'Bendy Light' Discussion

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 03:55:03 AM

What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.

No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.

Being equidistant from two south celestial poles, one should observe two points of rotation and stars converging upon each other when looking directly overhead, but one doesn't does one?

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 03:55:03 AM

What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.

No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.

How far apart are these south celestial poles?  Do they overlap?  Are there empty regions between them?

And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.

Unnecessary duplication? Without motive or reason?

This plop gets better and better Steve.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 03:55:03 AM

What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.

No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.

Are you trying to be funny or is it an accident?
What if you could see a planet such as Jupiter, from Australia, where you could also see the south celestial pole, and then you went to Argentina and could also see Jupiter and the south celestial pole, and they would be in the same relative positions to each other - does that mean there are multiple Jupiters? If you were mid way between South Celestial Poles you would see stars next to each other that should not be. Youre full of crap, Parsifal.

Being equidistant from two south celestial poles, one should observe two points of rotation and stars converging upon each other when looking directly overhead, but one doesn't does one?

Can you provide any documented observations from a point equidistant between two south celestial poles to confirm this?

How far apart are these south celestial poles?  Do they overlap?  Are there empty regions between them?

That depends how many there are. There must be at least three - one for each major temperate landmass in the rimward annulus - and these could be expected to be found approximately 35 Mm apart. Further observation is required before conclusions can be drawn about stellar behaviour in the intermediate regions.

Unnecessary duplication? Without motive or reason?

The reason is that the stars are observed to be arranged as such. Of course, this suggests some cause for the similarity, but none has yet been found.

What if you could see a planet such as Jupiter, from Australia, where you could also see the south celestial pole, and then you went to Argentina and could also see Jupiter and the south celestial pole, and they would be in the same relative positions to each other - does that mean there are multiple Jupiters?

Planets follow the zodiac. They don't wander far enough south for this to become an issue.

If you were mid way between South Celestial Poles you would see stars next to each other that should not be.

As I asked Its a Sphere above, can you provide any documented observations which verify this?

It has to be possible. If there are multiple celestial poles, by nature of being circles, there will be tangents or overlaps. Basic geometry.

It has to be possible. If there are multiple celestial poles, by nature of being circles, there will be tangents or overlaps. Basic geometry.

What has to be possible? I responded to five different points in my post, and you've come in talking about "it" as though I'm supposed to know which part you were reading before you decided you had something to say.

Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.

Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.

Could you try using more specific language? All phrases like "cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside" tell me is that you're trying to sound like you know more than you actually do and than you think I do.

Quote from: Skeleton on January 28, 2010, 01:19:18 PM

What if you could see a planet such as Jupiter, from Australia, where you could also see the south celestial pole, and then you went to Argentina and could also see Jupiter and the south celestial pole, and they would be in the same relative positions to each other - does that mean there are multiple Jupiters?

Planets follow the zodiac. They don't wander far enough south for this to become an issue.

You idiot, Parsy. He's talking about the relative position of Jupiter to a southern star.
Say Jupiter (or any other planet) is at an angular distance of 55^o from a southern star, such as Achernar. Wherever you view the sky from, Jupiter will always be 55^o from Achernar, meaning there is either more than one Jupiter or it's the same Achernar every time.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 03:12:16 PM

Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.

Could you try using more specific language? All phrases like "cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside" tell me is that you're trying to sound like you know more than you actually do and than you think I do.

I understand it perfectly. I'm beginning to think you might be autistic. Seriously.

You idiot, Parsy. He's talking about the relative position of Jupiter to a southern star.
Say Jupiter (or any other planet) is at an angular distance of 55^o from a southern star, such as Achernar. Wherever you view the sky from, Jupiter will always be 55^o from Achernar, meaning there is either more than one Jupiter or it's the same Achernar every time.

I don't see why this should be the case.

Quote from: LiceFarm on January 28, 2010, 10:27:19 AM

Unnecessary duplication? Without motive or reason?

The reason is that the stars are observed to be arranged as such. Of course, this suggests some cause for the similarity, but none has yet been found.

I think that's better described as unnecessary duplication without motive or reason.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 03:12:16 PM

Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.

Could you try using more specific language? All phrases like "cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside" tell me is that you're trying to sound like you know more than you actually do and than you think I do.

Stop being so dodgy and avoiding the question. Its obvious that he is pointing out that multiple poles cannot exist without them overlapping each other, or there being empty spaces in between them.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 28, 2010, 03:18:30 PM

You idiot, Parsy. He's talking about the relative position of Jupiter to a southern star.
Say Jupiter (or any other planet) is at an angular distance of 55^o from a southern star, such as Achernar. Wherever you view the sky from, Jupiter will always be 55^o from Achernar, meaning there is either more than one Jupiter or it's the same Achernar every time.

I don't see why this should be the case.

If you don't understand why this would be the case then perhaps you should go and learn before making further contributions.

I think that's better described as unnecessary duplication without motive or reason.

Okay.

Stop being so dodgy and avoiding the question. Its obvious that he is pointing out that multiple poles cannot exist without them overlapping each other, or there being empty spaces in between them.

A celestial pole is a point. Points cannot overlap without being the same point, and if they are not the same point then there is always some space between them. So yes, that is correct, but it is also a truism.

If you don't understand why this would be the case then perhaps you should go and learn before making further contributions.

On the contrary, I think you need to better consider how this model would function. Bear in mind that a large portion of the sky in this model is almost never observed. There are a lot of stars far beyond the rim that very few people ever get to see. The observations we can rely on have recorded the planets in the sky only when they are on the Earthward side of the rim, near the celestial Equator. It's quite plausible that they orbit about the north celestial pole and don't actually rotate with the stars.

Celestial Pole is not just a point. It seems you don't understand what they are. Celestial pole in this case is a point surrounded by stars in a circular pattern, making a lot of overlap or empty space between the poles.


I guess you didn't get that.

Celestial Pole is not just a point. It seems you don't understand what they are. Celestial pole in this case is a point surrounded by stars in a circular pattern, making a lot of overlap or empty space between the poles.


I guess you didn't get that.

The north and south celestial poles are the two imaginary points in the sky where the Earth's axis of rotation, indefinitely extended, intersects the imaginary rotating sphere of stars called the celestial sphere.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_pole

Of course, the definition would need to be slightly modified to comply with the Flat Earth model, but it doesn't change the fact that a celestial pole is a point in the sky.

Okay.

Introducing unnecessary duplication without motive or reason is generally considered a Bad Thing in science.

The pole is just a point, but to have an axis of rotation which includes all the stars, there must be multiple circles with the center being a celestial "pole."

Honestly, You really don't get this do you?

Introducing unnecessary duplication without motive or reason is generally considered a Bad Thing in science.

So we should assume that each electron has different properties to every other until proven otherwise?

The pole is just a point, but to have an axis of rotation which includes all the stars, there must be multiple circles with the center being a celestial "pole."

Honestly, You really don't get this do you?

I understand perfectly. Distinct poles do not overlap.

The poles themselves do not but the stars circling them do. I refer to the celestial poles as both the point in which the stars rotate and the stars themselves. The stars would overlap.

The poles themselves do not but the stars circling them do. I refer to the celestial poles as both the point in which the stars rotate and the stars themselves. The stars would overlap.

Not necessarily.

So we should assume that each electron has different properties to every other until proven otherwise?

That's not  unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Failbot is fail. Go away.

That's not  unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Failbot is fail. Go away.

It is by your definition, where observation doesn't qualify as reason.

Quote from: LiceFarm on January 28, 2010, 07:16:55 PM

That's not  unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Failbot is fail. Go away.

It is by your definition, where observation doesn't qualify as reason.

Nope. It's still not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Observation is not an issue. Derailbot is fail. Go away.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 06:57:08 PM

The poles themselves do not but the stars circling them do. I refer to the celestial poles as both the point in which the stars rotate and the stars themselves. The stars would overlap.

Not necessarily.

Please refrain from one or two word answers. Just explain to begin with your self since we are going to ask you anyways.
That said;why would they not necessarily overlap?

If they don't overlap, there will be large areas of land in the south with no celestial pole. Must I draw a diagram of a circle with many smaller circles? Basically, there is no way to completely cover a circle with smaller circles without overlap or blank space.


Come on Parsifall, this is taking far longer for u to get than I thought.

Nope. It's still not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Observation is not an issue. Derailbot is fail. Go away.

What motive or reason is there for electrons to all behave the same?

Please refrain from one or two word answers. Just explain to begin with your self since we are going to ask you anyways.
That said;why would they not necessarily overlap?

If two circles occupy mutually exclusive areas, those two circles do not overlap.

If they don't overlap, there will be large areas of land in the south with no celestial pole.

Not necessarily.

Must I draw a diagram of a circle with many smaller circles? Basically, there is no way to completely cover a circle with smaller circles without overlap or blank space.

Obviously.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 28, 2010, 08:12:57 PM

If they don't overlap, there will be large areas of land in the south with no celestial pole.

Not necessarily.

Again, this doesn't answer the question. Explain yourself.