative"

Yeah? You find it amusing? Then why don’t you answer the question.

It can’t be due to vanishing perspective, because in the OP example the stars which are supposed to have vanished are closer than the stars that are visible.

The OP diagrams do not prove the earth is a globe, you have this all wrong. OP is asking a question about FE claims, using a FE map, and using stars known to be visible in certain locations.

In essence, OP is using a very zetetic approach to ask a question about FE.

You, however, are not offering a zetetic answer. You are offering a dogmatic answer: Rowbotham said it’s flat so something you did somewhere has to be wrong.

No sir, OP is using FE resources to ask a FE question. It behooves you to provide a FE response. If you cannot do so then (to date) no FE response exists, which means this is another basic zetetic observation that FET cannot answer.

I’m reality, there is only ONE zetetic observation that FET CAN answer: when I look outside, outside looks flat.

Okay.

How about we build on that success and answer any other FE observation using zetetic methods.
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

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2019, 11:17:30 AM »
It can’t be due to vanishing perspective, because in the OP example the stars which are supposed to have vanished are closer than the stars that are visible.

The OP diagrams do not prove the earth is a globe, you have this all wrong. OP is asking a question about FE claims, using a FE map, and using stars known to be visible in certain locations.

The depicted diagram is misleading, how do we know that model to be right? And what FE model is that criticism addressing? Of course they don't prove earth is a globe, to date any single attempt to prove that has spectacularly failed.

You, however, are not offering a zetetic answer. You are offering a dogmatic answer: Rowbotham said it’s flat so something you did somewhere has to be wrong.

No sir, OP is using FE resources to ask a FE question. It behooves you to provide a FE response. If you cannot do so then (to date) no FE response exists, which means this is another basic zetetic observation that FET cannot answer.

Rowbotham proposed repeatable experiments that stood any close examination and prove beyond doubt the planarity of earth. That's not a dogma, it's real science. Anyway, the final answer is not up to me, each of us must do its own research and draw its own conclusions.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2019, 12:42:04 PM »
It can’t be due to vanishing perspective, because in the OP example the stars which are supposed to have vanished are closer than the stars that are visible.

The OP diagrams do not prove the earth is a globe, you have this all wrong. OP is asking a question about FE claims, using a FE map, and using stars known to be visible in certain locations.

The depicted diagram is misleading, how do we know that model to be right? And what FE model is that criticism addressing? Of course they don't prove earth is a globe, to date any single attempt to prove that has spectacularly failed.

You, however, are not offering a zetetic answer. You are offering a dogmatic answer: Rowbotham said it’s flat so something you did somewhere has to be wrong.

No sir, OP is using FE resources to ask a FE question. It behooves you to provide a FE response. If you cannot do so then (to date) no FE response exists, which means this is another basic zetetic observation that FET cannot answer.

Rowbotham proposed repeatable experiments that stood any close examination and prove beyond doubt the planarity of earth. That's not a dogma, it's real science. Anyway, the final answer is not up to me, each of us must do its own research and draw its own conclusions.

That’s right. Who’s to say that map IS correct? In fact, the OP has a good argument for it being wrong.

In fact, FE has no accurate map. That’s a big problem which should concern you.

Rowbotham did not propose experiments that proved beyond any doubt the earth is a plane. That is dogma and not real science. If he had, then we would all believe the earth is flat.

And what research have you done to arrive at your conclusions? Read some Rowbotham and believe it? That is not research. Have you reproduced his experiments? Because that is the zetetic way: do your own.

In fact, what direct zetetic experiments have you done to test the planarity of earth? I would love to hear of your zetetic investigations - in another thread. But this OP is about the FE map that is not accurate.

And so, if it cannot be answered, then we have demonstrated that this map is inaccurate and thus, in good faith, should be removed from the wiki.
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

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2019, 02:21:36 PM »
From the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations) "Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth." But to my understanding the above critic does assume Polaris (it's weird to talk about myself in third person) to be much farther.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2019, 03:50:49 PM »
Quote
From the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations) "Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth." But to my understanding the above critic does assume Polaris (it's weird to talk about myself in third person) to be much farther.

Could you explain what methods have been used to bring you to the conclusion that the stars you are talking about here are small (how small?) and a few thousand miles above sea level? Please be as specific and detailed as you can be.  The next stellar neighbour of the Sun has been accurately measured as having a distance of 4.3 lightyears which is a tad more then a few thousand miles.   

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2019, 04:11:47 PM »
From the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations) "Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth." But to my understanding the above critic does assume Polaris (it's weird to talk about myself in third person) to be much farther.

The author can assume whatever he wishes, but you still need to account for stars which should be visible but are not. At all.

Also, I can simply “assume” that the author is wrong, and I then have a result every bit as powerful as what you referenced. Which is very little. Citing assumptions is not evidence.
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

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2019, 04:16:51 PM »
In "real science" we use repeatable experiments to try to prove our theories, trying to eliminate any biases that might exist on any claim. Also, "real science" is humble enough to recognise mistakes when they happen. New theories and experiments evolve, and sometimes prove older theories wrong. This is not a problem for science, actually, it is an integral and important part of science.

What you FErs do is the exact opposite, though! You use your theories to try to explain your experiments! You use "experiments" to enhance your bias instead of enhancing your understanding. How come one can say the shape has never been proven? I can do it by my own on my own backyard if I so wish.

Even though this is not the claim on this thread, yes, one can prove the shape of the Earth using solely the positions of stars above.

If our current understanding of sky motion were wrong, then we wouldn't have had the Age of Discoveries, for instance. And if you deny the Age of Discoveries actually happened, then you are also denying history!

I currently live in the Southern Hemisphere (MS, Brazil) and have lived in the Northern Hemisphere (Phoenix, AZ and Chicago, IL). From my own observations, I endorse the sky observations shown by the OP.

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2019, 08:16:18 AM »
Fundamentally in science, alternative theories only exist if there is a need for them. If an existing theory can satisfactorily explain all we know about something then there really is no reason to seek alternative theories. The success of any theory or model is judged on its ability not only to account existing observational or experimental results but also to correctly predict future observations or experiments.

Relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics are 3 examples of highly successful theories that correctly predicted results before they were or could be performed. It does not matter who developed those theories or when. Physics does not have any biases, it simply relies on results and if on one occasion results lead us in a different direction then that will be investigated accordingly.

FET seems to have no reason or substance. Being dissatified with a mainstream view is not a reason to dismiss it unless real world weaknesses or inaccuracies in that mainstream view can be demonstrated beyond simple personal preference or belief. What FE people need to do, and I haven't seen it done yet, is account for how FET offers a better explanation for everything that we experience over RET. Simply not liking it is not acceptable.  In that sense FET seems to have a more political or religious motivation over a pure scientific one. In variably if one theory is accepted more widely than another, there is a reason for it.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 09:46:20 AM by manicminer »

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2019, 07:41:42 PM »
The author can assume whatever he wishes, but you still need to account for stars which should be visible but are not. At all.

Also, I can simply “assume” that the author is wrong, and I then have a result every bit as powerful as what you referenced. Which is very little. Citing assumptions is not evidence.

You can assume RE if you wish. But if you assume FE, the OP argument doesn't hold, it doesn't lead to a contradiction. See this https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2019, 07:51:42 PM »
If we take assumption to be defined as
Quote
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Then there is no assumption on the RE side as all the proof necessary of its validity is there and has been for a long time. It is the choice of the FE side not to accept that proof.

Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2019, 10:00:06 PM »
You can assume RE if you wish. But if you assume FE, the OP argument doesn't hold, it doesn't lead to a contradiction. See this https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quoting from a second link from the link above:
""IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.""

I really wonder where it is written, tested and confirmed  "well known that the image of an object (photons) through a denser medium, becomes larger".
Based on optics (that also I know very well), the only way for that to happen is if the denser medium to have a special shape, the case of any mid school optics teaching, with enlarging lenses, any optical ocular lens to enlarge small objects, any basic idea of microscope and even telescopes objective + ocular lens to refocus exactly over the retina of the observer. Careful adjustments for focus are necessary.   

Six important points,

1)  I wonder how with several different temperature and moisture in the atmosphere all year round, the Sun's size at sunset is exactly and always the same as at noon time, no matter what, this can be measured with the most sensitive angular optical instrument.

2) Based on this "atmosphere enlarge the Sun", by itself it breaks down completely the FE "vanishing and perspective".  If the Sun becomes larger as it goes further through the lens effect of the atmosphere, it must even be super-large visible at midnight. 

3) Also, because not only the Sun, but everything around it would be enlarger at sunset, the angular speed of the Sun at sunset would be much faster than on noon time.  Any small solar image projector, even a cardboard with a pinhole projecting the Sun on a wall at sunset can show its angular speed to be perfectly the same as on noon-time projecting its image on the floor.

4) Using any optical spectrometer and measuring the low frequency selection (>650nm), the solar intensity at sunrise, noon or sunset will be exactly the same in minute detail of Lux or Candelas.  The point here is, if the solar disc was enlarged by some magical effect of the atmosphere at sunset, it will have light intensity reduced in the same factor of image enlargement (that is pure optical science), so, if the Sun is further, thus reduced in size and brightness and then enlarged, its brightness will not increase, its low frequency radiation will continue to be smaller than at noon.  By filtering only low frequencies (>650nm wavelength),  you get only a little bit of yellow, all RED and some InfraRED.  Those frequencies doesn't change intensity from sunrise to sunset, you can measure them steady all day long.  The upper part of the spectrum change intensity, for example, Blue and UV (<520nm wavelength) are very much increased from 10am to 3pm due atmospheric refraction.  The "no change" in intensity for >650nm proves the solar distance and size never changed substantially as it would happen in FE.

5) Pictures and videos showing the Sun at sunset view by high altitude balloons and airplanes, didn't show the Sun smaller, by being watched by less dense atmosphere and then not under the "effect of being enlarged".  The atmosphere pressure at sea level is 101 kPa, at 10km of altitude is around 26.5 kPa, a person could not breath at such altitude, the atmosphere is very cold and dry, no water droplets in suspension.

6) What you see in the street pole light under heavy fog is the refraction of the light inside of the tinny floating drops of water, in most cases creating a kind of halo, that does not (I repeat) DOES NOT enlarge the lamp (showing the edge of the glass lamp enlarged), the halo and refraction does NOT create a perfect image of the lamp enlarged.  We can photograph a perfect edge of the Sun, including the sunspots, not like a halo. And more, the afternoon atmosphere is not fumed by a dense and heavy fog, and even if it happens, not everyday.

Here is street lamps with refraction halo under heavy fog, you can not see any edge of the lamps, the refraction on the suspended water is so heavy;



Here is the Sun at sunset, even trough cloudy sky closer to horizon, the edge is solid, no halo, no refraction, precise focus, even in the band with denser clouds, it didn't show any difference in size.



So, the quote above from the weblink is just trying to satisfy and justify by a non scientific observation what really happen in the RE converted to FE, and obscuring a failure on the FE sunrise and sunset.   The "change in color" to redish at sunrise and sunset is exactly what happens with low frequency photons being able to go through denser atmosphere, the same when coincidental position of the Earth and the Moon receiving more of those photons frequency than direct sunlight for few minutes, creating the effect as known as "blood Moon", nothing else than simple optics in the RE world.  Interesting is that even Blood Moon can be predicted exactly by numbers, using science and physics of the RE.

Then, I would really love to see where it is tested and documented about the expression I mark in bold and underline in the quote text from the link above.  "It is well known...".   It is NOT well known.  See, if that would be true then everything you see outside through your car's windshield will be enlarged.  Also, everything you see through your home window's glass will be enlarged.   According to optics (I repeat, that I know very well), to enlarge an image you need to have a correct shape lens, at a certain distance from the object, and at another certain distance from your eye.  It is not just a denser medium in the middle that will cause the enlargement.   The atmosphere shape at sunset is totally incorrect to cause any image enlargement, the focus distance from our eyes is also totally wrong.

For anyone wanting to learn more about optics, rays of light, mirrors and lenses, visit any of the below weblinks, there you will be able to play with lenses and find out what you need to enlarge any image into your retina.  You will find out the sunset atmosphere can not produce such effect, far from it.
https://ricktu288.github.io/ray-optics/
It is really a nice experience.  There is also an extension for Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ray-optics-simulation/egamlemiidmmmcccadndbjjihkcfiobh?hl=en

Several other simulators:
https://www.comsol.com/models/ray-optics-module
https://www.edumedia-sciences.com/en/node/69-lenses-and-mirrors
https://arachnoid.com/OpticalRayTracer/
https://ophysics.com/l.html







Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2019, 11:07:10 PM »
Great answer, I love 1) and 4). I just wish a real FE will reply, I'm not a good one. But my understanding is they'd go silent when faced with easy-to-understand, direct, counterproofs of FE. Then they wait for someone else asking the usual non-effective question and they show their usual answers. So, overall, they look knowledgeable. It's a social engineering hack on its own. I'm sure Rowbotham was indeed that kind of charismatic quack.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6543
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2019, 11:26:49 PM »
On magnification of the sun comments, this quote may have been missed:

Quote
This effect has two criterion:

1. The effect only affects illuminating sources of light above a certain intensity. It does not happen with all lights or light sources.

2. The effect only affects illuminating bodies in the far field. It does not occur when the light source is too close to the observer or camera. Light sources in the far field will appear to be the same size in the distance.

Clearly it is not happening with all light sources; otherwise everything would be magnified as you stated.

Per the questions in the OP on the southern stars, see this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotation
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 11:50:55 PM by Tom Bishop »