Jump to content

Diesel

Members
  • Posts

    557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Diesel

  1. Only if you pretend refraction doesn't exist. You seem absolutely desperate to move on so go on, but I fail to see how you have proved your point. Infact you have proved mine.,
  2. Correction to many noughts: Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.00006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 1666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees. Exactly
  3. I would love to view myself from Ecuador, it would make things a lot easier. If Earth's tilt had moved how is it possible for both pole stars to be viewed at the Equator as witnessed? "Obliquity describes the tilt of the Earth's axis in relation to its orbital plane, which ranges from 22.1–24.5 degrees with a periodicity of ~41,000 years." Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.000006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 16666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees.
  4. Peter, I wish you well. The discussion with you is going nowhere, so let's take a break to reflect. I am not claiming Polaris is viewable from the Southern Hemisphere, just that it is visible on the Horizon at the Equator. No scientists dispute this.
  5. Can you provide any evidence at all to support your argument?
  6. Polaris is confirmed at 0° at the equator by eye witness and photographic evidence.
  7. 0.5 degrees is slightly less than the calculator but is a generally used amount. 33.20833333333333 arcmin divide by 60 = 0.55 degrees
  8. Yes Jesus was an avatar of God, Jah comes from Jehovah. I am still learning so please don't shoot me if I get anything wrong but basically Rastafarians believe Haile Selassie was the second incarnation of Jesus Christ. Lots of other exciting things I am learning such as the Ethiopians built the Pyramids, and the Rosetta Stone was a mistranslated version of Hieroglyphics.
  9. I used a 0.5 degree level of refraction at the Horizon level. This was a conservative calculation. You can check here http://wise-obs.tau.ac.il/~eran/Wise/Util/Refraction.html
  10. in answer to the op the rasta kind Jah lives!!!
  11. Patience, at the moment I am concentrating on the discussion on Polaris. In the meantime,
  12. Beautiful time-lapped image of The North and South Poles from Ecuador and witness statement to viewing them both. http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-1200x800-cp8.jpg http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
  13. No not at all, show me where I use the sun in calculations. Do the maths yourself its all there
  14. So they want pictures from Stellarium No problem here's one showing Polaris at 0°. Of course, there are photos and eyewitnesses as well.
  15. Interestingly, Flat Earthers place the sun at 3218km away. Suddenly that looks quite plausible. This argument is about perspective over distance, the closer Polaris is to earth the more the argument falls apart. I calculate the distance to Polaris as 730,846km FACTS Polaris is located almost precisely 90° above the North Pole Polaris is located at 0° at the equator. I have taken the reference point to be Quito, Ecuador which is fractionally south of the equator because I can provide photographic evidence and eyewitnesses that confirm that Polaris is viewable along the Horizon. The radius of the Earth at the equator is 6378km Refraction at the horizon is 0.5°. So the angle to Polaris is 0.5° Knowing all these facts, we can accurately calculate the distance to Polaris by creating a right-sided triangle. https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html
  16. Well well well, very interesting; quick question is there anyone who believes in the heliocentric model that disputes refraction? https://britastro.org/2019/atmospheric-refraction
  17. I am crunching Crunching some numbers regarding refraction back soon. In theory, you should be able to use the level of refraction to verify the distance to Polaris Thanks for this Alexa very helpful
  18. OK, I will see if it's possible to scale. What is not consequential is the movement of the earth on its tilt during its orbit which changes a static viewpoint position.
  19. The grey lines show the polar position pointing to Polaris The red lines show the viewable area from Earth at the viewpoint. Underneath is a demonstration of how Polaris would appear in opposing positions in the night sky in summer and winter.
  20. Ok this answer keeps Polaris in view but not at a constant, Polaris would travel across the night sky line during the year in the example, this doesn't happen on earth
  21. I found a partial answer to the Polaris question that I'll post shortly but it does not keep Polaris in a "constant" position as it appears on Earth.
×
×
  • Create New...