Circumpolar stars

On one of my problems I state that the only stars that are circumpolar
are those stars that are within 35 degrees of the north celestial pole.
These stars are always above the horizon on any night of the year. I
also state that there is no place on earth where none of the visible
stars are circumpolar. Am I correct on this one?

Thanks in advance

It all depends on your latitude. If you're at the North Pole, everything
north of the celestial equator is circumpolar; if you're at the equator,
nothing is circumpolar.


"azazel scratch" wrote in message
...

On one of my problems I state that the only stars that are circumpolar
are those stars that are within 35 degrees of the north celestial pole.
These stars are always above the horizon on any night of the year. I
also state that there is no place on earth where none of the visible
stars are circumpolar. Am I correct on this one?

Thanks in advance

It all depends on your latitude. If you're at the North Pole, everything
north of the celestial equator is circumpolar; if you're at the equator,
nothing is circumpolar.


"azazel scratch" wrote in message
...

On one of my problems I state that the only stars that are circumpolar
are those stars that are within 35 degrees of the north celestial pole.
These stars are always above the horizon on any night of the year. I
also state that there is no place on earth where none of the visible
stars are circumpolar. Am I correct on this one?

Thanks in advance

"Bill Nunnelee" wrote in message
ink.net...
It all depends on your latitude. If you're at the North Pole, everything
north of the celestial equator is circumpolar; if you're at the equator,
nothing is circumpolar.
To be 'pedantic', I'd say you actually have to be fractionally _south_ of
the equator. Assuming a perfectly flat horizon, even if you are standing at
'sea level', your horizon, will be a tiny fraction below horizontal (your
head has altitude after all, and the Earth is curving away from you). If you
are on a hill, potentially there will be a few degrees around the northern
celestial pole still visible all the time.

"azazel scratch" wrote in message
...

On one of my problems I state that the only stars that are circumpolar
are those stars that are within 35 degrees of the north celestial pole.
These stars are always above the horizon on any night of the year. I
also state that there is no place on earth where none of the visible
stars are circumpolar. Am I correct on this one?
There is also the question of 'south circumpolar' stars. In the southern
hemisphere, you can still see 'circumpolar' stars, but these are round the
south celestial pole, rather than the northern one...

Best Wishes

"Bill Nunnelee" wrote in message
ink.net...
It all depends on your latitude. If you're at the North Pole, everything
north of the celestial equator is circumpolar; if you're at the equator,
nothing is circumpolar.
To be 'pedantic', I'd say you actually have to be fractionally _south_ of
the equator. Assuming a perfectly flat horizon, even if you are standing at
'sea level', your horizon, will be a tiny fraction below horizontal (your
head has altitude after all, and the Earth is curving away from you). If you
are on a hill, potentially there will be a few degrees around the northern
celestial pole still visible all the time.

"azazel scratch" wrote in message
...

On one of my problems I state that the only stars that are circumpolar
are those stars that are within 35 degrees of the north celestial pole.
These stars are always above the horizon on any night of the year. I
also state that there is no place on earth where none of the visible
stars are circumpolar. Am I correct on this one?
There is also the question of 'south circumpolar' stars. In the southern
hemisphere, you can still see 'circumpolar' stars, but these are round the
south celestial pole, rather than the northern one...

Best Wishes

"Roger Hamlett" ha scritto nel
messaggio ...
To be 'pedantic', I'd say you actually have to be fractionally _south_ of
the equator. Assuming a perfectly flat horizon, even if you are standing
at
'sea level', your horizon, will be a tiny fraction below horizontal (your
head has altitude after all, and the Earth is curving away from you). If
you
are on a hill, potentially there will be a few degrees around the northern
celestial pole still visible all the time.
mm if you go south of the equator some of the southern emisphere stars are
circumpolar, while you'll never see some nothern stars near the NCP ... you
should be BELOW the equator, or at exactly the same level as the horizon,
maybe prone in a large plain with nothing obstructing your view
sry for my english

"Roger Hamlett" ha scritto nel
messaggio ...
To be 'pedantic', I'd say you actually have to be fractionally _south_ of
the equator. Assuming a perfectly flat horizon, even if you are standing
at
'sea level', your horizon, will be a tiny fraction below horizontal (your
head has altitude after all, and the Earth is curving away from you). If
you
are on a hill, potentially there will be a few degrees around the northern
celestial pole still visible all the time.
mm if you go south of the equator some of the southern emisphere stars are
circumpolar, while you'll never see some nothern stars near the NCP ... you
should be BELOW the equator, or at exactly the same level as the horizon,
maybe prone in a large plain with nothing obstructing your view
sry for my english

Well, if we're being picky, there's also the issues of atmospheric
refraction (which would make stars near the horizon look a little higher
than they actually are) and atmospheric extinction (which would make them
very difficult to see regardless). :-)


"Erazor" wrote in message
...

"Roger Hamlett" ha scritto nel
messaggio ...
To be 'pedantic', I'd say you actually have to be fractionally _south_
of
the equator. Assuming a perfectly flat horizon, even if you are standing
at
'sea level', your horizon, will be a tiny fraction below horizontal
(your
head has altitude after all, and the Earth is curving away from you). If
you
are on a hill, potentially there will be a few degrees around the
northern
celestial pole still visible all the time.
mm if you go south of the equator some of the southern emisphere stars are
circumpolar, while you'll never see some nothern stars near the NCP ...
you
should be BELOW the equator, or at exactly the same level as the horizon,
maybe prone in a large plain with nothing obstructing your view
sry for my english

Well, if we're being picky, there's also the issues of atmospheric
refraction (which would make stars near the horizon look a little higher
than they actually are) and atmospheric extinction (which would make them
very difficult to see regardless). :-)


"Erazor" wrote in message
...

"Roger Hamlett" ha scritto nel
messaggio ...
To be 'pedantic', I'd say you actually have to be fractionally _south_
of
the equator. Assuming a perfectly flat horizon, even if you are standing
at
'sea level', your horizon, will be a tiny fraction below horizontal
(your
head has altitude after all, and the Earth is curving away from you). If
you
are on a hill, potentially there will be a few degrees around the
northern
celestial pole still visible all the time.
mm if you go south of the equator some of the southern emisphere stars are
circumpolar, while you'll never see some nothern stars near the NCP ...
you
should be BELOW the equator, or at exactly the same level as the horizon,
maybe prone in a large plain with nothing obstructing your view
sry for my english

No, at the equator their are no circumpolar stars. And at the poles all the
stars are circumpolar.