[supertrouper]

Main Question: Why can't we see Polaris from the southern hemisphere?


Background: I am a truth seeker, and I only want to know the truth regardless of how society looks at me. I am still discovering the principles of FET, and I am finding it more difficult than I would have thought to disprove it (or to confirm it also). I will say the most frustrating part is the complete lack of earnest responses from globers, who always lead with a mocking tone, along with the heavy censorship from google and the like.

I have tried searching on this site and others to understand the FET and Polaris, but I have not found a good response to it yet. On a FE model, there shouldn't be any difference between viewing Polaris past the equator (or similar location on FE model), yet it's not visible and is below the horizon. This seems to make logical sense on a globe model but not on a FE model.

[Tom Bishop]

Why would you? The location of the equator is defined as where Polaris intersects the horizon as it descends when you recede from North to South. Therefore you will not see it southward of the equator.

[supertrouper]

I was under the impression that the equator (in FET) is directly below the path of the sun, hence why it's much hotter.

I don't understand the correlation between Polaris and the equator. also,why there would be a horizon at all on a FEM? If I laid out a FEM and put a north star directly over the north pole location, that would be visible anywhere on the model.

[Tom Bishop]

The Sun moves North and South in addition to East and West. It's easier to get a coordinate by a static celestial object rather than a variable one. The Latitude in the North is thus based on Polaris.

For example, how would they determine 90 degrees North at the Geographic North Pole? By the North Star, right? How about 85 degrees North? How about 5 degrees North? Obviously, the North Star is used for this coordinate and not the Sun.

[WTF_Seriously]

The Sun moves North and South in addition to East and West. It's easier to get a coordinate by a static celestial object rather than a variable one. The Latitude in the North is thus based on Polaris.

For example, how would they determine 90 degrees North at the Geographic North Pole? By the North Star, right? How about 85 degrees North? How about 5 degrees North? Obviously, the North Star is used for this coordinate and not the Sun.

So what's the coordinate reference for latitude in the south?

[Tom Bishop]

You guys can just look this up. In the South its more complex and involves the usage of the Southern Cross. Here is a source below, which describes that latitude in the North is based on the North Star, and latitude in the South is based on the Southern Cross.

https://plus.maths.org/content/latitude-stars

Suppose you are on the open ocean and you want to work out your latitude (see here for a definition of latitude). The Sun and most of the stars change their position in the sky over time. But some stars always appear to be in the same place. An example is Polaris, also called the North star, which always appears to be sitting directly overhead the North pole. It turns out that your latitude is the angle at which Polaris appears to sit above the horizon.

...There is no equivalent of Polaris in the South, but to find your latitude if you are in the Southern hemisphere you can use a constellation called the Southern cross (illustrated on the flag of Australia) and two stars called the Southern Pointers.

[Longtitube]

Why would you? The location of the equator is defined as where Polaris intersects the horizon as it descends when you recede from North to South.

Fascinating! So the FE equator is actually moving through the course of the day, since Polaris isn't in a fixed position in the night sky as we see it. Polaris has a declination of 89 degrees 15 minutes and 51 seconds of arc, so it actually orbits the celestial north pole in a circle of 44 minutes and 9 seconds of arc radius. This means someone near the FE equator will be closer or further away from the FE equator at different times of day by as much as 88 minutes and 18 seconds of FE latitude – just over 88 nautical miles. Navigators must account for this daily cycle in Polaris's position in the sky to avoid driving the thing on to the rocks when making for a presumed harbour.

I now understand why celestial navigation is especially tricky on a flat earth. Thanks so much for the information.

[Tom Bishop]

It's not the "FE Equator", it's how 0 degrees latitude is defined. The hint is that 90 degrees latitude is the North Geographic Pole, and 0 degreed latitude is the Equator, which is also the angle in the sky where the North Star would be to the observer.

[Longtitube]

It's not the "FE Equator", it's how 0 degrees latitude is defined. The hint is that 90 degrees latitude is the North Geographic Pole, and 0 degreed latitude is the Equator, which is also the angle in the sky where the North Star would be to the observer.

I presumed you were talking about an FE definition of the equator, since the globe equator is the imaginary line of all points equidistant from the north and south poles – hence the name, equator. It still leaves the problem of Polaris being not quite at the celestial north pole. For naked eye observations this doesn't matter much, but for accurate navigation it really matters. A yachtsman heading for San Francisco and using an uncorrected sighting of Polaris to measure his latitude runs the risk of possibly coming ashore at Point Lobos, or maybe Timber Cove – both are within the possible error range and would be both embarrassing and expensive.

[jimster]

AT sunset in Denver, someone in St Louis can see Polaris to the north. At that same moment, someone in Salt Lake City looking directly north would see blue sky. It is not distance, because Salt Lake City and St Louis are roughly the same distance from the north pole. FE explanation?