In the southern hemisphere navigators use the Southern Cross instead of the north star, because the latter cannot be seen from south of the equator at sea level. At the equator, Polaris appears to be just on the horizon due north, and the Southern Cross rotates (clockwise) due south.
Some flat-earther in a previous thread claimed that the north star can be seen up to 20 degrees south of the equator but provided no reference or evidence of this. Perhaps it is visible from the highest peaks of the Andes mountains, but most certainly not from the surface of the ocean or anywhere close to sea level. The curvature of the earth at the equator prevents a view of Polaris south of that latitude.
So when you travel to a different location, your horizon tilts with respect to the stars. Today every school child is taught that the earth is (approximately) a sphere. Even in ancient times, however, astute travelers realized that the changes in the stars as you travel north or south must be caused by the curvature of the earth. The ancient Greeks even reasoned that the earth must be a sphere, and thus pictured the universe as a pair of spheres: an enormous celestial sphere, carrying the stars around us once a day, and the much smaller spherical earth, fixed at the center of the universe.
The ancient Greeks used this principle to estimate the diameter of the spherical earth, and they got surprisingly close to the reality. They measured shadow of a vertical pole at each of two locations at the same day of two years, since it took them about a year to travel to the second place in the south. This same experiment has been done in our time as well, and the same results are obtained, since the earth's axis has not changed (appreciably at least) since the time of the Greeks.
I'll respond!
The angles of the pole star and the change of same from the greater distances of the southern latitudes aptly demonstrates the sunrise/sunset model on the flat earth.
No, they don't.
If you think you can establish a fallacy as if it were truth, simply by repeating it, you're mistaken.
In other words, the sun is in motion in a straight line over a motionless plane. Therefore, the angles change from rise (0 degrees) to zenith (90 degrees) to set (180 degrees).
So now you're changing your mind again, from saying the sun moves in a spiral motion over a "flat" earth, to saying it moves in a straight line? Need I say more?
When you are looking at the pole star, the effect is exactly the same with the motion being reversed: the pole star is stationary.
No, the relative motion of the sun and Polaris have nothing to do with each other. They are entirely different positions in the sky and have entirely different predicted locations. Anyone who thinks he can predict where the sun will be at 3:00 pm tomorrow based on the perceived movement of Polaris is in for a lot of disappointment.
If the observer is standing at the pole the angle is 90 degrees: directly overhead.
And why would that be? You don't find the sun there, EVER.
As the viewer moves farther and farther away to the south, the angle eventually reaches 0 degrees.
Really? Like from Santiago, Chile? Is that where the angle is 0 degrees? If not, why not? It's further south, like you said.
What gives you the perspective of the pole star "rising" just above the horizon with the stars rotating about it, as demonstrated [in the] video you posted.
I don't know which video you're referring to. Maybe you like it that way. More ambiguity? Like Vatican II?
The pole star (Polaris) only appears to rise when the observer moves north away from the equator. If the observer stays in the same place Polaris does not seem to rise. So it's a function of the moving observer, not the moving Polaris.
The reason Polaris seems to rise is that the vertical angle between the horizon and the star increases in direct proportion to the degrees of latitude increase. If the observer turns around and goes back to a latitude of less degrees, Polaris appears lower in the sky by the same degrees as the observer moves south.
Polaris and all the other stars rotating around it visible from the north pole become progressively LESS VISIBLE as the observer moves south. The line of the horizon clearly and distinctly CUTS OFF the lower portion of these stars depending on how far south the observer moves. If the earth were "flat," this would NOT be the case, for there would NEVER be any clear line of demarcation between the stars in the sky where some are visible and others not if the earth were "flat."
You guys (flat-earthers) just dig in and stubbornly refuse to see that your "perspective" canard falls flat to simple geometry. If it were merely perspective, the lower portion of stars would continue to be visible in the distance, AND the angular distances between them would get smaller. But that is not what we see at all. The lower portion of the stars dive perpendicularly down into the western horizon constantly, and then re-appear later at right angles to the horizon on the east side (in the northern hemisphere). That is obviously impossible in the flat earth model.
What we see in the night sky does not support the flat earth precept, and it can only be explained by realizing that the earth is spheroid, or as you seem to enjoy harping, "a ball." (Are you having a ball or something?)
Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 340428 times)