Those tangential lines in clicky's diagram are pointing to a spot just above the north pole / south pole. That makes no sense considering that polaris is 2.55009322 × 10^15 miles away.
As long as you can see below the horizon ever so slightly more than exactly 90° then you will be about to see farther and farther past the horizon for things that are farther away.
Prove that Polaris is so far away!
Before you make any effort in this direction maybe you would like to refresh your memory with just a few facts:
1. 2. Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit
more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"
Copernicus wrote:
" It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."If such was the conviction of
Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of
Pythagoras, and of
Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth ?
Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes.John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the men of the modern astronomical school, although most of his followers do. In his Journal he writes :
"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth, some affirm it lo be only three, and others ninety millions of miles." 3. The distance to the north star was recently downgraded from 424 light years to 324 years!
All this shows that scientists still hold no key to the universe, they have no clue about the real distances between celestial objects, it's all just guessing at best...
4. Again and again have their theories been combated and exposed, but as often have the majority, who do not think for themselves, accepted the popular thing. No less an authority in his time than the celebrated Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, argued that if the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun, the change in the relative position of the stars thus necessarily occasioned, could not fail to be noticed. In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to m the following words :
" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."
To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.
If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 90,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and direction of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax maybe. THAT THIS GREAT CHANGE IS NOWHERE APPARENT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, incontestably proves that the earth is at rest — that it does not "move in an orbit round the sun."
5. The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.
So, in order to be able to explain how we could see celestial objects which are sometimes declined from the point of observation more than 90 degrees your last resort is a miraculous refraction, but before you could hide behind a miraculous refraction resort, you have to prove that these fabulous distances make any sense at all...@Alpha2Omega, it goes for you too...
Fabulous distances doesn't add up when we look for something that supposed to be (but it is not since doesn't exist in the first place) curvature of water's surface in the pictures which show entire figures of 200 km distant mountains!!!