totallackey

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #20 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.

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #21 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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

totallackey

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #22 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...
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 04:26:17 PM by totallackey »

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #23 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?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

totallackey

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #24 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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 04:47:21 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #25 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #26 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.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1195
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #27 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?
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #28 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.





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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 09:07:43 PM by iamcpc »

totallackey

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #29 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.

Offline leo

  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #30 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.





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

Regicide

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #31 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?

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #32 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.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 09:01:39 PM by IronHorse »

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 765
    • View Profile
Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #33 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.   
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #34 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?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2020, 11:55:29 AM by IronHorse »

totallackey

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #35 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.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2020, 01:30:29 PM by totallackey »

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #36 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? 

Regicide

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #37 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?

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 765
    • View Profile
Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #38 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?
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #39 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.