Polaris

  • 38 Replies
  • 10114 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Polaris
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2007, 12:21:50 PM »
It doesn't contradict FE in the least.

If you guys had actually read Earth Not a Globe, you would have noticed that the North Star is at an altitude much higher than the sun.

Of course it would disappear at a greater distance.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Polaris
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2007, 12:23:29 PM »
Buttttt the sun has to be 55,000 km away to be within 5 degrees of the horizon....
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Polaris
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2007, 12:32:07 PM »
It doesn't contradict FE in the least.

If you guys had actually read Earth Not a Globe, you would have noticed that the North Star is at an altitude much higher than the sun.

Of course it would disappear at a greater distance.
Which according to your blue air theory, the light would be even less visible.  The sun is so much brighter it could easily over come the 1000 mile difference. 
Not to mention I used 40 degrees latitude for my calcs, people in the north would be able to see even further
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6229
  • +0/-0
Re: Polaris
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2007, 12:35:23 PM »
...
In his excursions, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports that on the 23rd of January 1862 the Pole Star was seen from a part of the earth 23 1/2 degrees beyond the equator.
...

What does this beyond exaclty mean? And where was his excursion?

While posing as a scientologist poster, mattman624, Tom got chided for using the term "below the equator".  Any real flat earth believer would adopt "beyond the equator".  I guess he took it to heart.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Polaris
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2007, 12:13:57 AM »
It doesn't contradict FE in the least.

If you guys had actually read Earth Not a Globe, you would have noticed that the North Star is at an altitude much higher than the sun.

Of course it would disappear at a greater distance.

According to Earth Not A Globe, rather than, you know, reality. I'll take that leap anyday.  ::)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Bushido

Re: Polaris
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2007, 12:59:50 AM »
Quote
Polaris CAN NOT BE SEEN from points SOUTH of the EQUATOR!!!

Do you have proof for this presumption? Can you back up your claim with observations?

In his excursions, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports that on the 23rd of January 1862 the Pole Star was seen from a part of the earth 23 1/2 degrees beyond the equator.

Unless you have anything more than a frivolous Round Earth model, I'm more inclined to believe personal observation and statements from a man who has spent his life studying the shape of the earth.
You know this statement disporves the fe right?
Ok here is the math on how this disporves the fe.

To say he could see the north star means he could see for 90+23 degress so 113 degrees.  That means I better be able to see the sky up to 113 degrees too.  So that means that I can see to about 63 degrees past the north pole. so to 27 degrees north on the other side.  Just shy of The tropic of cancer.  So if I can see a star that far away I better be able to see the sun as in millions of times brighter.  So therefore I would be able to see the sun for 24 hours at the June solstice.  Which I cant.  And I'm down here at around 40 degrees so people further north would be able to see the sun even longer. 

Since I cant see the sun I know Rowbotham is lying.  If he lied about  this he probably lied about much more.  Thats why no one can do his experiments. So this in turn disproves the Fe.

You know that your argument is based on a Round Earth, don't you? You are using this assumption to disprove another assumption about the shape of the Earth. It's like saying 'The Earth is not Flat, because it is Round'.

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Polaris
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2007, 03:55:08 AM »
You know that your argument is based on a Round Earth, don't you? You are using this assumption to disprove another assumption about the shape of the Earth. It's like saying 'The Earth is not Flat, because it is Round'.

Hmmm.........Sounds familiar..................

Quote from: the FAQ
Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

Sir-Phobos

  • 7
  • +0/-0
Re: Polaris
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2007, 09:09:40 PM »
Quote
Polaris CAN NOT BE SEEN from points SOUTH of the EQUATOR!!!

Do you have proof for this presumption? Can you back up your claim with observations?

In his excursions, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports that on the 23rd of January 1862 the Pole Star was seen from a part of the earth 23 1/2 degrees beyond the equator.

Unless you have anything more than a frivolous model or assumptions, I'm more inclined to believe personal observations and statements from a man who has spent his life studying the shape of the earth.

You'd think if Polaris was viewable from the Southern hemisphere one of the several billion people living down there would have noticed it by now...

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Polaris
« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2007, 06:19:29 AM »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.