[Alvin]

If we knew the exact location of 3 stars at one moment in time, we would be able to measure the angels between them and then use triangulation to work out the locations of different countries, and then make an accurate flat earth map.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(surveying)
The principle would be the same as here, except working in 3 dimensions instead of 2, hence why we need 3 points instead of 2.

The formula for calculating your location takes the 3d coordinates of the 3 stars you are using, and the visual angle between each pair.

I thought I could look at star charts for the night sky in different countries, and use more stars than 3, I could use some simultaneous equations to calculate the exact location of the stars, using only the angles we can see in those countries, and without using any of the fake distances round earth maps have.

Here I found a problem. If you take 2 stars from two well known constellations, apparently the visual angle between them is the same no matter where you are. Now this makes no sense, because the triangulation formula would then mean that all these places are somehow 0 meters from each other. The difference in visual angle between countries can't be too small to measure, because that would mean that the stars are very far away, around 50 thousand miles away if you can't see a difference of a degree when you move a thousand miles away. It wouldn't make sense for a star that far away to appear high in the sky in one place, yet near the horizon in another.

What am I missing here? The results of the math seem to be nonsensical.

[Tom Bishop]

Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

[Alvin]

Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

So there is some magic invisible force that I have never seen that causes light to get distorted? When I took around with my own two eyes I never see that happen. As a true zeteticist I will not blindly believe scientists that tell me "light bends".

I have a question, "Why do the stars look the way they do", and instead of performing experiments to find that out, you have assumed some weird theory that light bends. This is not the zeteticist method.

[Action80]

Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

So there is some magic invisible force that I have never seen that causes light to get distorted?

Light is distorted by something as simple as a plain sheet of glass, so I am failing to understand your question.

When I took around with my own two eyes I never see that happen. As a true zeteticist I will not blindly believe scientists that tell me "light bends".

If you ever look through a window, you are seeing distorted light.

If you have ever looked through a light projected through a glass of water or a prism, you have seen light bending.

I have a question, "Why do the stars look the way they do", and instead of performing experiments to find that out, you have assumed some weird theory that light bends. This is not the zeteticist method.

Stars look the way do due to their composition and the composition of the air above us.

[Alvin]

Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

So there is some magic invisible force that I have never seen that causes light to get distorted?
Light is distorted by something as simple as a plain sheet of glass, so I am failing to understand your question.

When I took around with my own two eyes I never see that happen. As a true zeteticist I will not blindly believe scientists that tell me "light bends".

If you ever look through a window, you are seeing distorted light.

If you have ever looked through a light projected through a glass of water or a prism, you have seen light bending.

I have a question, "Why do the stars look the way they do", and instead of performing experiments to find that out, you have assumed some weird theory that light bends. This is not the zeteticist method.

Stars look the way do due to their composition and the composition of the air above us.

I have never seen the air be made of glass or water.

[Iceman]

You guys really need to figure out the quote function.... this thread is a mess

[SteelyBob]

Take a look at our general celestial model first - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Even if it existed, EA, according to the wiki, only operates in the vertical plane - it bends light 'upwards'. It does not operate in azimuth. But yet the azimuth angles between pairs of stars remain almost perfectly constant, regardless of where on earth we view them from, and whether they are high or low in the night sky.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this Tom.

[Action80]

I have never seen the air be made of glass or water.

It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

[JHelzer]

It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.

[Action80]

It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.

I have no clue where you get your information, but the air above our heads is full of sand and water.

"At any one instant, the Earth’s atmosphere contains 37.5 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 1 inch of rain if condensed. This amount is recycled, through evaporation powered by the Sun, 40 times each year in what is known as the hydrologic cycle." - https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/

Clouds carry particulates (typically sand) around which moisture gathers.

"The size of a sandstorm depends on the strength of the wind. The storm can be up to 100 kilometers wide and several kilometers high. In rare cases, they are as big as the sandstorm we had last week. Sometimes they can be so big and thick that you don’t see the sun for days." -
https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/

[Iceman]

It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.

I have no clue where you get your information, but the air above our heads is full of sand and water.

"At any one instant, the Earth’s atmosphere contains 37.5 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 1 inch of rain if condensed. This amount is recycled, through evaporation powered by the Sun, 40 times each year in what is known as the hydrologic cycle." - https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/

Clouds carry particulates (typically sand) around which moisture gathers.

"The size of a sandstorm depends on the strength of the wind. The storm can be up to 100 kilometers wide and several kilometers high. In rare cases, they are as big as the sandstorm we had last week. Sometimes they can be so big and thick that you don’t see the sun for days." -
https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/

You're not wrong that theres lots of stuff up there.

Be careful with your wording though: 'sand' has a specific size definition of 0.063 - 2 mm.
Wind can blow these particles around (sand dunes!) But it's pretty hard for these larger diameter grains to stay aloft.

Particulates that nucleate water vapor condensation are generally in the 4 -15 ųm range but as much as 32 ųm above the Sahara (van der Does et al. 2016).

And that verybigsounding number of water gallons in the atmosphere is big for sure!  But in other units that's 12,900 cubic km of water in 51,800,000 cubic km of gases.

[JHelzer]

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

A cup with 0.4% water in it is not “full” of water.

[SteelyBob]

I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked by whether or not the atmosphere is capable of distorting light. As it happens, yes it is, but not by very much and, far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

[JHelzer]

I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked...

Agreed.

there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain...

Agreed.

[Action80]

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

A cup with 0.4% water in it is not “full” of water.

I apologize for using the word, "full." You are correct it is not full.

I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked by whether or not the atmosphere is capable of distorting light. As it happens, yes it is, but not by very much and, far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

[SteelyBob]

However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon, which is why celestial navigators try to avoid taking star shots close to the horizon (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf). I'd say that my 'not by very much' is fair in that context, and I'd also point to the far more important second part of that sentence where I said that

far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

[Action80]

However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon, which is why celestial navigators try to avoid taking star shots close to the horizon (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf). I'd say that my 'not by very much' is fair in that context, and I'd also point to the far more important second part of that sentence where I said that

far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

I am making an attempt to find the video right now, but there was a video made sometime back where a series of flashing lights were placed on a frozen lake and the furthest one (some eight miles away) was quite visible on camera.

I believe a half degree of refraction to be insufficient to explain this.

[SteelyBob]

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon

If you want to maximise the refractive effect, a clear calm night and a cold surface will do it.

If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

There isn't enough information in your comment to do that - you'd need accurate observer heights, and accurate target heights. If you can provide those, then we can work it out.

Again, the far more important point in the context of this thread:

there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

[Action80]

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon

If you want to maximise the refractive effect, a clear calm night and a cold surface will do it.

If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

There isn't enough information in your comment to do that - you'd need accurate observer heights, and accurate target heights. If you can provide those, then we can work it out.

Again, the far more important point in the context of this thread:

there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

[SteelyBob]

Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

Ok, but I'm afraid we're going to need an awful lot more precision (like, what exactly does 'lake level' mean?), and evidence, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion or analysis - I guess you'd better dig out the video.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you could address the broader point that I'm repeating, which is that there is no FET distortion mechanism capable of retaining the constant angular separation between the stars as they move around the sky, rotating around the two fixed pole stars (whose elevation is equal to observer latitude), whilst simultaneously explaining the disappearance of stars below the horizon, the invisibility of the pole stars in the opposite hemispheres, or the consistent due south heading of the southern pole star regardless of longitude.