Angle of polaris from the horizon.

  • 16 Replies
  • 6235 Views
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« on: September 14, 2011, 01:54:10 PM »
So, I have always been confused by celestial things in FE. One of the problems I have is polaris's angle from the horizon.
I assume that polaris is directly over the north pole in the north pole centric FE model.
I used the following diagram to determine the FE relation between latitude and the angle polaris makes with the horizon:


φ (or Φ) is latitude, and θ is the angle polaris makes with the horizon.
h is the height of polaris, and R is the radius of the earth.

I then plotted θ as a function of φ for various h/R ratios:


Note that I also plotted θ = φ, which is roughly the observed relation between the two variables. (Personally, I have viewed at latitudes 47N and 34N)
No h to R ratio can account for this.

However, this relation comes naturally for the RE model, where Polaris is  about 433 lightyears away, and sends in light pretty much parallel to the axis of earth's rotation:


What does FE make of this?

« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 02:00:19 PM by momentia »

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 02:14:56 PM »
They are not going to answer you. You should spam this thread to keep it hight
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12224
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2011, 05:33:09 PM »
I assume that polaris is directly over the north pole in the north pole centric FE model.
This is where you went wrong. We don't know Polaris' real position. We only know the optically measurable "position".
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2011, 05:40:25 PM »
This is evidence of the earth latent residual tremble factor. The maths is too complex for you but it's enough to say that the earth tilts, causing stars to appear higher and lower.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2011, 05:42:10 PM »
I assume that polaris is directly over the north pole in the north pole centric FE model.
This is where you went wrong. We don't know Polaris' real position. We only know the optically measurable "position".

We know that the stars from any place in the world rotate around Polaris, which is always to the north.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2011, 05:44:14 PM »
This is evidence of the earth latent residual tremble factor. The maths is too complex for you but it's enough to say that the earth tilts, causing stars to appear higher and lower.

That's quite an assumption, given that you haven't realized that he's talking about a change in angle over latitude rather than time.  Polaris does not change in angle for you if you sit in one place and observe it over the course of a year.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2011, 06:01:50 PM »
Please Read Earth Not a Globe. Perspective accounts for why the North Star appears lower or higher in the sky at different latitudes.

Also see Rowbotham's modified rules of perspective which more accurately reflects reality.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM »
This is evidence of the earth latent residual tremble factor. The maths is too complex for you but it's enough to say that the earth tilts, causing stars to appear higher and lower.
Yeah, once I read "latent residual tremble factor," I was afraid it might have some imaginary parts...

I assume that polaris is directly over the north pole in the north pole centric FE model.
This is where you went wrong. We don't know Polaris' real position. We only know the optically measurable "position".

The angle polaris makes with the horizon is invariant with longitude. The only points on the flat earth that satisfy that condition are points on the line running through the north pole perpendicular to the earth.

I would appreciate some maths in future explanations why the angles of polaris correspond to a round, instead of a flat, earth.

Edit for Tom:
Rowbotham handwaves the explanation in a very short time.
Quote
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveller approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.

What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.

This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.


Note the lack of any math or calculations. I did the calculations to find the angle that matches his explanation, and they don't match with the real world.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 06:11:21 PM by momentia »

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2011, 06:14:39 PM »
This is evidence of the earth latent residual tremble factor. The maths is too complex for you but it's enough to say that the earth tilts, causing stars to appear higher and lower.

That's quite an assumption, given that you haven't realized that he's talking about a change in angle over latitude rather than time.  Polaris does not change in angle for you if you sit in one place and observe it over the course of a year.

Yes. This is what causes the tilt.  ???

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39572
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2011, 07:56:00 PM »
Please Read Earth Not a Globe. Perspective accounts for why the North Star appears lower or higher in the sky at different latitudes.

Also see Rowbotham's modified rules of perspective which more accurately reflects reality.

Reality is that the elevation of Polaris in the night sky has been used by navigators in the northern hemisphere to calculate their latitude since antiquity.  Please cite where Rowbotham (or any other "reputable" FE'er) explains how this is mathematically possible in a flat earth model.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2011, 08:46:57 PM »
This is evidence of the earth latent residual tremble factor. The maths is too complex for you but it's enough to say that the earth tilts, causing stars to appear higher and lower.

That's quite an assumption, given that you haven't realized that he's talking about a change in angle over latitude rather than time.  Polaris does not change in angle for you if you sit in one place and observe it over the course of a year.

Yes. This is what causes the tilt.  ???

The flat earth tilts?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2011, 09:22:21 PM »
Please Read Earth Not a Globe. Perspective accounts for why the North Star appears lower or higher in the sky at different latitudes.

Also see Rowbotham's modified rules of perspective which more accurately reflects reality.

You mean the ones whose only proof is in the sinking ship phenomenon, which requires those rule modifications to fit the flat earth model, which is necessary because the Earth was "proven" flat at the bedford levels? 
So you "prove" the earth is flat in one experiment, then get to reinvent every other facet of math and science?  By that method, why can't a scientist "prove" the roundness of the earth through celestial observation, and then use the "explanation" of refraction to explain the observations that Rowbotham made, without actually reinventing any mathematical phenomena such as perspective?

The mathematics behind perspective have been developped and studied by people probably far more intelligent than either you or Rowbotham.  Entities such as vanishing points and horizon lines, as well as the concept of parallel lines have been precisely and painstakingly defined to be completely mathematically sound, and you're just going to dismiss it because some guy thought he saw a flat stretch of water. 

And from all that, we know that perspective is basically this: visible object has angular position... angular position is determined by both distance and altitude.  We've shown you this, and through calculations, proved that the FET sun cannot set under the influence of perspective alone without physically passing under the earth, and that perspective would cause the sun to diminish in size, which is an unobserved phenomenon.  You responded by invoking refraction to explain sunsets, and invented your own refraction explanation involving some kind of projection without any kind of lens to explain the lack of diminishing - at which point FET loses any advantage it had over RET, as it now requires a new light bending phenomenon, while RET needs refraction to explain the bedford levels results.  So their even...  only RET is now the only theory where observations are mathematically supported, and FET has a giant Conspiracy theory telling us the plethora of flawless nasa images are fake.

So now, which way shall Occam's razor fall?

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2011, 07:27:35 AM »
Unfortunally, Occam´s razor is not a principle, is sugestion. If it were a principle, FE would not last more than a month
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2011, 11:49:36 AM »
So, any actual ideas yet why RE predicts this phenomena with straight light, but FE cannot?

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2011, 02:40:15 PM »
So, any actual ideas yet why RE predicts this phenomena with straight light, but FE cannot?

By straight do you mean "pure" or are you insinuating light would follow a path like a line made with a ruler?

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2011, 09:14:03 PM »
So, any actual ideas yet why RE predicts this phenomena with straight light, but FE cannot?

By straight do you mean "pure" or are you insinuating light would follow a path like a line made with a ruler?

Like a ruler.
I'd also like to put this graph in before someone complains about refraction.
On the x-axis is apparent hight of polaris in degrees, and on the y-axis is actual height of polaris in degrees.

There are two lines.
The straight line is just y=x for no refraction (when I made the graph in the original post, I did not take in refraction due to its minute effects on the working scale.), and the other is y=x-(correction for refraction). It makes up for refraction, using the formula from Auer and Standish, found on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Calculating_refraction



If you look closely at the origin, there is a small difference between the two functions. (35 arc minutes at 0 degrees apparent height, 10 arc minutes at 5 degrees, 2.5 arc minutes at 20 degrees, etc.) But this difference is tiny on the scale of my argument.

In other words, refraction is not significant in explaining why the angle of polaris from the horizon agrees with RE, and severely disagrees with FE.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 09:17:24 PM by momentia »

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Angle of polaris from the horizon.
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2011, 01:36:24 PM »
I just want to let you all know that there's a gaping hole in FE theory where the evidence clearly points to a round earth. (as I show in the first post.) I really think someone should figure out why this is. Or you could ignore it and RE could have (another) victory.