WHY NORTH STAR ELEVATION POSITION IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR LATITUDE?

Please tell me... and don't forget: Phew = 3.17157 

Different compared to what?

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

First of all, in a round Earth, horizon will dip down, thus Polaris latitude will be slightly higher, second, atmospheric refraction exist. These are not rocket science and you can learn about their mechanism through a simple google search.

Unless you are trying to go for a very accurate position based upon it being roughly 0.75 degrees off the north celestial pole; or are going for a deviation due to refraction when it is close to the horizon, it does match.
Do you have any example where it is off?

Meanwhile, why is it always ~due north of any observer who can see it?
Your FE map doesn't work.

Okay, to save time, this thread got terminated.

1-0 for Phew 👌😎

🤣🙏

Quote from: Danang on June 11, 2025, 09:12:27 PM

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

First of all, in a round Earth, horizon will dip down, thus Polaris latitude will be slightly higher, second, atmospheric refraction exist. These are not rocket science and you can learn about their mechanism through a simple google search.

That is fucking stupid and you know it.

However many artists there are in the world always draw horizon at level. Because they are the same thing.  There is only one way to get otherwise to happen, distort the picture by one of two methods:
1. Pan and crop.  You crop a picture then fit the remains to the original size.
2. Layering. Part of the picture has a building or rooftop or ship that the person is supposedly viewing from, and you've spliced that with a much lower view for the background (ten floors lower on the building, or a view from a rowboat).

These simple Google searches are from fake images. The real horizon rises to your eye, to the point that flight must be unsettling to the pilot. No wonder much of piloting is computer assisted imaging.

To some extent, noticing the horizon here is a distraction.

That's the real adjustment that a pilot has to do, to shut out the fact that the ground appears to rise to the sky  while landing, to land properly on the run way. They do not have to adjust to the curvature. The great circle is to look for shortcuts because the Earth is round (like a frisbee or pizza). There is no similar vertical curve made to adjust for *ahem* lowering sky.

[
That is fucking stupid and you know it.

FE is stupid.

Where you don’t even understand the difference between the north  star Polars in the northern celestial sphere as the pole star vs a constellation Crux as an aid in the southern celestial sphere to point to the southern celestial pole.


Anyway..



Where the orientation of the face of the moon as seen depends on latitude which makes no sense for flat earth.

Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon

Where Bulma you abandoned a thread on what are phases of the moon because FE provides no model that works. 

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

Sailors who navigate by the stars would disagree with you.

Okay, to save time, this thread got terminated.

1-0 for Phew 👌😎

So you spout crap, get your ass handed to you, and then flee the thread yet want to claim victory?
No, this is yet another pathetic defeat for you.

---

That is fucking stupid and you know it.

No, but your post certainly is.

However many artists there are in the world always draw horizon at level.

So you love dismissing things as CGI or fake, but then appeal to literal drawings?
People draw the horizon at various points, and people drawing things doesn't make it true.
The simple fact there is a measurable drop to the horizon.
The higher you are, the greater the drop and the easier it is to tell there is a drop and measure it.
Your wilful ignorance of this from you refusing to do anything to measure it or see if there is a drop does not change this fact.
It just means you are wilfully ignorant of reality.

There is plenty of evidence showing you are wrong.
And you have nothing except your pathetic assertions to pretend you are right.

So you love dismissing things as CGI or fake, but then appeal to literal drawings?

Yes, I refer to literal drawings, because in a sense that is all there is.

Drawings of outer space. Drawings of dinosaurs. Drawings of unicorns or angels or other fanciful beings.

The horizon line is a drawing of what people can actually see with their eyes.



Drawing. Also, why is drawing from the ground? You draw angle starting  from the star to the head of the observer, not the ground. Our feet aren't doing the seeing. And you declare as correct sideways people and quite a wide radius of a view of a star. The only thing wrong is the supposed elevation of the star, but in neither picture is the star drawn for visual reference.



Drawing.

People draw the horizon at various points, and people drawing things doesn't make it true.

Actually, any artists who want to be good at their craft quickly learn where the correct horizon is at. But let's discuss your second point.



Real photograph from a satellite from space? Nope! Talented artist rendition.
https://artrkl.com/blogs/news/the-art-of-the-universe-how-artists-render-our-galaxys-mysteries

The image was claimed to be attributable to the Cassini spacecraft, which yielded 400,000 images of space from over 13 years of operation. NASA posted images of the artist’s rendition, but many people continued sharing them as if they came from a satellite. This mistake is one that is easy to make—how can you spot an artist's rendition from a satellite image?

They have some guidelines for knowing whether something is art or the real thing. But lemme share just the first one.

1. Consider the perspective of the image. Are you looking at an image of a galaxy? Does the picture look like a satellite was positioned at the centermost point of the galaxy? If so, it is probably a rendition, as an image from a position like that would be much farther away than we can achieve.

In general, if you ask "how did they take this shot?" assume photorealistic art or AI drawing.

People drawing things doesn't make it true.

Yes.





NASA photography? Nope, AI rendering.

Yes,

Bulma.  Your just going to be a pathological liar and just ignore the numerous times I posted my own photos and videos of the sun, the moon, comets?


Bulma, FE have a working explanation for phases of the moon and why the cycle is interrupted by lunar eclipses.  Or you just too deep in a cult to think for yourself?  Have to have Eric spoon feed what you should go out and experience for yourself. 

Yes, I refer to literal drawings, because in a sense that is all there is.

No, there is plenty more. Including actual photos, which you need to dismiss as fake because they don't match your delusional fantasy.

And look now at how pathetic and dishonest you are yet again.
Trying to switch from your entirely baseless claims about the horizon, to drawings of outer space and so on.
You can take pictures of the horizon, including with simple tools which can tell where level is, to clearly show the horizon is below level.
But you don't want to, because it shows your dishonest, delusional BS is wrong.

The horizon line is a drawing of what people can actually see with their eyes.

No. It is a rough approximation of it, including to make drawing easier.

Drawing. Also, why is drawing from the ground?

Really?
Your that desperate you need to go for that?
Just how tall do you think these people are compared to Earth?
If you drew it to scale, you would not be able to tell the difference between the 2.

But thanks for once again showing you have no actual argument or refutation of it, and that your pathetic BS fails entirely yet again.

sideways people

No, upright people, consistent with the model and not your delusional BS of a magic universal down you cannot justify at all.

quite a wide radius of a view of a star.

A very far away star, where the difference in angle once you reach Earth is irrelavent.

You seem to want to pretend an object can only be viewed from one direction.
Like if you have a football game, and everyone in the stands can see the ball, then the ball must somehow be larger than the stadium.
It is complete crap.

in neither picture is the star drawn for visual reference.

Because it doesn't need to be.
If you had any intelligence at all, you would understand why.

If you want to determine the location of something you can start with the angle to it from various points.
You can then draw lines in and find the point of intersection. The object needs to be located there.

For the FE model shown this is a quite big problem, as there are different points of intersection depending on which 2 observers you pick.
This requires Polaris to be in multiple different locations showing the model is complete crap and does not work to explain reality at all.

For the RE model, the distance is so far away that you are not able to draw it on a scale diagram as Earth would be tiny (less than a pixel for any reasonably sized diagram). At this massive distance, the lines are effectively parallel.
If you include an error term for the angle, then you draw triangles for them instead, you end up with a region where it could be; which would still have Polaris incredibly far away.

Actually, any artists who want to be good at their craft quickly learn where the correct horizon is at.

The learn a rough approximation, because that is all they need.

Real photograph from a satellite from space

No. And no one is pretending it is.

In general, if you ask "how did they take this shot?" assume photorealistic art or AI drawing.

Wrong once more, and instead just a pathetic, lying POS desperately dismissing reality.

The honest way to do it, for any picture, is ask "how did they take this shot?" and then importantly you think of the options.
You don't just ask a question and then dismiss reality because you don't like.
If you want to ask a question you need to either wait for an answer or think about one.

Now, care to stop with all your pathetic BS and explain the angle of elevation to Polaris?
Again, it works based upon a RE, but doesn't work at all for a FE.

Quote from: Danang on June 11, 2025, 09:12:27 PM

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

Sailors who navigate by the stars would disagree with you.

But YouTube disagrees your statement. 👌

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2025, 07:38:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on June 11, 2025, 09:12:27 PM

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

Sailors who navigate by the stars would disagree with you.

But YouTube disagrees your statement. 👌

YouTube is an intelligent entity?  Or about of dram queens saying for attention.

Was in the Navy with Navy Handbooks and procedures that disagree with actual useful and working procedures and practices that are based off the heliocentric model.    YouTube doesn’t have to get around the oceans and have to maintain a tactical advantage.  YouTube just has to generate entertainment. 

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2025, 07:38:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on June 11, 2025, 09:12:27 PM

The North Star's degree of elevation isn't the same as the observer's latitude degree.
Round earth ain't valid.

Sailors who navigate by the stars would disagree with you.

But YouTube disagrees your statement. 👌

Does YouTube navigate the seas using the stars?  I don’t think so. 👎

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 13, 2025, 06:17:59 AM

Yes,

Bulma.  Your just going to be a pathological liar and just ignore the numerous times I posted my own photos and videos of the sun, the moon, comets?
 

People drawing things doesn't make it true.

So ummmm, to answer your question?

Yes

So ummmm, to answer your question?

Bulma that your stupid as a box of hammers and don’t understand drawing something doesn’t make something true.  But you can draw out a principle that is true to illustrate that principle. 

Read the original post Bulma jackass in it’s full context from a thread you were in…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 06:05:39 PM

These are your cult leaders.

Who here gives a f about them.

It has nothing to do with the fact I can watch the moon myself.



The moon has more influence on what I believe about the moon than anyone in general. 

 When I was out west, I could call my parents and friends back home.  I could verify the moon had different rise times, we could each see the moon thousands of miles away from each other. 

I can tell the moon is an object of mass by its shadowing, it blocks the sun during the solar eclipse, it blocks stars and planets from view.  Also gives an idea of distance. 

The moon has mass and influences tides.  FE doesn’t have a working model for Tides.

FE doesn’t have a working model for the phases of the moon.

FE doesn’t have a working model for solar eclipses.  I’ve seen two or three partial eclipse and one total eclipse.

FE doesn’t have a working explanation why everyone thousands of miles of apart see the same face of the moon.

I seen this for myself as I traveled the world.

Where the orientation of the face of the moon as seen depends on latitude which makes no sense for flat earth.

Quote

Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon

FE earth doesn’t have a working model why the moon doesn’t discernibly change size as it travels the night sky.

There is no proof the moon is self illuminating like the sun.  The shadow of earth falling on the moon interrupts the phase cycle. 

I understand the earth is spherical because dial star atlases are accurate.  For locating of stars and constellations based on time of year.

Northern hemisphere





Southern hemisphere




Where I’ve been to Australia and seen there are different constellations in the southern celestial sphere.

I understand the earth is spherically because celestial south and celestial South Pole have meaning.

FE doesn’t help me in a number of my interests.  From amateur astronomy to photography. 

I don’t care about FE because it’s useless to me. 

There are people I learn from online  the helps with knowledge concerning my hobbies, and helps sharpen those skills.  So I can do things like time lapse videos of the moon and sun.





Or help with forecasting things I’m concerned with, such as photographing my first comet.



Where all you do Bulma is hijack other people’s cartoons and lie.

Sooo Bulma,




The above illustration represents a real phenomenon that I have witnessed myself.


Or like the illustrations paired with pictures in this example.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 09, 2025, 07:20:05 AM

The weight is on the sides, as your own arrows show.

Your stupid.

One, it’s nothing like a road supported on a running road bed.  To post otherwise is a stupid and obvious lie. 

A bridge is nothing like a road laid on a road bed of road pack on a running foundation.



Look again Bulma.  Another road literally on earth with “curvature” / grade more extreme than the radius of the earth. 

Bulma.  Are you this stupid?  Or just this much of a lying troll? 


Two…




Look at the picture jackass.

The question was…

  If there is no gravity, what is pulling straight down on the book to force it open like a simple machine trying to open. 

The weight of a deck of a suspension bridge is straight down.  Through mechanical means the weight can be transferred to cables, towers, and cable anchors.

The weight of the book is still straight down.  The hinging of the book lets the book lets the weight transfer to the edges, creating a lateral force.  If there was no gravity pulling the book down, there would be no force to transfer in the first place.

If there is no gravity in the first place Bulma. What is cause the book to “accelerate” down to cause the book to hinge open transverse load to the edges.

Which is vey different than your BS Bulma.

Bulma.  FE totally fails to model reality.  FE fails. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid


 

I use illustrations to show a principle or something that can be observed.

Bulma, you draw something that doesn’t work on any principle where it proves nothing.  Then go ta-da. 

I see no difference.





You keep insisting you can see the sun "through" the entire sky and stars. It's not about curvature. It's about angles.
"But the angle goes right through!"
No. The way the parabola is drawn is about overhead relationships. So if then sun or its light passes overhead of the parabola, it angles in. If it passes out of that zone, it angles out. Draw an from each point in the parabola, then a line straight up from each point. You'll see the sun has actually set by this point.
The sun and stars both do this. The moon is rather weird. Which is why this monk points to the moon. They ate pointing, in effect, outside reality.

The moon is often a religious symbol (Allah, Christ, Buddha), because of of its strange disconnect to the 24 hour clock, exposing these four walls as a sham.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Walls_of_the_World



"These four walks are the walls of a prison!"


The round Earth is a simulation. So is the domed sky. It's beautiful, but it's like watching the world from a window. Sooner or later, you want to do this:

I see no difference.

Because you’re an idiot.

Notice you didn’t post pictures of both star atlases.  There are different dial star atlases for the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere because there are different constellations between the two different celestial sphere.  You Bulma need Crux and Polaris to be the same thing.  Your delusion is a lie.  A sound debunking of that lie that kills FE.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 14, 2025, 02:46:23 AM

This is why they say, "The sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars." All of these things have different orbits.

Where you just justified the heliocentric model.  They don’t have different orbits.  The earth is what is rotating.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 14, 2025, 02:46:23 AM

"Where is your parabola?"

There is no parabola.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 26, 2025, 03:14:13 AM

Bulma.  FE totally fails to model reality.  FE fails. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 14, 2025, 02:46:23 AM

You're seeing the sky through it.

Evidently not.  Because this…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2025, 06:36:04 AM

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

Why would people be looking outward? They are looking upward at something at an angle. It's just as plausible that they might be looking inward.

Is debunked by this..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 13, 2025, 10:48:31 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 13, 2025, 06:00:31 AM

I'm claiming that you probably don't know which way is north or south,

Old post you were part of ..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 17, 2024, 06:01:31 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 17, 2024, 05:38:53 AM

It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.

Why wouldn’t stars relative stationary to a rotating earth not produce this?

3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg


Where at the South Pole, a similar picture can be taken but the stars trail in a different direction?

Quote

Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy

And at the equator the star trails do this…

Quote

https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/

(Where’s that delusional parabola?)

With you once again bulmabriefs144 trying to change the argument

The sun supposedly orbits the celestial North Pole on a flat earth like this…




Is that false.

On a flat earth, supposedly the starts orbit the celestial North Pole.  Like this.


Is that false.

So.  Why isn’t the sun orbiting the celestial North Pole. 



media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg

Note.  Added..  bulmabriefs144, why did you ignore and try to change the subject away from the above picture of sun trails that show the sun doesn’t orbit the celestial North Pole as required by flat earth?

Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…

For a number of reasons especially by the constellations, it’s obvious if you’re looking to the northern celestial sphere vs the southern celestial sphere.  If you can’t tell the difference, you’re stupid.  Where the constellation nicknamed Big Dipper is used to find Polaris is in the northern celestial sphere in the north.  Where you’re not going to see the constellation Big Dipper looking south.  Where the constellation Big Dipper isn’t in the Southern celestial sphere. The Big Dipper is part of Ursa Major which is near Ursa Minor that circle the northern celestial pole and Polaris.  You look south, you don’t see Polaris, Ursa Major, and Ursa Minor.  Where the constellations over the equator and in the southern celestial sphere are very different.  Where Crux is a group of stars.

Bulma where you need to have Crux and Polaris be the same thing.  Which is stupid because Polaris is a single star in the northern celestial sphere, and Crux is a constellation of stars in the opposite direction in the southern celestial hemisphere.

Where Bulma you are running and trying to change the subject from being debunked.

Bulma where you need to have Crux and Polaris be the same thing.  Which is stupid because Polaris is a single star in the northern celestial sphere, and Crux is a constellation of stars in the opposite direction in the southern celestial hemisphere.

Where Bulma you are running and trying to change the subject from being debunked.

I see no difference.

Because you refuse to even attempt to understand.

It's not about curvature. It's about angles.

Except angles alone can't magically make the sun disappear.
You either need pure magic you can't explain, or curvature.

parabola

Your parabola is pure BS which doesn't work at all.
This has been explained to you repeatedly with you just ignoring it.
You have no explanation for what magic your parabola is made or how it magically works.
You even repeatedly contradicting yourself, swithcing between the parabola being pure magic which magically bends light to magically produce the results expected for a RE; or a simple tool for understanding which doesn't actually do anything.

Draw an from each point in the parabola, then a line straight up from each point. You'll see the sun has actually set by this point.

Then you end up only being able to see the sun for a tiny fragment of the day, and only in a tiny band.
i.e. your BS entirely fails.

The round Earth is a simulation.

Yet unlike your BS, the RE model actually works to explain what is observed in reality.


Now care to try explaining the south celestial pole rather than just deflecting with pathetic crap?