The sun and north star positions

I posted this in another thread (well, most of it), but I wanted to make a new topic about it. Here is a picture I made (in paint) that shows the positions of the sun and Polaris (the north star, for those who don't know). During an equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator, shown here:



As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. On the round earth, all the arrows pointing to where the sun should be point in the same direction. That means that the sun is extremely far away in the direction. But look at the flat earth. The angles the sun is at (compared to the ground) are the same as on the round earth. But look at where they point. With those 5 latitude positions, there are 10 places that the sun is at once, 4 of them being on the ground. How is that possible? Answer: It isn't.

Now look at the position of Polaris. As most of you (hopefully) know, Polaris hardly moves in the sky (.7 degrees off of the center of the earths axis according to Wikipedia). Its altitude (in degrees) in the sky at all times is equal to the latitude that you are at. So near the equator (0 degrees latitude) it is near the ground. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude) it is directly overhead. On the round earth, the arrows point in the same direction. That means that Polaris is extremely far away from us in that direction. Now look at the flat earth picture. Hmm... It seems that Polaris is at the north pole. How is that possible? Answer: Again, it isn't.

So there's proof that the earth must be round. I have even checked to see that my latitude (about 42 degrees north) is equal to the altitude of Polaris, and it is. You would be stupid to think that my information is wrong, because most likely millions of people have figured out the position of the sun during an equinox and the position of Polaris (and don't say that they are all in on the 'conspiracy', because that's impossible).

Still don't believe me? Here's another picture I made. It shows the distance from the sun to the earth if the earth was flat. As you can clearly see, the distance from the sun to the equator during an equinox is different depending on your latitude. Again, I ask: How is this possible? Again I answer: It isn't.

Fake.

No, it's real. If you are on the northern hemisphere, find Polaris and figure out the altitude of it at your position and it will be the same as your latitude. And just about everyone knows that the sun is directly overhead at the equator during an equinox. The altitude of the sun during an equinox is 90-your latitude no matter where you are.

Can you verify your claims about the position of the sun and north star at equinox?

I can't verify these claims (which are correct) over the internet, but you can try them yourself. Tonight (or a night on any day) find Polaris and figure out the altitude (in degrees) of it (0 being at the horizon, 90 being straight up) using an astrolabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolabe). When you do that, its altitude will be the same as your latitude (might be a little off due to human error). At 12 P.M. on an equinox (next one is around September 21-23) figure out the altitude of the sun. Its altitude will be 90-your latitude (again, there might be human error).

(again, there might be human error).

Yes, because the earth is flat.

Do you know what human error is? It's basically when humans miscalculate things because they are sometimes not precise. Look at a table or something and guess its length. Now take out a tape measure (or anything that is big enough to measure the length of the object) and find its length with it. Most likely you will be wrong by a few inches.

If you have a machine make 100 chairs (or something), they will all be the same. If you have a human make 100 chairs, some of them will have flaws because humans are only humans.

And thus the earth is flat.

Human error proves that the earth is flat? I don't think so. Do you have any ways to prove my evidence false? If so, I would like to hear it.

If your evidence is correct the earth is round.

The earth is flat.

Your evidence cannot be correct.

Oh... I thank you for providing so much proof to a FE. 

You are pretty damn good fredo, you must have just taken earth science, which would make you around 14 or 15. You have proven this FE theory wrong, now try and prvoe mine wrong. You can read about it and ask questions since I wasn't very specific in my thread "What's your flat earth". I'll be happy to answer any of your questions.

If your evidence is correct the earth is round.

The earth is flat.

Your evidence cannot be correct.

I see you did some logic. I can do that, too.

With these premises:
If you still think the earth is flat then you are an idiot.
If my evidence is correct then the earth is round.
My evidence is correct.
You still think the earth is flat.

I can conclude that:
The earth is round.
You are an idiot.

You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.

You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.

The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.

So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2008, 04:51:39 PM

You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.

So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

He has yet to answer that and is obviously stalling for time while he concocts another ludicrous Theory. If you don't answer within 1 hour Tom then I declare a win for RE.

The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.

Quote

The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

Ummm... Tom, you have a couple of different things going on in the picture.  First off, you have the top part of the glass that has air (less dense) to glass (more dense) back to air (less dense) then to water (more dense) transitions.  Then in the lower part of the glass you have air (less dense) to glass (more dense) to water (less dense) transitions.  Neither part is an accurate analogy for a vacuum (less dense) to air (more dense) transition let alone along an atmospheric gradient.

Quote

So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.

Maybe you could breath at 30,000 ft, but I wouldn't recommend it.  The difference in air pressure between sea level and 30,000 ft is more than 10psi.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

I could be wrong, but I'd guess that's about 2/3 of the atmosphere.  Seems pretty significant to me.

Quote

The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

We've been over this many times before, Tom.  Snell's law implies that the sun will appear higher than it actually is.  Just, look at the diagram.  The light ray from the sun is bent towards the normal because air becomes more dense as the light propagates downward.  We assume light travels in straight lines, so the sun will appear in the direction of the line tangent to the actual path of light.  Follow the dotted line on the diagram, and that will give the apparent position of the sun.  Notice that it appears higher than the actual position of the sun.

Quote

So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.

Mt. Everest Tom?  It's at 29,000 feet, and people need oxygen masks up there.  Air pressure is 1/3 of what it is at sea level.  That means there is 2/3 less of the blanket of air at that altitude.  30,000 ft isn't nothing; it's very significant.

Is it? Is it really that significant? Answer: YES. Tom is an idiot.

I agree with taters343. Tom, you are an idiot. I also agree with jdoe and markjo. In the picture of the straw and glass of water, there are different densities. It needs to be a single density (or an increasing one to be more realistic). And from jdoe's picture, it is obvious that Snell's law would make the sun seem higher than it really is, making sun rises and sunsets impossible on a flat map.

Why is it so hard to believe that the earth is round? What makes more sense? That we happen to be in the center of the universe, constantly accelerating upwards with the rest of the universe for no known reason and everything is going around us (or just circling above us)? Or that we happen to be on 1 in trillions of planets in the universe and we aren't special (unless you count there being life here special)? I would go with the latter.

I agree with fredo, I am quite confident in the statement "Tom is an idiot," as I should be since I said it. Also I have up most confidence in the entire species of gnome.

Two and a half days without a reply? No argument against my evidence (as well as jdoe's and markjo's evidence)? Well, it would appear that RE'ers win. You lose, Tom.

I posted this in another thread (well, most of it), but I wanted to make a new topic about it. Here is a picture I made (in paint) that shows the positions of the sun and Polaris (the north star, for those who don't know). During an equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator, shown here:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. On the round earth, all the arrows pointing to where the sun should be point in the same direction. That means that the sun is extremely far away in the direction. But look at the flat earth. The angles the sun is at (compared to the ground) are the same as on the round earth. But look at where they point. With those 5 latitude positions, there are 10 places that the sun is at once, 4 of them being on the ground. How is that possible? Answer: It isn't.

Now look at the position of Polaris. As most of you (hopefully) know, Polaris hardly moves in the sky (.7 degrees off of the center of the earths axis according to Wikipedia). Its altitude (in degrees) in the sky at all times is equal to the latitude that you are at. So near the equator (0 degrees latitude) it is near the ground. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude) it is directly overhead. On the round earth, the arrows point in the same direction. That means that Polaris is extremely far away from us in that direction. Now look at the flat earth picture. Hmm... It seems that Polaris is at the north pole. How is that possible? Answer: Again, it isn't.

So there's proof that the earth must be round. I have even checked to see that my latitude (about 42 degrees north) is equal to the altitude of Polaris, and it is. You would be stupid to think that my information is wrong, because most likely millions of people have figured out the position of the sun during an equinox and the position of Polaris (and don't say that they are all in on the 'conspiracy', because that's impossible).

Still don't believe me? Here's another picture I made. It shows the distance from the sun to the earth if the earth was flat. As you can clearly see, the distance from the sun to the equator during an equinox is different depending on your latitude. Again, I ask: How is this possible? Again I answer: It isn't.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5245/sundistancexl7.png[/img][/URL]

I love these kinds of arguments.  Your diagrams are beautiful, Fredo, don't get me wrong.  But you are generating your data based on the idea of the Round Earth then applying it to the Flat Earth and concluding that because you assume the Earth is round it is not flat. 

One has to actually gather evidence, not just claim "the sun is here at the north, here at the equator, et cetera."  Do you see how you are brainwashed by the RE model?  That's called pseudo science. 

Quote from: Fredo on April 19, 2008, 06:45:59 AM

I posted this in another thread (well, most of it), but I wanted to make a new topic about it. Here is a picture I made (in paint) that shows the positions of the sun and Polaris (the north star, for those who don't know). During an equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator, shown here:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. On the round earth, all the arrows pointing to where the sun should be point in the same direction. That means that the sun is extremely far away in the direction. But look at the flat earth. The angles the sun is at (compared to the ground) are the same as on the round earth. But look at where they point. With those 5 latitude positions, there are 10 places that the sun is at once, 4 of them being on the ground. How is that possible? Answer: It isn't.

Now look at the position of Polaris. As most of you (hopefully) know, Polaris hardly moves in the sky (.7 degrees off of the center of the earths axis according to Wikipedia). Its altitude (in degrees) in the sky at all times is equal to the latitude that you are at. So near the equator (0 degrees latitude) it is near the ground. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude) it is directly overhead. On the round earth, the arrows point in the same direction. That means that Polaris is extremely far away from us in that direction. Now look at the flat earth picture. Hmm... It seems that Polaris is at the north pole. How is that possible? Answer: Again, it isn't.

So there's proof that the earth must be round. I have even checked to see that my latitude (about 42 degrees north) is equal to the altitude of Polaris, and it is. You would be stupid to think that my information is wrong, because most likely millions of people have figured out the position of the sun during an equinox and the position of Polaris (and don't say that they are all in on the 'conspiracy', because that's impossible).

Still don't believe me? Here's another picture I made. It shows the distance from the sun to the earth if the earth was flat. As you can clearly see, the distance from the sun to the equator during an equinox is different depending on your latitude. Again, I ask: How is this possible? Again I answer: It isn't.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5245/sundistancexl7.png[/img][/URL]

I love these kinds of arguments.  Your diagrams are beautiful, Fredo, don't get me wrong.  But you are generating your data based on the idea of the Round Earth then applying it to the Flat Earth and concluding that because you assume the Earth is round it is not flat. 

One has to actually gather evidence, not just claim "the sun is here at the north, here at the equator, et cetera."  Do you see how you are brainwashed by the RE model?  That's called pseudo science. 

But... But... That's the exact same process that Tom and the esteemed Dr. Rowbotham use.  How can it possibly be wrong?

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

How do you refute that?

I actually went outside at night and found the position of Polaris. I had to (it was homework for Earth Science). So no, I'm not just claiming these. I didn't find the position of the sun during an equinox, though. But that doesn't really matter, because as markjo said, Tom and Mr Rowbotham used these positions.

EDIT: You can figure out the position of Polaris yourself if you don't believe me. It doesn't take long at all.

Nah, that's not the same logic process.  Fredo is making incongruous assumptions.  Tom, on the other hand, didn't take enough data samples.  If he had he would have quickly realized that there is no solution to his little experiment.  Not to say that Tom doesn't make incongruous assumptions, too...

As I said, you can figure out the positions of both the sun and Polaris if you don't believe me. If my evidence wasn't correct, don't you think that somebody would have said that NASA and everyone else that would say this evidence is correct is wrong? Go on any website or look in any book that has information like this, and it will have this data. Wouldn't somebody have said they were wrong? Or are you going to say that they must have been killed by the conspirators before the truth got out?

Well, that is what the whole conspiracy theory is about.