'Bendy Light' Discussion

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

The areas with no south celestial pole need not be land.

That doesn't mean the points don't exist. And FYI, there are probably enough land masses in the south of the south for every perspective to be covered

EDIT: keep in mind that people have been to Antarctica (leave the fact about the south pole alone) and that they will have only observed ONE south celestial pole. Antarctica is probably the best vantage point as it will cover all of your 'zones'

That doesn't mean the points don't exist. And FYI, there are probably enough land masses in the south of the south for every perspective to be covered

Only if you include Antarctica. It's conceivable that the other land in the rimward annulus is arranged such that each observer sees one, and only one, south celestial pole.

EDIT: keep in mind that people have been to Antarctica (leave the fact about the south pole alone) and that they will have only observed ONE south celestial pole. Antarctica is probably the best vantage point as it will cover all of your 'zones'

You would only expect to observe one south celestial pole at a time from Antarctica. The others would be all the way on the other side of the disc.

Now that's just stupid. So you're saying, at no given point in the sky will stars appear to move in opposite directions to each other, and they will only ever spin around a point that isn't above the south pole, but will lead you there if you follow it? Give me a break.

Now that's just stupid. So you're saying, at no given point in the sky will stars appear to move in opposite directions to each other, and they will only ever spin around a point that isn't above the south pole, but will lead you there if you follow it? Give me a break.

The south pole isn't a singular point in FET. All of the south celestial poles are above some part of the ring corresponding to 90 °S latitude. Further observation is required to determine whether there are places on Earth where adjacent stars appear to move in opposite directions.

keep in mind also, that navigators of old actually used the stars to find their way. I'm sure they would have passed between two of these celestial poles at some stage in their journeys and noted these odd movements. As it stands, there seems to only be one south celestial pole.

keep in mind also, that navigators of old actually used the stars to find their way.

Or so the historical records claim.

What position are you in to deny these claims? People from damn near every landmass used the stars, not just those of western nations. The Maori (native New Zealanders) used the stars to find their way from the pacific all the way down here to NZ. Granted it is more-or-less a North-South route rather than East-West but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have given a damn about fake space programs and conspiracies.

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

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?

Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.

What position are you in to deny these claims? People from damn near every landmass used the stars, not just those of western nations. The Maori (native New Zealanders) used the stars to find their way from the pacific all the way down here to NZ. Granted it is more-or-less a North-South route rather than East-West but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have given a damn about fake space programs and conspiracies.

How did they know New Zealand existed before they went down there and found it? They weren't navigating to somewhere, in fact I'd question whether they were doing anything other than rafting blindly.

Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.

Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles? If not, you can't say what is actually observed at such a location.

Quote from: Skeleton on January 29, 2010, 02:23:17 AM

Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.

Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles? If not, you can't say what is actually observed at such a location.

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

Quote

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

Have any observations been made to confirm the presence of more than one south celestial pole?  It would be somewhat difficult to observe something from a place where existance has yet to be confirmed.

Have you confirmed that multiple points of southern stellar rotation exist and that the rotation about each of these does not result in any anomoly?

There are only two celestial poles... one north, and one south.  I'm sure astronomers would've noticed a third one by now.  They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.

Quote from: Skeleton on January 29, 2010, 02:23:17 AM

Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.

Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles? If not, you can't say what is actually observed at such a location.

Actually Parsy, the answer is a definite yes and there are documents to prove it. I suggest you read the logs of James Cook's voyages around the southern hemisphere, some of which are available to you in the National Library of Australia. Given that Cook was navigating using sextants and so on, I would think he probably made a fair few observations of the stars, don't you?

Quote from: LiceFarm on January 28, 2010, 07:31:24 PM

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?

Uniform and universal laws?

The duplication is quite necessary. The reason is given. Although electrons behave the same in that they are bound by the same laws, they are free to behave as they choose within those laws.

Another halfbaked Paristroll derailment comes shuddering to an end.

If you want to fail less you could try posting less.

Quote from: 2fst4u on January 29, 2010, 12:58:48 AM

What position are you in to deny these claims? People from damn near every landmass used the stars, not just those of western nations. The Maori (native New Zealanders) used the stars to find their way from the pacific all the way down here to NZ. Granted it is more-or-less a North-South route rather than East-West but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have given a damn about fake space programs and conspiracies.

How did they know New Zealand existed before they went down there and found it? They weren't navigating to somewhere, in fact I'd question whether they were doing anything other than rafting blindly.

How was America discovered by the west? Sailing [more-or-less] blindly. Some say they were blown off course or got lost. But they found their way back and forth again using only the stars

Have any observations been made to confirm the presence of more than one south celestial pole?  It would be somewhat difficult to observe something from a place where existance has yet to be confirmed.

Have you confirmed that multiple points of southern stellar rotation exist and that the rotation about each of these does not result in any anomoly?

It is irrelevant whether I have confirmed these hypotheses or not. I was asked to describe the model I am using, and I did so. Others have claimed that it is flawed, so the burden is on them to provide evidence against it. I am not trying to make a case for my model being any better than any other, simply describing it as it is.

There are only two celestial poles... one north, and one south.  I'm sure astronomers would've noticed a third one by now.  They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.

Could you direct me to information regarding the observatory which is mapping the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town?

Quote from: Parsifal on January 29, 2010, 04:16:00 AM

Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles?

Actually Parsy, the answer is a definite yes

Then you agree that there is more than one south celestial pole.

Uniform and universal laws?

Please direct me to the law of physics which dictates that all electrons need have the same properties.

How was America discovered by the west? Sailing [more-or-less] blindly. Some say they were blown off course or got lost. But they found their way back and forth again using only the stars

Yes, in the hubward disc, where the south celestial poles are not visible. Navigation farther south was much less commonplace, and I think there is a case to be made that long-distance voyages south of the Equator have never actually taken place.

Definition of an electron Parsifal. All electrons have the same charge, spin, mass, and some more stuff. They are all the same or they are not electrons.

Yeah all electrons are identical. Its necessary for a number of phenomena.

I thought electrons could have different quantum numbers depending on their placement.

Definition of an electron Parsifal. All electrons have the same charge, spin, mass, and some more stuff. They are all the same or they are not electrons.

The definition of an electron is not a law of physics.

Yeah all electrons are identical. Its necessary for a number of phenomena.

That isn't what I asked for.

I wasn't really debating it was a statement. If your not a physicist its going to be pretty hard to explain why and I've drunk too much to try and explain it. I typed it into google i'm sure theres plenty of links im sure someone out there has explained it far better than I can. Though to be honest if light bends then its probably best not to make any assumptions about the validity of quantum physics. This is rapidly going past the point where I can be of much use as a physicist. If you think there is a fundametal flaw in modern physics then go for it build it back up from the base theres plenety of experimental data to look at. Maybe an astrologer or someone on hallucinogenics would be of more use?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 29, 2010, 10:14:11 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 29, 2010, 04:16:00 AM

Have any of these observations been made midway between the areas which I conjecture would contain two south celestial poles?

Actually Parsy, the answer is a definite yes

Then you agree that there is more than one south celestial pole.

Fixed.
You forget, Parsy, that us non-autistic people have the ability to work within another's point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. It's something you'll never be able to understand. The inability to do this, as you display, is in fact one of the defining traits of autism.

You forget, Parsy, that us non-autistic people have the ability to work within another's point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. It's something you'll never be able to understand. The inability to do this, as you display, is in fact one of the defining traits of autism.

There are no areas which I conjecture would be equidistant from two south celestial poles, because we don't have enough information to know where the south celestial poles are.

Quote from: 2fst4u on January 29, 2010, 01:16:07 PM

How was America discovered by the west? Sailing [more-or-less] blindly. Some say they were blown off course or got lost. But they found their way back and forth again using only the stars

Yes, in the hubward disc, where the south celestial poles are not visible. Navigation farther south was much less commonplace, and I think there is a case to be made that long-distance voyages south of the Equator have never actually taken place.

Sorry, I forgot to add that the second sentence I was talking about Maori, not America.
But anyway,



These are Captain James cook's recorded routes. Clearly he travelled a lot around the southern hemisphere long before other technology was available (during the 1700's) and he would have made use of the stars through using a sextant and other such navigational aids.

Don't even try to tell me there are no documented observations of the stars in the southern hemisphere. Even as we speak, there will be people shipping around the areas in question. Nobody has the power to shut these people up from telling people about "multiple south celestial poles"

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 29, 2010, 03:10:05 PM

You forget, Parsy, that us non-autistic people have the ability to work within another's point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. It's something you'll never be able to understand. The inability to do this, as you display, is in fact one of the defining traits of autism.

There are no areas which I conjecture would be equidistant from two south celestial poles, because we don't have enough information to know where the south celestial poles are.

Can we move this to CN please?

You don't need to know where they are for them to have to exist in your model. If you conjecture that multiple SCP's exist, you are at the same time creating the conjecture that there are areas equidistant between them. You can't have one without the other. Now put a sock in it because we're all losing patience with this trolling.

Sorry, I forgot to add that the second sentence I was talking about Maori, not America.
But anyway,



These are Captain James cook's recorded routes. Clearly he travelled a lot around the southern hemisphere long before other technology was available (during the 1700's) and he would have made use of the stars through using a sextant and other such navigational aids.

Don't even try to tell me there are no documented observations of the stars in the southern hemisphere. Even as we speak, there will be people shipping around the areas in question. Nobody has the power to shut these people up from telling people about "multiple south celestial poles"

The records say that these people sailed south of the Equator, but that doesn't mean they actually did that. The official records may also have been censored to erase evidence of multiple south celestial poles even if they did sail far south enough to observe them.

You don't need to know where they are for them to have to exist in your model. If you conjecture that multiple SCP's exist, you are at the same time creating the conjecture that there are areas equidistant between them. You can't have one without the other. Now put a sock in it because we're all losing patience with this trolling.

Of course. But unless you can provide evidence of observations showing what is actually observed at a point equidistant between two south celestial poles, you can't say that the predictions of this model are invalid.

Could this topic be chopped in half and made into a different thread? For some reason I think we aren't discussing bendy light anymore.

The records say that these people sailed south of the Equator, but that doesn't mean they actually did that. The official records may also have been censored to erase evidence of multiple south celestial poles even if they did sail far south enough to observe them.

But they used these stars to navigate. If the south celestial poles led him to different places depending on his longitude, how else would he follow such a west-east path (ignoring censorship of records)? He would have had to switch to different celestial bodies. Then how would he know when to switch? He was using the stars these stars to navigate and so finding this point to switch to a different celestial body would require him knowing his longitude, something he couldn't have done without using these stars.

Your very own theory creates a paradox.

Also, HE mapped New Zealand and so must have travelled to the southern latitudes to do so.

Either admit failure, or come up with another far-fetched theory of your own to explain this. It amuses us all greatly.

But they used these stars to navigate. If the south celestial poles led him to different places depending on his longitude, how else would he follow such a west-east path (ignoring censorship of records)? He would have had to switch to different celestial bodies. Then how would he know when to switch? He was using the stars these stars to navigate and so finding this point to switch to a different celestial body would require him knowing his longitude, something he couldn't have done without using these stars.

Your very own theory creates a paradox.

I don't see how. The first explorers to the south would have observed the stars the way they were and figured out how to navigate using them, since before people explored south of the Equator nobody except southern natives knew what the southern skies looked like. Only later might the records have been altered to amend this.

Also, HE mapped New Zealand and so must have travelled to the southern latitudes to do so.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he travelled south of the Equator for the entire journey. He could have crossed to the north of it while in the region which observes one south celestial pole, and back to the south in the region which observes another.

Of course. But unless you can provide evidence of observations showing what is actually observed at a point equidistant between two south celestial poles, you can't say that the predictions of this model are invalid.

I wish to do this.
Could you show me a map that would tell me where the multiple southern celestial poles are?
Or is there no map to speak of?