Question about circumpolar stars/constellations.
the star Polaris is visible in the sky at approximately the same degree of latitude you’re at. for example, i’m at ~46°N, so the star appears 46° above the horizon when I look north. this applies anywhere: at 10°N, it’s 10° up. at 0°, it’s right at the horizon. but once you go beyond that, into southern latitude, it disappears completely.
perspective alone cannot explain this. objects appear smaller and lower in the distance, but they never vanish entirely unless something is physically blocking the view. if Polaris were simply ‘too far away,’ it would still be visible, just closer to the horizon, like how distant mountains or airplanes don’t suddenly blink out of existence. no matter how far away an object is, as long as there’s a clear line of sight, it remains visible, just smaller. this is a fundamental principle of optics. yet, we know for a fact that at a certain point, Polaris is gone.
in addition to this, the crux constellation is visible in southern latitudes. it can be viewed from australia and south america at the exact same time, and yes, they both experience night at the same times for a significant portion of the year. this demonstrates how distance doesn’t play a part in the disappearance of polaris. on the FE model, these 2 locations are completely across the world. how is this all possible?
3 Replies
You wrote a book of bullshit.
1. "the star Polaris is visible in the sky at approximately the same degree of latitude you’re at. for example, i’m at ~46°N, so the star appears 46° above the horizon when I look north. this applies anywhere: at 10°N, it’s 10° up. at 0°, it’s right at the horizon. but once you go beyond that, into southern latitude, it disappears completely."
this statement is made up. You never mader this observation. It's what you THINK the globe model predicts and you are trying to pass it off as you saw it. You simply lied.
Polaris's Declination (Dec): is +89° 15' 50.8".
It IS visible past the "equator". Stop making shit up.
2. "perspective alone cannot explain this. objects appear smaller and lower in the distance, but they never vanish entirely unless something is physically blocking the view. "
this is nonsense and made up BS as well. When an object's visual angle is smaller than the angular resolution of the optic , you can't see it. It's called the diffraction limit.
"if Polaris were simply ‘too far away,’ it would still be visible, just closer to the horizon, like how distant mountains or airplanes don’t suddenly blink out of existence. no matter how far away an object is, as long as there’s a clear line of sight, it remains visible, just smaller. this is a fundamental principle of optics. yet, we know for a fact that at a certain point, Polaris is gone. "
Based on the same idiotic false premise above.
3. "in addition to this, the crux constellation is visible in southern latitudes. it can be viewed from australia and south america at the exact same time, and yes, they both experience night at the same times for a significant portion of the year. this demonstrates how distance doesn’t play a part in the disappearance of polaris. on the FE model, these 2 locations are completely across the world. how is this all possible?"
I'm not sure how you connected this to Polaris.
The Southern Crux is visible from 28N latitude .
This is typical glober tripe. You basically butcher your own model then claim you observed it and demonstrate you're a lying schmuck
now stop lying.
