Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2018, 04:08:43 PM »
On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole. But they don't. Right?

You haven't done your homework on the atmospheric physics of the northern region.

An example.

The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.

The auroral displays are caused by the celestial object that orbits above the North Pole region.




http://hollowplanet.blogspot.ro/2007/09/earth-weaves-its-own-invisible-cloak.html

NASA Scientists Agree — Polar Ion Fountains Fill the Earth's Magnetosphere

http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."

Imagine the effect on the index of refraction of these surprising new findings on plasma/ether physics.

Neither you, nor the author of the video had any clue of the existence of the ether drift or of the fact that the Aurora Borealis is actually caused by an upward flow into space.

Obviously, both of you thought that the Aurora Borealis was caused by an external stream of ions/plasma. It is not.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2018, 04:19:24 PM »
On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole. But they don't. Right?

You haven't done your homework ...

You didn't answer the question.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2018, 04:28:26 PM »
Not for the first time.
Quote
Quote
Quote from: sandokhan on December 08, 2016, 10:51:23 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1789875#msg1789875 (Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon)
Unless you can describe the link between your copy paste and this thread in less than 100 of your own words, no one is going to read it.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2018, 04:39:46 PM »
You didn't answer the question.

The RE have failed to provide an explanation for this fact, so far:

Sirius stays synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing.

While I had to answer each and every question.



Polaris seen from Mt. Kilimanjaro.

the apparent angular distance of the same pair of stars is the same at any point on the earth. For example Polaris and Beta ursae minoris. On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole.

If by closer you mean the "apparent angular distance" you'd have to provide a reason why on the latitude-dependent model they'd appear "closer" at the equator than at the Pole.


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2018, 04:47:50 PM »
If by closer you mean the "apparent angular distance" you'd have to provide a reason why on the latitude-dependent model they'd appear "closer" at the equator than at the Pole.
I think you misunderstand the question. (Or maybe I do.)

"Closer" as in closer together. The "apparent angular distance" between the two stars ought to be different when viewed from the equator than when viewed from the poles, given a latitude-dependent model.

Agree?

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2018, 04:50:42 PM »
The person who posed the question has to provide more details on why the "apparent angular distance" between the two stars ought to be different when viewed from the equator than when viewed from the poles, given a latitude-dependent model.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #46 on: May 30, 2018, 04:56:36 PM »
The person who posed the question has to provide more details on why the "apparent angular distance" between the two stars ought to be different when viewed from the equator than when viewed from the poles, given a latitude-dependent model.
Fair enough, I guess. But your response citing authoritative findings from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center plasma scientists based on DE-1 satellite data seemed like a non-sequitur, particularly given conventional FE suspicion of NASA and disbelief in satellites.

But ball's back in edby's court, if he so chooses to pursue this. I'll shut up.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2018, 05:04:50 PM »
Sorry I was having a nap.

OK. Two observations on which we should agree, namely that Polaris is directly above when we are at the Pole, and on the horizon when we are at the equator. This is easy to explain in RE. In FE ether refraction model, we must suppose that as we move towards the equator, the refraction causes the light to become increasingly parallel to the earth’s surface. Now consider a star just ‘below’ Polaris, say Beta ursae minoris. According to FE it is not actually below, being the same height as Polaris, but simply a bit further away.

So, assuming that rays from that star become increasingly refracted and hence more parallel to the earth’s surface, the rays of light from Beta will eventually become parallel as well. So there must be some point where the rays from Beta and Polaris will be at the same angle to the viewer, i.e. they appear to line up. Ergo the angular distance must have decreased (to zero in this case).

Of course we can get out of this, as we can by any ad hoc explanation, by supposing that the laws of ether refraction are different for Beta than for Polaris. But why? Principle of Sufficient Reason kicks in.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 05:07:25 PM by edby »

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2018, 05:10:33 PM »
conventional FE suspicion of NASA and disbelief in satellites

Satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit at a much lower altitude than the official figure provided to the public.

This is easy to explain in RE.

But it is not.

The RE have to explain why Sirius stays synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing.

Now consider a star just ‘below’ Polaris, say Beta ursae minoris. It is not actually below, because it is the same height as Polaris, but simply further away.

Not in the correct FE model. They orbit much closer to each other (altitude) above the surface of the Earth.

So, assuming that rays from that star become increasingly refracted and hence more parallel to the earth’s surface, the rays of light from Beta will eventually become parallel as well. So there must be some point where the rays from Beta and Polaris will be at the same angle to the viewer, i.e. the appear to line up. Ergo the angular distance must have increased.

Not if they orbit at about the same altitude.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2018, 05:29:49 PM »
So, assuming that rays from that star become increasingly refracted and hence more parallel to the earth’s surface, the rays of light from Beta will eventually become parallel as well. So there must be some point where the rays from Beta and Polaris will be at the same angle to the viewer, i.e. the appear to line up. Ergo the angular distance must have increased.

Not if they orbit at about the same altitude.
So Beta and Polaris are the same altitude. What is the plane of their orbit please? In the standard FE model, the plane is a disc above the Earth whose centre of rotation is close to Polaris. That means that when Beta appears 'below' Polaris, it is further away.

Note also I said 'Ergo the angular distance must have decreased (to zero in this case)'.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 05:50:58 PM by edby »

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2018, 05:51:55 PM »
In the standard FE model, the plane is a disc above the Earth whose centre of rotation is close to Polaris.

The standard FE model is wrong.

I was the first to offer a solution to the intractable FE "celestial gears" problem: there are three kinds of stellar orbits, northern circumpolar, southern circumpolar, and regular orbits.

The distance between Polaris and the other stars nearby is measured not in light years, but in hundreds of meters or very few kilometers.

The other FE should take notice at the maneuvers used by the RE.

They cannot explain the Sirius precession, the Whittaker potential waves, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and much more, so they avoid providing any kind of an explanation for these issues, while at the same time trying to narrow the discussion to a very specific topic. Once the existence of the ether is proven, the FE do not have to provide any other kind of explanation regarding the Polaris angular distance; if they choose to, they can do so, but they are not under a certain obligation to answer difficult specific issues, which require a lot of research and time and effort.

« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 05:59:05 PM by sandokhan »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2018, 05:59:21 PM »
The standard FE model is wrong.

I was the first to offer a solution to the intractable FE "celestial gears" problem: there are three kinds of stellar orbits, northern circumpolar, southern circumpolar, and regular orbits.

So please explain how Beta orbits around Polaris.

Quote
Once the existence of the ether is proven, the FE do not have to provide any other kind of explanation regarding the Polaris angular distance; if they choose to, they can do so, but they are not under a certain obligation to answer difficult specific issues, which require a lot of research and time and effort.
This is a not a 'specific issue'. The explanation of the Polaris problem is crucial to FE, everything depends on it, as others have noted.


Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #52 on: May 30, 2018, 06:13:33 PM »
It is crucial in the context of the unipolar model, not in the situation involving the bipolar model.

The author of the video had no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment, of the Sirius precession paradox, of the existence of the Whittaker ether waves.

The existence of Koronium means that Mendeleev was right: there are further lighter elements than hydrogen in the periodic table and that each star emits such peculiar/distinctive baryonic/mesonic elements in the form of radiation (just like the Sun emits Koronium), and that there is a certain/special relationship between this kind of radiation and the layers of ether which require a different index of refraction.

« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 06:15:47 PM by sandokhan »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #53 on: May 30, 2018, 06:25:25 PM »
It [i.e. the explanation of the Polaris problem] is crucial in the context of the unipolar model, not in the situation involving the bipolar model.
 
Since this is non-standard FE, please explain how the ‘bipolar model’ works, and also explain how this is relevant to the Polaris problem in any way.

To repeat, the Polaris problem is difficult to explain on the hypothesis that Polaris is directly above the Pole, and appears so when you are at the Pole, yet appears on the horizon at the equator. It is entirely unclear how refraction would explain this, under any model.

[edit] This old post has a bit about the bipolar model. Not sure if it will help.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 06:28:15 PM by edby »

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2018, 07:16:43 PM »
In the bipolar model, the North Pole has never actually been discovered.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

In support of the above conception regarding the magnetic pole being situated in the rim of the polar opening, Palmer refers to the following facts: Between each magnetic pole around the Earth pass magnetic meridians. In contrast with geographical meridians, which measure longitude, the magnetic meridians move from east to west and back again. The difference between the geographical meridians, or true north and south, and the direction in which a magnetic compass points, or the magnetic meridian of the place, is called the declination. The first observation made was in London in 1580 and showed an easterly declination of 11 degrees. In 1815 the declination reached 24. 3 degrees westerly maximum. This makes a difference of 35. 3 degrees change in 235 years, which is equal to 2,118 miles. Now if we make a circle around the Pole, with a radius of 1,059 miles, so that it is 2,118 miles in diameter, this would represent the rim of the polar opening along which, in this case, the North Magnetic Pole traveled from one point to its diametrically opposite point on the circle, 2,118 miles away, in 235 years.

According to Marshall Gardner, the rim of the polar opening, which is the true magnetic pole, is a large circle 1,400 miles in diameter.

No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm


No one has managed to travel inside this large circle which measures some 1,400 miles in diameter.

The orbits of most the northern circumpolar stars are inside this large right cylinder.

No one has ever visited this area to actually verify that the Polaris will be observed at an exact 90 degree angle overhead.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:









While seen from the equator they look like this:





Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2018, 07:24:49 PM »
Quote
No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm
No one has managed to travel inside this large circle which measures some 1,400 miles in diameter.
Ah right. Edges towards the door.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2018, 08:55:50 PM »
In the bipolar model, the North Pole has never actually been discovered.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

I think this topic has already derailed, so perhaps it's okay to ask: How do you integrate hollow earth with a flat earth?

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2018, 06:44:06 AM »
This topic on the "other" board to which sandokhan is linking goes back 9 years, and holds some fascinating stuff.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0


Edit: And this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183

Yes, it is really enlightening...

The interesting thing, that he even has not understood what the the people 100 years ago thought the ether is and his purpose would be. It is also interesting that he tries to prove the flat earth via the existence of the ether by citing old experiments that where all done and interpreted at that time in light of the standard geocentric model. 

It's a total mess of misinterpretations and lack of real understanding beyond the pure math of the formulas he is posting.

Max_Almond

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2018, 09:29:47 AM »
I'm seeing a lot of words - yet I'm still not seeing an answer to the original question.

Surely even to the nearest 1000 miles Sandokhan can provide an answer?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2018, 09:33:39 AM »
I'm seeing a lot of words - yet I'm still not seeing an answer to the original question.

Surely even to the nearest 1000 miles Sandokhan can provide an answer?

[…]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.