Stars?

  • 108 Replies
  • 7999 Views
Stars?
« on: July 22, 2010, 04:42:19 AM »
Another question, people:

When we look at the sky at night, we see stars, don't we? As we move to the south, the stars near over the North Pole disappears, and some new appears over the south. When we are in the "south hemisphere", we see stars we don't see in the north one, and also, we don't see other we see in the north. Well, you could explain this by saying that, as you travel, some stars disappears due to fading out (cause distance to them grows) and the others appear due to fading in. OK. Then, with you flat earth map, tell me: How is it possible for people in Australia and South America (which in your map ar at opposite sides) to see the same stars, while in the north pole (which is between them) people see others? Please, answer me with a good explanation (if you can).

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2010, 04:56:33 AM »
Light actually bends upwards. This causes an apparent lowering of celestial objects as they recede from us, ultimately looking like the object is setting below the horizon, whereas, in reality, light rays from that object cannot reach the observer's position anymore. Look for Bendy Light Theory using the search feature of the forums.

Re: Stars?
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2010, 05:06:38 AM »
┐Sorry? I am not talking about the stars disappearing in he horizon when you travel south. I am saying that people in Chile and New Zealand can see the same stars, at the same time (yes, in Chile they see them over the west horizon, and in New Zealand they see them over the east horizon, but at the same time). So, you are telling me tha in Chile cannot see stars that mexicans see, but can see stars that are seen in New Zealand, which, according to your Flat Earth map, are much more distant! How can this be possible?

Also, according to your wiki explanations, stars move like the sun and moon do. In the north pole, we see the Polar Star fixed. Stars near it move, but only a bit. As we go far from the Polar Star, stars move in wider circles (and faster, as all stars move at the same angular velocity). Then, when in the south hemisphere, stars near south must move faster than stars near north... But this doesn't happen!! As we look towards south, the circles in which stars move decrease, so their movement seems slower. ┐How can this be possible, according to you? And if you try to tell me that not all stars move at the same angular velocity, try again, because Ptolomeo called it "sphere of fixed stars" for a good reason: stars always are fixed respect the others. And even not accepting this, if stars near the south pole were slower than those near the equator, they could not be seen by the entire south hemisphere in one night, like it happens.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 05:21:45 AM by oscpaz00 »

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Stars?
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2010, 05:09:44 AM »
Light actually bends upwards.

No it doesn't. Bendy light has been proven wrong so many times its just boring now.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2010, 05:11:50 AM »
┐Sorry? I am not talking about the stars disappearing in he horizon when you travel south. I am saying that people in Chile and New Zealand can see the same stars, at the same time (yes, in Chile they see them over the west horizon, and in New Zealand they see them over the east horizon, but at the same time). So, you are telling me tha in Chile cannot see stars that mexicans see, but can see stars that are seen in New Zealand, which, according to your Flat Earth map, are much more distant! How can this be possible?

First of all, the Stars that Mexicans see and Chileans don't are North of Mexico and, therefore, further from Chile than from Mexico. The stars seen by New Zealenders and Chileans are between these places and their mutual distance is not a measure for the distance to the stars.

Second of all, the BLT explanation I gave is an over-simplistic version. Light propagation is actually anisotropic.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Stars?
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2010, 05:16:23 AM »
Light propagation is actually anisotropic.

This makes no sense.

Light propagation is actually rectilinear.

(in a uniform gravitational field such as that at the surface of the earth)

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2010, 05:17:46 AM »
Light propagation is actually anisotropic.

This makes no sense.

Light propagation is actually rectilinear.

(in a uniform gravitational field such as that at the surface of the earth)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

Re: Stars?
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2010, 05:30:17 AM »
You make no sense at all. According to you, mexicans and chileans don't see the same stars because they are far too apart; but chileans and new zealanders, that are much more distant, do see the same stars? You aren't serious. And when proven wrong, your solution is to invent something new, like anisothropic propagation of light? Please, if you can't do better, your theory is lost. You say that stars are near Earth, over it, at a similar distance than sun or the moon. And you tell me that stars in the middle pacific can be seen at the same time in New Zealand and Mexico because this does not indicate distance towards the stars?

And even is this were true. Any star located over the middle pacific that can be seen from Chile and New Zealand, must be seen from Mexico, cause according to your map, Mexico would be located closed to the vertical over which the star is. So the distance to it must be shorter, making it visible. This doesn't happen, so your model don't describe our world.

Also, I posted another question in the other post.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2010, 05:33:58 AM »
You make no sense at all. According to you, mexicans and chileans don't see the same stars because they are far too apart; but chileans and new zealanders, that are much more distant, do see the same stars?
Please provide reference where I made such a claim.

And even is this were true. Any star located over the middle pacific that can be seen from Chile and New Zealand, must be seen from Mexico, cause according to your map, Mexico would be located closed to the vertical over which the star is. So the distance to it must be shorter, making it visible. This doesn't happen, so your model don't describe our world.
Actually, your model does not describe our world, since I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Stars?
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2010, 05:36:00 AM »

Re: Stars?
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2010, 05:43:10 AM »
Oh, I don't know!! If you go to Chile, yo cannot see the Polar Star, don't you? But you can see stars that New zealanders do. So, if your Earth model is right, should predict this. I've showed you that it does not, because if your model were right, chileans looking at the sky should see the Polar Star, because they see stars over the middle pacific, and, according to your map, the North Pole is closer to them in straight line.

Also, about "anisotropic light". It is very interesting that you take Optic Science and say, with no criteria "this is right, this is not". You are telling us that optic is right about Birefringence, and then you speak about "Bendy light", something that contradicts the basic premise in optic science, the rectilinear propagation of light. If this is wrong, then ALL optic is wrong! So don't pick random principles or science theories that are all based in, or conclude that, Earth is round.

And you hadn't explained yet the slower movement of stars near the south pole. How is this possible in your model?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2010, 05:47:36 AM »
Oh, I don't know!! If you go to Chile, yo cannot see the Polar Star, don't you? But you can see stars that New zealanders do. So, if your Earth model is right, should predict this. I've showed you that it does not, because if your model were right, chileans looking at the sky should see the Polar Star, because they see stars over the middle pacific, and, according to your map, the North Pole is closer to them in straight line.

Also, about "anisotropic light". It is very interesting that you take Optic Science and say, with no criteria "this is right, this is not". You are telling us that optic is right about Birefringence, and then you speak about "Bendy light", something that contradicts the basic premise in optic science, the rectilinear propagation of light. If this is wrong, then ALL optic is wrong! So don't pick random principles or science theories that are all based in, or conclude that, Earth is round.

And you hadn't explained yet the slower movement of stars near the south pole. How is this possible in your model?
Please provide evidence that light rays propagate rectilinearly on distance scales of the order of 10 km.

Re: Stars?
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2010, 06:02:10 AM »
You are impossible. Absolutely impossible. I could tell you: "provide evidence that light bends when travelling distances over 10 km". I have evidence: LASER. It is used, for instance, to measure distance longer than 10 km. The laser is projected in a line against the destination, and, impacting perpendicular to any object, goes back to the source. That way we can measure distances very accurately (the radar works like this, advanced weapons like intelligent bombs work based on this!!). Now, if light bends, it must impact with a diferent angle, and would never reach the source of the laser!! Now, prove you to me that light bends instead of telling me that this is false!

And, even lights bends, the light from a star in the middle pacific must bend much more before reaching Chile than the light from the Polar Star!!!!! So, if chileans can't see the Polar star, then they cannot see the stars over middle pacific as well!! Or perhaps light bends less after 20000 km?

Your arguments don't make sense at all!! You are telling me that chileans cannot see the Polar star due to great distance, and then you tell me that they can see stars over middle pacific, which are more distant!!!

Please, be serious, or call another FE'er that can reply with arguments.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2010, 06:08:25 AM »
You are impossible. Absolutely impossible. I could tell you: "provide evidence that light bends when travelling distances over 10 km". I have evidence: LASER. It is used, for instance, to measure distance longer than 10 km. The laser is projected in a line against the destination, and, impacting perpendicular to any object, goes back to the source. That way we can measure distances very accurately (the radar works like this, advanced weapons like intelligent bombs work based on this!!). Now, if light bends, it must impact with a diferent angle, and would never reach the source of the laser!! Now, prove you to me that light bends instead of telling me that this is false!
So, how come when I bounce a tennis ball from the wall it reaches back to me following a curved path then?!

And, even lights bends, the light from a star in the middle pacific must bend much more before reaching Chile than the light from the Polar Star!!!!! So, if chileans can't see the Polar star, then they cannot see the stars over middle pacific as well!! Or perhaps light bends less after 20000 km?

Your arguments don't make sense at all!! You are telling me that chileans cannot see the Polar star due to great distance, and then you tell me that they can see stars over middle pacific, which are more distant!!!

Please, be serious, or call another FE'er that can reply with arguments.
First of all, I have not checked the true distance scales involved in this situation. A diagram on your behalf would have been much appreciated.

Second, I guess stars never set in Chile, huh? You have not provided evidence for your claim that the same stars are simultaneously visible from chile and New Zealand.

?

Part of the Problem

  • 385
  • The Liberal
Re: Stars?
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2010, 10:09:28 AM »

So, how come when I bounce a tennis ball from the wall it reaches back to me following a curved path then?!


Quote from: faq
A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The tennis ball is not light. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2010, 10:22:13 AM »

So, how come when I bounce a tennis ball from the wall it reaches back to me following a curved path then?!


Quote from: faq
A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The tennis ball is not light. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
Did you really have to log in with your other account to quote that?  ::)

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Stars?
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2010, 12:49:50 PM »
Light actually bends upwards.

No it doesn't. Bendy light has been proven wrong so many times its just boring now.

Rote repartition of what you want to be true does not constitute as proof of of something being wrong.

Re: Stars?
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2010, 12:56:41 PM »
Light actually bends upwards.

No it doesn't. Bendy light has been proven wrong so many times its just boring now.

Rote repartition of what you want to be true does not constitute as proof of of something being wrong.
True enough. About this as a quick reference to falsify 'bendy' light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment?

So now that we know the EA, a. k. a. "bendy" light has been experimentally falsified, can we get back to proving the rest of FET as equally bogus?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2010, 01:06:23 PM »
The Michaelson Morley experiment does not vindicate nor falsify in any way. Please try again.

Re: Stars?
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2010, 01:18:05 PM »
The Michaelson Morley experiment does not vindicate nor falsify in any way. Please try again.
Yes, it most certainly shows that light does not bend even in the slightest under experimental conditions. Please try again. You may actually have to review basic physics first, but it's all there. Their idea of using interference patterns proves the 'bendy' light is false. Light doesn't bend as "bendy" light requires.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2010, 01:19:31 PM »
The Michaelson Morley experiment does not vindicate nor falsify in any way. Please try again.
Yes, it most certainly shows that light does not bend even in the slightest under experimental conditions. Please try again. You may actually have to review basic physics first, but it's all there. Their idea of using interference patterns proves the 'bendy' light is false. Light doesn't bend as "bendy" light requires.
no  idea what your talking about. thanks for your input though.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Stars?
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2010, 03:17:06 PM »
Rote repartition of what you want to be true does not constitute as proof of of something being wrong.

You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:

Quote
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.


http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm

Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2010, 03:51:32 PM »
Jack is in no way an authority regarding the FET.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Stars?
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2010, 03:56:20 PM »
Jack is in no way an authority regarding the FET.

You mean Jack the Administrator? With 4000+ posts? Who's been here since 2007?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2010, 03:58:09 PM »
Jack is in no way an authority regarding the FET.

You mean Jack the Administrator? With 4000+ posts? Who's been here since 2007?

yes.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Stars?
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2010, 04:04:39 PM »
Jack is in no way an authority regarding the FET.

You mean Jack the Administrator? With 4000+ posts? Who's been here since 2007?

yes.

Interesting.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39062
Re: Stars?
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2010, 05:08:24 PM »
The Michaelson Morley experiment does not vindicate nor falsify in any way. Please try again.
Yes, it most certainly shows that light does not bend even in the slightest under experimental conditions. Please try again. You may actually have to review basic physics first, but it's all there. Their idea of using interference patterns proves the 'bendy' light is false. Light doesn't bend as "bendy" light requires.
no  idea what your talking about. thanks for your input though.
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.  Perhaps you should learn more about the apparatus used in Morley-Michelson and how light would act within such an apparatus if light did bend as bendy light theory requires.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2010, 05:42:09 PM »
please show us the procedure used to align the mirrors.

Re: Stars?
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2010, 06:11:19 PM »
please show us the procedure used to align the mirrors.
The procedure is well documented in the published literature. We encourage you to read as much as you'd like. The experiment as duplicated many times with greater and greater accuracy over a hundred years. The experiments were peer reviewed by great scientists. Please report back once you've learned about the dozens of procedures used to align the mirrors precisely.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Stars?
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2010, 08:56:11 PM »
I did. Rectilinear propagation is never assumed. It means you had failed.