#### Regicide

##### Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #40 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?

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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7528
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #41 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?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 01:33:37 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### Stagiri

• 186
• You can call me Peter
##### Re: why can%u2019t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 06:07:31 AM by Stagiri »
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3567
##### Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #43 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?
"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

#### Regicide

##### Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #44 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.

#### talfearth

• 2
##### Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris
« Reply #45 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.