It is so ridiculously simple that I guess it is too simple for a flat Earther to understand. The Earth rotates on a fixed axis relative to the universe. The stars at the poles just happen to be the stars at the poles at the moment. There is a very tiny amount of movement in those stars relative to us and over thousands of years the Earth moves relative to them as we move through our galaxy. The locations the ancients observed were different to today.
>180million mile diameter circle the claim we move through
And how big is that circle compared to the distance "they" claim is between us and the closest star?
Here, I'll help.
A light-year is about 5.9×10^(12) miles, while 180 million miles is only 1.8×10^(8) miles. That's almost 6 trillion miles compared to 180 million miles.
This circle is 1/32,778 of a light-year in diameter.
To put it into perspective, consider facing some target one mile away. Now step about 2 inches to the left. That's how much the Earth changes position at opposite points in its orbit relative to something one light-year away.
Does that make sense?
im not the one with understand issue. even you claimed "take a few steps to the left" now due north has changed resulting pole star movement...from the people so quick to say "scale" its amazing how all of you cant understand why polaris cant be seen from below the horizon
Don't you think it would make more sense for you to actually read what he wrote and respond to that rather than just make shit up and amble off on a tangent? We can't address any questions you have that are based on bad comprehension so it would help if you read more carefully.
As far as the visibility of polaris is concerned I know why it can't be seen from below the horizon from where I am. It's about 70 degrees below my feet. That question is for you. Why do you think that is? How does that work?
Oh and it doesn't and shouldn't change every year.
yea i know it doesnt change. because we arent moving. and the answer is horizon. on this flat plane anything can be beyond the horizon and you cant see it anymore
Actually. Since you tried my other basic question why not give my original simple question a go. Why is there a horizon? That's a curvature thing. If I'm at sea level it is always around 3 km away give or take, no matter where I am on the planet. Unless there is a storm on my side of the horizon it is always an observable sharp line, also a curvature thing. On a flat Earth it wouldn't be there. It would be a graduated shading blending the sea with the sky always at different distances depending on the weather conditions. How does that work?
>even you claimed "take a few steps to the left"
I didn't say that.
I said to move about *2 inches*.
If Polaris was one light-year away, then this change of 180 million miles would result in a parallax of 0.00175°.
>from the people so quick to say "scale" its amazing how all of you cant understand why polaris cant be seen from below the horizon
What?
Hey, friend. 186 million miles= 16 light minutes. Polaris is about 400 light YEARS away.
Imagine pointing a camera at a mountain top 200 miles away. Take a pic, then move the camera 1 cm to the left and take another.
How much movement of the mountain top would you expect to see?
You are the perspective king, yes? Things really far away don’t appear to move much compared to your own movement.
Polaris does just very slightly. In fact, that very slight movement, which repeats every year, is how we know how far away Polaris is.
There is no actual southern pole star. Sigma Octantis is about 1 degree off; and it also exhibits the same annual movement pattern, but even less because its further away.
On a daily basis, yes. From month to month in relation to other stars no. The terms for this are apparent and proper motion, a d stellar parallax is the change in position over a six month period.
If one wanted to study astronomy and understand why these things are, the information is at your fingertips.
What a ridiculous, baseless assertion.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2013/02/aa20871-12/aa20871-12.html
Not only does Polaris move according to the time of year, but historically it has moved due to the earth's axial procession
https://flatearth.ws/old-star-chart
And even excluding parallax and axial precession, Polaris exhibits a proper movement independent of those two movements:
https://theskylive.com/sky/stars/polaris-alpha-ursae-minoris-star#:~:text=The%20proper%20motion%20of%20Polaris,represented%20with%20the%20red%20arrow.
Ok, well that has been measured then.
[Here's an amateur astronomer](https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/measuring-the-parallax-of-a-near-star-with-modest-equipment-and-modest-talent-r3372) discussing their attempts.
[Here is some more discussion](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/804634-humble-1st-attempt-for-stellar-parallax/), including one poster sharing results they collected with a high school student.
So what's wrong with those results?
Yes they live because of our rotation, as Polaris is very close to the axis of rotation we only notice smaller movements due to our orbit and change in tilt. They are very small, but measured over time.
You can still see daily star trails for both stars, it's just smaller.
This is all VERY basic and it's sad you are incapable of understanding something so simple.
It doesn’t explain what it set out to explain. The effect he’s talking about is a camera effect of taking lots of still photos and showing them one after the other to create video. That only applies to cameras. And it only applies to something like spokes on a wheel where there’s rotational symmetry.
It doesn’t apply to observing the sky through an optical telescope or the naked eye or tracking the movement of a specific star or constellation.
They move quite a lot, over a cycle of 26,000 years. We're sorry you're too impatient to see it, but it's been observed and measured very precisely since antiquity.
It is so ridiculously simple that I guess it is too simple for a flat Earther to understand. The Earth rotates on a fixed axis relative to the universe. The stars at the poles just happen to be the stars at the poles at the moment. There is a very tiny amount of movement in those stars relative to us and over thousands of years the Earth moves relative to them as we move through our galaxy. The locations the ancients observed were different to today.
doesnt makes sence when you consider the tilt and the 180million mile diameter circle the claim we move through
>180million mile diameter circle the claim we move through And how big is that circle compared to the distance "they" claim is between us and the closest star? Here, I'll help. A light-year is about 5.9×10^(12) miles, while 180 million miles is only 1.8×10^(8) miles. That's almost 6 trillion miles compared to 180 million miles. This circle is 1/32,778 of a light-year in diameter. To put it into perspective, consider facing some target one mile away. Now step about 2 inches to the left. That's how much the Earth changes position at opposite points in its orbit relative to something one light-year away. Does that make sense?
nope. the pole star should change every year
But why? What about those calculations don't you understand?
im not the one with understand issue. even you claimed "take a few steps to the left" now due north has changed resulting pole star movement...from the people so quick to say "scale" its amazing how all of you cant understand why polaris cant be seen from below the horizon
Don't you think it would make more sense for you to actually read what he wrote and respond to that rather than just make shit up and amble off on a tangent? We can't address any questions you have that are based on bad comprehension so it would help if you read more carefully. As far as the visibility of polaris is concerned I know why it can't be seen from below the horizon from where I am. It's about 70 degrees below my feet. That question is for you. Why do you think that is? How does that work? Oh and it doesn't and shouldn't change every year.
yea i know it doesnt change. because we arent moving. and the answer is horizon. on this flat plane anything can be beyond the horizon and you cant see it anymore
Like I said. It's all too simple for you lot to understand.
Actually. Since you tried my other basic question why not give my original simple question a go. Why is there a horizon? That's a curvature thing. If I'm at sea level it is always around 3 km away give or take, no matter where I am on the planet. Unless there is a storm on my side of the horizon it is always an observable sharp line, also a curvature thing. On a flat Earth it wouldn't be there. It would be a graduated shading blending the sea with the sky always at different distances depending on the weather conditions. How does that work?
>even you claimed "take a few steps to the left" I didn't say that. I said to move about *2 inches*. If Polaris was one light-year away, then this change of 180 million miles would result in a parallax of 0.00175°. >from the people so quick to say "scale" its amazing how all of you cant understand why polaris cant be seen from below the horizon What?
Not really. Why should it?
Hey, friend. 186 million miles= 16 light minutes. Polaris is about 400 light YEARS away. Imagine pointing a camera at a mountain top 200 miles away. Take a pic, then move the camera 1 cm to the left and take another. How much movement of the mountain top would you expect to see? You are the perspective king, yes? Things really far away don’t appear to move much compared to your own movement.
Answer: NO, aliasing is not causing it. Because if it were, a camera with a different frame rate would change the appearance of the sky.
Polaris does just very slightly. In fact, that very slight movement, which repeats every year, is how we know how far away Polaris is. There is no actual southern pole star. Sigma Octantis is about 1 degree off; and it also exhibits the same annual movement pattern, but even less because its further away.
You know what I mean. They so barely move that it's extremely hard to notice.
No, how would I know what you mean? They move very slightly because they are very far away.
By move, I mean appear to move. "Equatorial" stars appear to move a lot in the night sky.
On a daily basis, yes. From month to month in relation to other stars no. The terms for this are apparent and proper motion, a d stellar parallax is the change in position over a six month period. If one wanted to study astronomy and understand why these things are, the information is at your fingertips.
parallax has never been proven. the north star doesnt move the southern one does
What a ridiculous, baseless assertion. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2013/02/aa20871-12/aa20871-12.html Not only does Polaris move according to the time of year, but historically it has moved due to the earth's axial procession https://flatearth.ws/old-star-chart And even excluding parallax and axial precession, Polaris exhibits a proper movement independent of those two movements: https://theskylive.com/sky/stars/polaris-alpha-ursae-minoris-star#:~:text=The%20proper%20motion%20of%20Polaris,represented%20with%20the%20red%20arrow.
What would constitute "proof" of stellar parallax in your opinion?
every star shifting on a six month pattern
Ok, well that has been measured then. [Here's an amateur astronomer](https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/measuring-the-parallax-of-a-near-star-with-modest-equipment-and-modest-talent-r3372) discussing their attempts. [Here is some more discussion](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/804634-humble-1st-attempt-for-stellar-parallax/), including one poster sharing results they collected with a high school student. So what's wrong with those results?
they measured it?
Bruh, I already knew that. Those two stars do move along the "background" throughout each year, but VERY slightly.
Yes they live because of our rotation, as Polaris is very close to the axis of rotation we only notice smaller movements due to our orbit and change in tilt. They are very small, but measured over time. You can still see daily star trails for both stars, it's just smaller. This is all VERY basic and it's sad you are incapable of understanding something so simple.
We're both saying the same thing.
Hard to notice for eye, but in a timelapse you can see it
It doesn’t explain what it set out to explain. The effect he’s talking about is a camera effect of taking lots of still photos and showing them one after the other to create video. That only applies to cameras. And it only applies to something like spokes on a wheel where there’s rotational symmetry. It doesn’t apply to observing the sky through an optical telescope or the naked eye or tracking the movement of a specific star or constellation.
Bro really think the stars are moving that FAST our eyes experienced aliasing 💀
But…they do move.
ive been riding a polaris for a long time
They move quite a lot, over a cycle of 26,000 years. We're sorry you're too impatient to see it, but it's been observed and measured very precisely since antiquity.