Flat Mars. Flat Jupiter....

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Okay, because you still haven't adequately explained the logic behind assuming the Earth is the same shape as what we see above us.

Gonna pop in here real quick.  FET and RET both create worlds appearing the same (Equivalence Principle).  I'm going to use "Earth is Round" VS "Bending Light"--we have two models:

A bunch of round bodies.

A bunch of round bodies and 1 flat body that appears round [because of bendy light].

It would be logical to assume Earth round if the other bodies are round.  (Using "body" to keep WoM happy)


I would also like to add to the conversation on the Sun affecting starlight:
What Loki is saying is that the stars have kept their positions in the sky relative to each other for at least a couple thousand years (evident in the fact that constellations created by the Greeks are still recognizable easily today), long enough that we can assume there won't be a noticeable shift in position in a year or two. 

The Sun is the only thing with enough gravity to appreciably affect starlight for 4.37 LY, and the position of the stars is only affected in this manner when the Sun "covers" it.  So, the Sun is causing the effect, and gravity perfectly explains this phenomenon.  What does FET say?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 16, 2009, 05:50:50 PM

Okay, because you still haven't adequately explained the logic behind assuming the Earth is the same shape as what we see above us.

Gonna pop in here real quick.  FET and RET both create worlds appearing the same (Equivalence Principle).  I'm going to use "Earth is Round" VS "Bending Light"--we have two models:

A bunch of round bodies.

A bunch of round bodies and 1 flat body that appears round [because of bendy light].

It would be logical to assume Earth round if the other bodies are round.  (Using "body" to keep WoM happy)

then it would be logical to assume Earth cannot support life like other bodies right?

Sounds just like guessing. If Stars really did bend space-time as claimed, then each star's light would be so distorted/bent by every other star it encounters on it's way to Earth, that the observed locations of specific stars on Earth would become so random and jumbled that tracking of stars would be extremely difficult.
[/quote]

Stars do bend space time and each one does bend the light of every other star. However the force of gravity exerted by stars on light and matter is proportional to the inverse square of the distance from the star. This means that if you double your distance from the star the effect of its gravity becomes four times less, and if you triple your distance the effect becomes nine times less, and so on. Unless a beam of light passes very close to a star the effects are so small that we can just ignore it.

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:46:19 PM

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations.  Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.

As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:51:58 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:46:19 PM

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations.  Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.

As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:51:58 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:46:19 PM

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations.  Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.

As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Look at kramer's post for the bending of light.  Like i said, the light has to pass right next to a star or be behind it, so unless that is the case the light will not get bent a significant amount.  And constellations do stay relative to each other in our sky.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:51:58 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:46:19 PM

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations.  Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.

As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Look at kramer's post for the bending of light.  Like i said, the light has to pass right next to a star or be behind it, so unless that is the case the light will not get bent a significant amount.  And constellations do stay relative to each other in our sky.

How can you prove the constellations stay relative? Those stars are also subject to alteration of paths if only very slightly. Also, if the light is only bent very slightly, then there's a pretty good chance it will be bent many times considering there are a hypothesized billions of stars in the galaxy

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:51:58 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:46:19 PM

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations.  Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.

As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Look at kramer's post for the bending of light.  Like i said, the light has to pass right next to a star or be behind it, so unless that is the case the light will not get bent a significant amount.  And constellations do stay relative to each other in our sky.

How can you prove the constellations stay relative? Those stars are also subject to alteration of paths if only very slightly. Also, if the light is only bent very slightly, then there's a pretty good chance it will be bent many times considering there are a hypothesized billions of stars in the galaxy

That depends on how close the light travels to other stars.  If the light travels at say the distance mercury is from the sun it will be bent a matter of inches, probably more like fractions of an inch.  If the light is behind the star it will be bent a huge amount.

Oh, and you're right, major stars don't stay relative to each other, that's the reason why polaris moves, and the big dipper and little dipper will occasionally move so they're on opposite sides of the sky, and all the other constellations will move around. 

The movement of stars so they aren't relative to each other takes thousands if not millions of years.  Sure the north star may not point north, but it won't happen any time soon, we will all be long long dead by the time that happens, humans may not even exist by then.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:25:36 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:51:58 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:46:19 PM

Well even if that were the case,

But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.

Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations.  Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.

As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Look at kramer's post for the bending of light.  Like i said, the light has to pass right next to a star or be behind it, so unless that is the case the light will not get bent a significant amount.  And constellations do stay relative to each other in our sky.

How can you prove the constellations stay relative? Those stars are also subject to alteration of paths if only very slightly. Also, if the light is only bent very slightly, then there's a pretty good chance it will be bent many times considering there are a hypothesized billions of stars in the galaxy

That depends on how close the light travels to other stars.  If the light travels at say the distance mercury is from the sun it will be bent a matter of inches, probably more like fractions of an inch.  If the light is behind the star it will be bent a huge amount.

Oh, and you're right, major stars don't stay relative to each other, that's the reason why polaris moves, and the big dipper and little dipper will occasionally move so they're on opposite sides of the sky, and all the other constellations will move around. 

The movement of stars so they aren't relative to each other takes thousands if not millions of years.  Sure the north star may not point north, but it won't happen any time soon, we will all be long long dead by the time that happens, humans may not even exist by then.

Not really, I'm talking about our perceived starlight on earth, not their actual location. So if I have a binary star system or star cluster, the light should be so bent by those assumptions that they would appear as distant stars from each other from all of that bending? And still, you keep just assuming gravity exists.

then it would be logical to assume Earth cannot support life like other bodies right?

If you imagine it from an alien point of view (Not on Earth), maybe--depending on what evidence you have (if you have none other than seeing 8 dead planets, sure).

As far as science goes, logic is helpful in making a hypothesis, but then you have to observe and experiment and such.  If you're searching for life in the universe, you're probably going to be thorough, and look at every last planet you can anyway (but you may look at the most logical candidates for life first).

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.
[/quote]

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

No, that is not what i'm saying at all, you are obviously not reading what i am saying.  There are light rays put out in all angles from stars, a cluster of stars would not appear to be very far apart because the light would not pass close enough to the other stars.  It is only when a star is behind another star from our point of view that the star light gets bent, and then it doesn't get moved that far in the night sky.  From other perspectives off of earth the light would be bent from certain stars, but especially the major constellations are not bent as there are not stars in their path.  There is also very strong evidence of gravity existing, and this is one of those instances that puts forth evidence.  Also, many FEers assume gravity exists but they know not from where, where as this explains it.  Please actually read up on this, the theory of relativity, before you make any more assumptions because you are obviously not understanding it as i'm explaining it.

There you go, kramer just reiterated what i have been saying, all in a nice neat package.

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

He already explained why we can't see black holes.  The fact that our star maps can compare to star maps that people in history have made show that they move too slowly.  Yes one day the constellations won't be there, but the fact is it takes thousands and thousands of years for that to happen.  The Babylonians knew of orion, that in itself should show you how slowly they move.

No, that is not what i'm saying at all, you are obviously not reading what i am saying.

Yes I am. Binary stars can be very close to each other and at some point one is behind the other which as you said would create more of a distortion

There is also very strong evidence of gravity existing, and this is one of those instances that puts forth evidence.  Also, many FEers assume gravity exists but they know not from where, where as this explains it.  Please actually read up on this, the theory of relativity, before you make any more assumptions because you are obviously not understanding it as i'm explaining it.

I understand it and I'm using your own explanations. Also, this doesn't prove gravity as the source of observable star movement and as for assuming, I am merely questioning your own assumptions.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:54:43 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

He already explained why we can't see black holes.  The fact that our star maps can compare to star maps that people in history have made show that they move too slowly.  Yes one day the constellations won't be there, but the fact is it takes thousands and thousands of years for that to happen.  The Babylonians knew of orion, that in itself should show you how slowly they move.

Or they knew that the earth was flat and starlight wasn't distorted by this magic gravity and hence predicting where stars appear in the sky is much more simplistic [on a flat earth] making it possible for their maps to be so accurate.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

You've answered your own question. We know their not moving because we can actually look up at the sky and see that the constellations don't scramble themselves into new positions on a yearly basis. Ancient star charts have the big dipper in them! Another way we know that their not moving extremely fast are something called Keppler's laws which use Newton's equations to figure out how orbits work. Kepler's laws show that the period of any orbit is directly related to the mean distance an object is from its gravity well. These laws imply that if the stars in our galaxy were orbiting  faster, the galaxy would also be much bigger.

Also you're not using the word observe correctly. We can observe black holes. They give off radiation and bend light and we've even watched them gobble up suns.

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:54:03 PM

No, that is not what i'm saying at all, you are obviously not reading what i am saying.

Yes I am. Binary stars can be very close to each other and at some point one is behind the other which as you said would create more of a distortion

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 08:54:03 PM

There is also very strong evidence of gravity existing, and this is one of those instances that puts forth evidence.  Also, many FEers assume gravity exists but they know not from where, where as this explains it.  Please actually read up on this, the theory of relativity, before you make any more assumptions because you are obviously not understanding it as i'm explaining it.

I understand it and I'm using your own explanations. Also, this doesn't prove gravity as the source of observable star movement and as for assuming, I am merely questioning your own assumptions.

Again, starlight from major constellations is not behind any other star, it has to be for the light to be bent.  The fact that we know where stars are from star maps we could tell where they were supposed to be and knew that they were supposed to be behind the sun, and we knew if any stars should be close to the sun and where they would be.  When we looked at the sun we saw stars that should not be there near the sun, and they were only there during the solar eclipse.  This means the light had to be bent around the sun so we could see it, and also shows that gravity exists.  The only magic gravity is the unexplained gravity in FET.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:54:43 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

You've answered your own question. We know their not moving because we can actually look up at the sky and see that the constellations don't scramble themselves into new positions on a yearly basis. Ancient star charts have the big dipper in them! Another way we know that their not moving extremely fast are something called Keppler's laws which use Newton's equations to figure out how orbits work. Kepler's laws show that the period of any orbit is directly related to the mean distance an object is from its gravity well. These laws imply that if the stars in our galaxy were orbiting  faster, the galaxy would also be much bigger.

Also you're not using the word observe correctly. We can observe black holes. They give off radiation and bend light and we've even watched them gobble up suns.

Or they knew that the earth was flat and starlight wasn't distorted by this magic gravity and hence predicting where stars appear in the sky is much more simplistic [on a flat earth] making it possible for their maps to be so accurate.

See these laws are also based on the assumption of orbit.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 09:10:03 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:54:43 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

You've answered your own question. We know their not moving because we can actually look up at the sky and see that the constellations don't scramble themselves into new positions on a yearly basis. Ancient star charts have the big dipper in them! Another way we know that their not moving extremely fast are something called Keppler's laws which use Newton's equations to figure out how orbits work. Kepler's laws show that the period of any orbit is directly related to the mean distance an object is from its gravity well. These laws imply that if the stars in our galaxy were orbiting  faster, the galaxy would also be much bigger.

Also you're not using the word observe correctly. We can observe black holes. They give off radiation and bend light and we've even watched them gobble up suns.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 09:05:44 PM

Or they knew that the earth was flat and starlight wasn't distorted by this magic gravity and hence predicting where stars appear in the sky is much more simplistic [on a flat earth] making it possible for their maps to be so accurate.

See these laws are also based on the assumption of orbit.

As well as the observations of these orbits.  We can observe that orbits happen, moons orbit planets, what do you think causes this? 

The only magic gravity is the unexplained gravity in FET.

Do you mean the UA?

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 09:10:03 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:54:43 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

You've answered your own question. We know their not moving because we can actually look up at the sky and see that the constellations don't scramble themselves into new positions on a yearly basis. Ancient star charts have the big dipper in them! Another way we know that their not moving extremely fast are something called Keppler's laws which use Newton's equations to figure out how orbits work. Kepler's laws show that the period of any orbit is directly related to the mean distance an object is from its gravity well. These laws imply that if the stars in our galaxy were orbiting  faster, the galaxy would also be much bigger.

Also you're not using the word observe correctly. We can observe black holes. They give off radiation and bend light and we've even watched them gobble up suns.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 09:05:44 PM

Or they knew that the earth was flat and starlight wasn't distorted by this magic gravity and hence predicting where stars appear in the sky is much more simplistic [on a flat earth] making it possible for their maps to be so accurate.

See these laws are also based on the assumption of orbit.

In fact these laws were not based on the assumption of orbit. This may surprise you but no planet orbits the sun in a circle. In Kepler's time (early 1600s) people who believed in orbits assumed that the orbits must be circular. Observations of the planets/asteroids showed that they were not orbiting in circles. It was because of this that for a century or more many people doubted orbits all together. It was by dropping the assumptions his contemporarys were making about orbits that Kepler came up with his laws.

What Kepler did was take Newton's  laws:

Force =  Universal_Gravitational_Constant * (Mass_Of_Sun * Mass_of_Planet) / (Distance_from_Sun_To_Planet ^ 2)      -- force is in the direction of the sun.
Accelaration = Force / Mass.
Velocity = Acceleration * time.
Position = Velocity * time.

When you stick these equations together you get a formula which when graphed will show the path a planet takes around the sun. Kepler had to do it all by hand but you can plug it into a graphing program and see for yourself very easily. The resulting graphs can show you the orbit which any planet/asteroid/planetoid takes around the sun and this matches perfectly what we see when we watch the planets.

PS -- if you want to have a perfect graph you'll take into account the effects planets have on each other, but the sun is so much more massive than anything else in the universe that's not super important.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 09:15:47 PM

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 09:10:03 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:54:43 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.

Quote from: kramerr on September 16, 2009, 08:49:48 PM

You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.

With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.

There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.

How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"

You've answered your own question. We know their not moving because we can actually look up at the sky and see that the constellations don't scramble themselves into new positions on a yearly basis. Ancient star charts have the big dipper in them! Another way we know that their not moving extremely fast are something called Keppler's laws which use Newton's equations to figure out how orbits work. Kepler's laws show that the period of any orbit is directly related to the mean distance an object is from its gravity well. These laws imply that if the stars in our galaxy were orbiting  faster, the galaxy would also be much bigger.

Also you're not using the word observe correctly. We can observe black holes. They give off radiation and bend light and we've even watched them gobble up suns.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 09:05:44 PM

Or they knew that the earth was flat and starlight wasn't distorted by this magic gravity and hence predicting where stars appear in the sky is much more simplistic [on a flat earth] making it possible for their maps to be so accurate.

See these laws are also based on the assumption of orbit.

In fact these laws were not based on the assumption of orbit. This may surprise you but no planet orbits the sun in a circle. In Kepler's time (early 1600s) people who believed in orbits assumed that the orbits must be circular. Observations of the planets/asteroids showed that they were not orbiting in circles. It was because of this that for a century or more many people doubted orbits all together. It was by dropping the assumptions his contemporarys were making about orbits that Kepler came up with his laws.

What Kepler did was take Newton's  laws:

Force =  Universal_Gravitational_Constant * (Mass_Of_Sun * Mass_of_Planet) / (Distance_from_Sun_To_Planet ^ 2)      -- force is in the direction of the sun.
Accelaration = Force / Mass.
Velocity = Acceleration * time.
Position = Velocity * time.

When you stick these equations together you get a formula which when graphed will show the path a planet takes around the sun. Kepler had to do it all by hand but you can plug it into a graphing program and see for yourself very easily. The resulting graphs can show you the orbit which any planet/asteroid/planetoid takes around the sun and this matches perfectly what we see when we watch the planets.

PS -- if you want to have a perfect graph you'll take into account the effects planets have on each other, but the sun is so much more massive than anything else in the universe that's not super important.

Oops, I meant to say more massive than anything else in the solar system. There are much more massive objects than the sun in the Universe.

Two pages of this thread are filled with how do we know where stars should be, and that they should move, or that the light should be bent by other stars.

1. When we look at the sky, the stars and galaxies stay at the same place. Their location only varies slightly in a couple of years.
2. When the sun passes they move, stars that should be behind the sun are at it's edge.
3. After the sun passes they go back to the same place they were a week, a month or a year ago.
What is so unclear here.

And how can you not understand how can we know where a star should be.
Say on your way to work you see three mountains every day. And one day you stop for gas, and you can only see two mountains because of a coca-cola ad. Would you not know the third mountain is there ? Using a small terrestrial telescope on a tripod, you would be able to determine exactly where the tip of the mountain would be if the ad is removed. Considering the mountains move slightly about a million years or so.

What Kepler did was take Newton's  laws:

Jeez, I sometimes wonder about the people posting on here!

I think you will find that Newton used Kepler's observations to formulate his theory of Universal Gravitation.

Johannes Kepler December 27, 1571 ? November 15, 1630
Sir Isaac Newton FRS 4 January 1643  ? 31 March 1727

As Newton hadn't been born when Kepler died your statement cannot be true. Anything else you want to change?

Can I table a motion to prevent Itchy Ginbottle posting in this thread any further as he is either too dimwitted or too wilfully ignorant or can't be bothered to take time to understand simple concepts?

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 09:13:05 PM

The only magic gravity is the unexplained gravity in FET.

Do you mean the UA?

No i was referring to how waste of mind and others say that planets and other celestial objects have gravity but the earth does, but they can't explain what causes this gravity, therefore it is magical.  Gravity with a round earth can easily be explained.