Polestar proves flat earth

Flat earthers make the very good point: “It is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.”

And they make the observation that the polestar could not be seen from south of the equator on a ball earth. That may or may not be true but certainly is a good point and merits further research.

Flat earthers fail to mention that if the earth was flat we could see the polestar all the way down to Antarctica. On a flat earth you should be able to see the polestar from everywhere.

Flat earthers can’t explain why there would be a southern polestar around which the southern stars rotate. Some deny this occurs, and suggest it is different to what happens in the northern sky.

There is a need for research in this area and as I am living in the southern hemisphere I plan to do some work in this area and post my conclusions in the near future.

Conclusion: Interesting points are raised that deserve further research and investigation. Certainly it is very difficult to believe the earth is moving the way the globe earth model suggests and at the same time is able to always keep the north pole pointing directly at the polestar. And we need to further investigate exactly what is happening in the southern sky.

Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

  • 98) NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 – 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.
  • 99) Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
  • 100) If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model.
  • 101) Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists.
  • 103) There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.
  • 104) The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.
  • 105) Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! These are all only possible because the “hemispheres” are not spheres at all but concentric circles of latitude extending outwards from the central North Pole with the stars rotating over and around.
  • 102) Some heliocentrists have tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective on plane (flat) surfaces. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.

18 Replies to “Polestar proves flat earth”

  1. YOU

    We know that in the flat earth model, the south pole star gets ignored. The flat earthers acknowledge that the north star exists but they refuse to admit that there is a south pole with a south star and their model leave that completely out. Flat earthers cant explain away the south star.

    • On the Level

      This may be the first time I’ve heard anyone claim the existence of the “South Star.” People have claimed the existence of the “Southern Cross,. Please provide evidence of this supposed Southern Star, photographic images might help if you can prove their of the southern sky and identify the source.

      Thanks for all your effort in this regard.

  2. Neil DeGrasse Tyson

    we are living in a time like no other time like today but then again yesterday was like no other day like yesterday Nicky Minaj.

  3. Khalif Foster

    Basically, if you are stretching out the south pole that means you are seeing the high number of north degree before the equator to the south, after the equator, but you are not seeing the southern stars, but north stars that stretch out and counter-rotate that is beyond the horizon but do not go down but counter-rotate, so it is not south stars, but still north star which we can see Southern Cross in the north when should be southern cross or Midpoint Cross. So, but too south you can’t see it because it will go to horizon, but less than the horizon, it is counter-rotate to the north direction, not southern direction. The further to the south the less you will see which you should see that is equal to the north, but not, right.

    That is on way to proof flat earth so it is not the same equal of degree for north and south, but higher in north for north pole and little lower in south for north pole, but not opposite for south pole which can’t be seen in north and south, so it is a very low range of south degree to see south stars. The range of south stars is lower than range for the north star.

  4. Ed Hubble

    What a load of derp. Polaris cannot be seen at “over 20 degrees south latitude” The rest of this stuff is just fantasy wish fulfillment . For instance: Vulpecula is a seasonal constellation. Visible in northern hemisphere in the summer, and winter in the southern hemisphere. Funny how you forgot to mention that – and the reason why it is so. Hint: earth is a spheroid and is tilted on its axis. The rest of your astronomy is equally derp ridden. Flat earth fail.

  5. John

    The reason why the pole star is not visible from points in the Southern Hemisphere is clearly because the light from the pole star passes through too much of the atmosphere and is all absorbed. The atmosphere IS NOT perfectly clear. There is a slight opacity to it which increases with distance. Hence you cannot see the PS from, for example Australia.

    • Tesla

      ……well. no. It’s because you don’t have vision that goes on forever. You can only see so far. Image a giant room. A hallway going o. Forever, it’s going to look like a pin point at some point. Same thing, just on a larger scale. The distance convergaces. We have circle vision. You can’t see on forever. Solo the whole flat earth can see on forever thing is stupid

  6. aitor

    For all the amount of time you have taken to think about this point, it is a pity that you didn’t look for information sources about the main concern: how does Polaris remain aligned with the Earth’s North Pole?

    The first assumption is simply wrong: Polaris is currently but has not always been nor it will be forever the Pole Star. Just like Einstein introduced his cosmological constant to allow his theory to match what he thought he was observing (that the Universe didn’t change) here it is assumed that Polaris has always been in the North direction. Well that is not true.

    In reality, the rotation axis of the Earth precesses in a cycle that lasts 26000 years, this is the tilt that was asked for above.

    As is taught in every school in the World, the Earth is affected by two movements, one of which is the orbit around the Sun. It needs to be stated here, that the whole Solar System does. Every planet except Pluto (is it a planet? yes? no?) follows the same (very similar) path as seen from the Earth. This is because the whole Solar System is moving within the same plane. Motion around the Sun is done in the Ecliptic plane. There is the Sun, then there is this tablecloth around it. The planets are moving in circles within this cloth to a very good approximation.

    Picture a marble moving through the tablecloth. At the same time the marble is spinning with its axis pointing towards the room’s ceiling (Polaris).

    Some information about the Pole Star including equinox’s precession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star
    Information about the Ecliptic Plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic

    We know that some stars that can be seen from the Northern Hemisphere cannot be seen from the Southern Hemisphere. There are some stars that can be seen in the Southern Hemisphere that cannot be seen from the Northern Hemisphere. When Magallanes started his voyage around the globe 500 years ago (which was completed by Elcano) he discovered some stars no one (in Europe) had ever seen before. Nebulae that today we name after him (like both Magallanic clouds). Sailors used the stars to guide them and they knew them very well…. in the Northern Hemisphere!!!! The Southern Hemisphere was completely unknown to them and they had a wee bit of issues navigating using those stars. The national flags of several countries (New Zealand, Fiji, Australia…) portray the Southern Cross, which is a constellation that you cannot see from (most places in) the Northern Hemisphere. Likewise, Polaris cannot be seen from the Southern Hemisphere.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Magellanic_Cloud

    What do modern European Astronomy institutions do to be able to watch the stars (and galaxies and blazars, magnetars, quasars, pulsars, clouds, nebulae…) that can only be seen from the Southern Hemisphere? Well, they build the European Southern Observatory in some country in the Southern Hemisphere. The European Southern Observatory bridges a gap for European astronomers. Located in Atacama’s desert in Chile, possibly one of best places in the whole Earth to observe the night sky.

    Not only observation is excellent from Atacama, but also, because of its location south of the Equator, it is possible from E.S.O. to have a look at a region of the sky that we normally don’t have access to, from the Northern Hemisphere. The real scientific value of the E.S.O. is that it is one of the very few (and one of the very best) observatories placed in the Southern Hemisphere.

    E. S. O: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Southern_Observatory
    A picture of the night sky in Atacama: http://cde.peru.com/ima/0/1/2/0/8/1208052/924×530/turismo-atacama-chile-estrellas-cielo.jpg

    This is because depending on what Hemisphere on the Earth you are placed, you look towards one part of the sky or the other. Which only happens in a globe.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      Yes. Good points. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain what we see in the sky presuming the earth was flat. If the earth was flat and there was a polestar above the North Pole that would be visible all over the flat earth. Think of the earth as a dinner plate and the polestar a light suspended above the centre of the plate. You could see it from everywhere.

      But on a globe, you would be looking in a different direction into the sky from the Southern Hemisphere than you would be looking from the Northern Hemisphere, thus seeing a different part of the sky, different stars, etc, which is exactly what we experience.

      So what we observe in the sky, that is confirming the globe earth model, and contradicting the predictions of the flat earth model.

      • On the Level

        If the earth were a globe Polaris should not be visible from most if not all the southern hemisphere. In fact, people claim to see it from Australia.

        It can also be seen from south america.

        • Flat Earth Facts

          Yes. I am in Australia and if the earth was flat I would most certainly be able to see Polaris. Just take a dinner plate and imagine it is the flat earth and put a stick in the middle and put Polaris on the top of that stick and imagine where Australia would be on the flat earth map and imagine you were a little ant and stand there and look up. Can you see Polaris. Of course you can. But I am here in Australia and I can’t see Polaris. It is below the horizon here. Way below the horizon. Of course Australia is big. So if you went very far North, like Darwin, we have even got more North possible than that, you are getting up close near the Equator. So maybe in some cases way up there close to the equator you may see it. But if you could it would be way down near the horizon, not up in the center of the sky as we would expect it to be on a flat earth.

          Same story of course. South America. You can’t see it from Argentina for example. But Equator goes through South America around Bogata so you can be in South America but North of the equator. You can see Polaris there, but again near the horizon, not up in the middle of the sky as we would expect on a flat earth.

          It would be possible to get this effect on a flat plane but you would have to bring down the stars very very very low…

          If you have a light in the middle of your room and walk from one side of the room to the other in the middle of the room it is above your head and on either side it goes down, if your room was big enough it would go down to the horizon.

          But for this to work with polaris you are talking of having it thousands of miles up, not light years up….

          Anyhow my point is globe earthers have got their story straight. They have a model, which every globe earther accepts, and which is a logical reasonable story that explains what we see happening in the sky. It may or may not be a true story. But it is a logically consistent and believable story. But flat earthers do not have any agreed upon model and can not explain how any of the details work.

          It may be possible to construct a valid predictive scientific model based on the premise that the earth is flat. I don’t know. But flat earthers so far have not done this and scientifically inclined people can not take it seriously unless you can present a valid predictive model that explains our observations.

          Personally I don’t know. I am not a flat earther and not a globe earther. I see faults in both ideas and suspect the reality is something different.

  7. Iriemon

    Polaris cannot be seen at 20* South latitude, or 10*, or 5*. As you travel north or south in the northern hemisphere, the angel of Polaris corresponds closely to the latitude from which you observe it. That could only happen if the Earth is a sphere. As you travel south (in the northern hemisphere) Polaris’ relative position in the sky sinks in the sky correspondent with latitude until it disappears below the horizon at about the equator. As you head south in the northern hemisphere, Polaris doesn’t fade away or get dimmer (which would be the case if the light were “absorbed”) but sinks below the horizon. This would not happen with a “flat earth”.

    What I’m talking about is illustrated here: https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle

    You can prove this fact for yourself by measuring the angle of Polaris from the horizon with a protractor as you travel north or south in the northern hemisphere. You don’t need to rely on websites or photos from space. Prove it for yourself based on your own observations. It is observable, verifiable, irrefutable proof the earth is a sphere.

    And then maybe you’ll start to wonder if believing junk theories and assertions from untrained people is really the best way to live life.

  8. Tom

    So riddle me this Batman…
    I like the distance proof of flat with telemetry. I think one of the best examples is standing on the shore of Lake Michigan at Cook Nuclear/St. Joseph and looking across the 70 or so miles at the Sears Tower in Chicago on a relatively clear morning. Half of the tower is visible. I was flabbergasted when I discovered this when I was working on a repair job there in 1981. I can now understand the compression of the atmosphere (prism effect) and sight convergence of distance not allowing me to see the bottom half. According to flat earthers, I should be able to see the whole thing with a telemetric device of sufficient power. If that is correct, then at the same Latitude of 43N, I should be able to see the Southern Cross anytime of the day or night and vice versa regarding viewing Polaris from Sydney.
    Those three things would be the coolest things to prove. What kind of telescope is needed to see the Crux from that vantage point?
    Boy Wonder.

    Why can’t we get through the dome? Or is there a door in the floor? (Interdimensional means?)

  9. Old Musician

    Let me explain what flat earthers fail to comprehend with respect to the motion of the planet around the sun. If you are in a car travelling at speed in a straight line, the nearby objects appear to fly by, whereas objects farther away ‘move’ more slowly. If you focus your attention on the moon, there is no apparent movement because the distance you move is negligible when compared to the distance of the moon (large change in angle compared with negligible change in angle). Similarly, the orbit of the Earth is negligible compared with the distance to the nearest star – let alone all the others. Actually, comparison of photographs taken 6 months apart do show tiny ‘movements’ of the nearest stars, but these are not apparent to most observers. Doing simple trig using Earth’s orbit (149.6 millionkm) and distance to nearest star (40.678 billion km) we get an angle of only 0.00021 deg. If you travelled across the WHOLE solar system, there would still only be a change of 0.0128 deg for the NEAREST star.
    That’s a start to help free people from the grip of pseudoscience and conspiracy. Think about the fact that scientists are, by their very nature, curious, imaginative and analytical. They don’t just accept the status quo. That’s why we have an abundance of technology, chemistry, medicine, supersonic travel etc. These qualities make them the least likely to be fooled by false concepts. On the contrary, science is the epitome of rational thought and evidence based explanations. Listen to intelligent scientists – not to unintelligent conspiracy theorists.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      Hi. There is absolutely no argument that scientists are, by their very nature, curious, imaginative and analytical. They are also, generally, quite intelligent. Which means they do have a great ability to tell a very believable story. The greatest scientific minds on the planet, over hundreds and hundreds of years in the Western world, have come up with their story of creation, their story of the cosmos and our position with it, the nature of our existence, etc.

      Because they are curious, imaginative, analytical and intelligent they have crafted a very consistent persuasive scientific predictive model which does a very good job of explaining our observations.

      And the globe earth model is certainly the best model we have.

      My point, and the purpose of this site actually, is just because you have a good model, does not necessarily mean your model is correct. It may be your model can make accurate predictions but actually the system is working differently from your model’s assumptions.

      My interest in this is sparked by my exposure to a much older, much more elaborate and complete model coming form the ancient books of knowledge in India. That model is based on different assumptions, still, that model can be used to make accurate predictions of solar and lunar eclipses, etc.

      So the same observations can also be explained convincingly and scientifically using a model based on different premises than the current Western model.

      Now I know globe earth model is very strong and very convincing and as far as I am concerned, with what I know now, it is most likely correct. However I am interested in exploring the other possibilities to see if we can actually construct a valid predictive scientific model based on different assumptions as to how the universe works.

      Now here is where your scientists fall apart, most of them at least, because they mistakenly accept their theories as facts, will get very upset and demand that no one can question their model and will just totally refuse to consider any possibility outside their accepted doctrine. Heliocentric model for example, it is a theory, geocentric model also works, but our scientists have arbitrarily chosen, with no strong proof, of course they give retrograde motion of the planets as proof, but it is not proof, they have been able to construct a very good explanation for the retrograde motion of the planets using heliocentric model, still that is not proof. So they have chosen arbitraryly to believe the Solar System rotates around the sun, but there are other possibilities, which they completely ignore and refuse to consider. They have their doctrine, they have their story and they are sticking to it, and they will get very very angry at anyone who refuses to accept their story. This is more like blind faith in a religious dogma than science.

      So the point is with these cosmic things is we have very little ability to observe and no ability to make any significant experiments. So really the cosmos is outside the grasp of the ‘scientific method.’ So they have developed a very good story for sure, and they are very intelligent for sure. But still the possibility exists that there story is not a truly accurate representation of the reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *