the answer to your question is contained in this video on the star trails actually.
a few minutes in, but you need to watch the first few minutes to understand clearly what is going on.
The video you posted there has erroneous panels for each item, from beginning to end. It is a compendium of false premise, incorrect thinking, lack of reason, illogical conclusions and lies.
Do you want examples? It would take me hours to list them all.
Take minute 2, for instance. It says,
"As you travel Southwards [sic]
from the North Pole, Polaris and its surrounding stars decline in the sky due to perspective, so at the North Pole Polaris is situated directly 90 degrees above your head, but at the mid-Northern [sic]
latitudes (like here) [Where?]
it's about 45+/- degrees."Nowhere in the video does it explain where "here" is, so perhaps he means the 45th parallel north. I don't know. If so, that would put him somewhere around the southern border of Canada, approximately. But we can't be sure since he doesn't really say.
Ambiguity, like at Vatican II, is the rule of the day with flat-earthers.
The term "southwards" needs no capitalization, but curiously for a flat-earther, most of whom
deny the very existence of the south direction, not only is it referred to, it is Capitalized. Odd. Perhaps this particular flat-earther denies south sometimes when it's a difficulty but refers to it at other times, like now, when it's convenient. I don't know if he does or not because flat-earthers are very difficult to keep track of with their opportune inconsistencies. But I digress.
While it's true that the stars in the sky seem to change position due to perspective, this change is extremely small compared to the constant and predictable change that occurs due to the curvature of the earth, which is a reasonably constant curve, very close to circular in all directions. For our purposes the amount of variation is negligible so we can say it is entirely circular. For each degree of movement from the north terrestrial pole toward the equator (and ultimately the south pole), the north star, Polaris, moves just one degree downward toward the north pole. One terrestrial degree is equivalent to 60 nautical miles. So for the first 10 degrees south from the north pole, Polaris moves 10 degrees downward, and for the next 10 degrees south on the earth's surface, Polaris moves another 10 degrees downward. By the time one arrives at the equator, which is 90 degrees from the north pole, Polaris has moved just 90 degrees downward, which is why it is then found at the horizon line. This is entirely explained by the curvature of the earth, and not by perspective, because if it were perspective, Polaris would only have moved perhaps one degree, since it is at such a great distance from earth. Flat-earthers claim that the distance to Polaris is only a few thousand miles in order to perpetrate this falsehood that the movement of Polaris is entirely due to perspective.
But just as the enormously greater distance from earth to the sun compared to distance from earth to the moon is easily demonstrated by a simple observation you can make the day after tomorrow, April 3rd, 2017, so too the distance to Polaris is easily demonstrated to be many many times the distance to the sun. In fact it is thousands of times further to Polaris than it is to the sun from earth. Consequently, the light rays from Polaris reaching earth are effectively presumed (and rightly so) to be parallel lines. Again, flat-earthers deny this and claim they are far from parallel, but that only complicates their model for other reasons, leading them to additional self-contradictions.
In only 27 more seconds (2:27) the video shows a very odd and self-contradictory drawing that points to the ground with an arrow "land horizon" and then draws a line to the right at 30 degrees inclination to a place on the right side labeled "sky horizon." A note under this triangle says,
"everything in the dark section is behind the horizon." There is no explanation given for why something obviously straight ahead of the viewer would be "behind the horizon." What is being done here is an attempt to set up a false premise. The man figure on the left side as we all know, is a man standing on the ground, which we can do, and the flat line under his feet accurately describes the flat ground under our feet. When we look to the right or to the left or straight ahead or behind us, we can see to the horizon and we can see the ground going to the horizon. There is no such thing as a
"dark section (...)
behind the horizon" that we can't see. By insinuating this illogical error, the author is hoping a gullible viewer will buy into his lie so that he can build more erroneous thinking on top of it. Our limitations on seeing things far away is aided by telescopes which bring into view things we would not be able to see without them. An improvement on the telescope is binoculars which give us the ability to see relative distance of things far away, even if they appear to be more flattened-out than they do when we are physically up close to them. If the author were referring to things that we could see if we had a telescope, he did not say that, and as you will find out later, that cannot be what he's talking about because he really wants the viewer to believe that there are things straight ahead of our viewing angle that we are incapable of seeing because they're in the
"dark section behind the horizon," whatever that means.
That's one part of the first two and a half minutes of inaccuracies, half-truths and total errors.
Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 221735 times)