Homocentric Universe: the North Star and star trails

We are all the center of the universe.
The celestial bodies make a virtual celestial globe.
The celestial bodies revolve around the axis connecting the North Pole and its antipole.

I'm in the middle of it.
The axis of rotation is polarized.
It's going up to the poles.
When it reaches the North and South Poles, it reaches 90 degrees.
At the equator, polarities are balanced.
The axis of rotation is horizontal.

The Great circle is drawn in a a straight line to the observer's view.
Star trails are bent from next to there.

We are all the center of the universe.
The celestial bodies make a virtual celestial globe.
The celestial bodies revolve around the axis connecting the North Pole and its antipole.

I'm in the middle of it.
The axis of rotation is polarized.
It's going up to the poles.
When it reaches the North and South Poles, it reaches 90 degrees.
At the equator, polarities are balanced.
The axis of rotation is horizontal.

The Great circle is drawn in a a straight line to the observer's view.
Star trails are bent from next to there.

Cool vid Zorb. Very meditative.

Quote from: zorbakim on February 12, 2019, 08:12:07 PM

We are all the center of the universe.
The celestial bodies make a virtual celestial globe.
The celestial bodies revolve around the axis connecting the North Pole and its antipole.

I'm in the middle of it.
The axis of rotation is polarized.
It's going up to the poles.
When it reaches the North and South Poles, it reaches 90 degrees.
At the equator, polarities are balanced.
The axis of rotation is horizontal.

The Great circle is drawn in a a straight line to the observer's view.
Star trails are bent from next to there.

Cool vid Zorb. Very meditative.

Thanks, Stash.

When it reaches the North and South Poles, it reaches 90 degrees.

You're talking about something absent.

The problem is, geographically no one can cross the 'north pole' either by ships or by airplanes. It's not a pole. It's a rim.

Thanks, Stash.

I don't always agree with you, but I do appreciate the effort, care and craft you put into these expositions. Keep them coming. Maybe we'll meet in the middle some day. 

Yes, we're looking for a variety of Flat Earth models.

But the AE map is neither mathematically nor philosophically correct.
We can't ignore the fact that has been proven so far.
Therefore, the disk model is empirically wrong.

My FE model is not a disk.
So there are poles.

Yes, we're looking for a variety of Flat Earth models.

But the AE map is neither mathematically nor philosophically correct.
We can't ignore the fact that has been proven so far.
Therefore, the disk model is empirically wrong.

My FE model is not a disk.
So there are poles.

The excuse was rejected. The double-pole world has been transformed into a single-pole world model by China after being eliminated Russian and American threat . you will get used to it;  by "zoraki" or with goodness.

I read this as "homoerotic universe" - imagine my disappointment when I opened the thread.

Wait, did someone say China flattened the Earth and removed one of the poles?

 

We are all the center of the universe.

Only in the sense of the universe not having a centre. But who really cares.
The real question is Earth. We are not at the centre of Earth.

The celestial bodies make a virtual celestial globe.
The celestial bodies revolve around the axis connecting the North Pole and its antipole.

While you can have a virtual celestial sphere centred on you, objects do not simply follow paths based upon the rotation of this sphere.
While the difference between this and the actual path is negligible for most objects, for some, like the moon, it can become somewhat significant, enough to determine the distance based upon parallax.

I'm in the middle of it.
The axis of rotation is polarized.
It's going up to the poles.
When it reaches the North and South Poles, it reaches 90 degrees.
At the equator, polarities are balanced.
The axis of rotation is horizontal.

And the only rational explanation for that is that Earth is round, as the angle of the surface changes relative to this axis.

Quote from: zorbakim on February 12, 2019, 08:12:07 PM

When it reaches the North and South Poles, it reaches 90 degrees.

You're talking about something absent.

You not wanting the poles to exist doesn't magically make then vanish.

Before Matteorich came in, China and Korea believed in the flat earth.
East Asia's flat earth was based on traditional philosophy.
There were two poles in the traditional East Asian philosophy.
It is called yin and yang.
Taegeuk is a symbol of it.

East Asia's flat earth was based on traditional philosophy.

Yes, as opposed to reality, observation, evidence, rational thought, and so on.

Quote from: zorbakim on February 13, 2019, 06:56:26 PM

East Asia's flat earth was based on traditional philosophy.

Yes, as opposed to reality, observation, evidence, rational thought, and so on.

Then why did Niels Bohr use the Taegeuk mark as his aristocratic style?
Was it because he didn't know the reality and was irrational?
Why was the Nobel Prize given to such a man?
Is quantum mechanics all bullshit?

Perhaps he was making reference to complimentary duality and the yin yang grid.


(a) Latitude–longitude grid and (b) Yin–Yang grid. The red and green lines in (a) are the equator and the Greenwich meridian, respectively.

Perhaps he was making reference to complimentary duality and the yin yang grid.


(a) Latitude–longitude grid and (b) Yin–Yang grid. The red and green lines in (a) are the equator and the Greenwich meridian, respectively.

Who is 'he' that you are talking about?
If it's me, the model I'm talking about is different from that.
What I am saying is exactly the same as the current Earth model.
Of course, on a flat Earth.

Niels Bohr. You brought him up and the yin-yang paradigm.

I'm just saying there's this who semi field of research out there that I guess employs a complimentary duality (yin-yang) and applies it, at least to my understanding, spherically. Not flat. So, point being, this yin-yang postulation doesn't automatically mean 'flat'. Feel free to refute my argument, I'm on thin ground. Just curious and started looking around at archetypal earth shape notions.

Then why did Niels Bohr use the Taegeuk mark as his aristocratic style?

Because he liked the mark.
It doesn't magically mean that all his work was based upon that mark, or that everything linked to that mark is correct.

What I am saying is exactly the same as the current Earth model.
Of course, on a flat Earth.

That is a direct contradiction. The current Earth model is one of a globe, i.e. a round Earth, not a flat one.

The Earth is a concept that makes it easy to understand the world.
The world is more than three dimensions.
But because it's hard for us to understand it,
The concept introduced by understanding easily and conveniently is the three-dimensional earth.

The Earth is a concept that makes it easy to understand the world.

No, Earth is a real physical object.
It is not merely a concept.

Wait, did someone say China flattened the Earth and removed one of the poles?

 

I thought it was the Germans who tried to remove the poles?

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on February 13, 2019, 07:07:01 AM

Wait, did someone say China flattened the Earth and removed one of the poles?

 

I thought it was the Germans who tried to remove the poles?

I guess I need to ghetto my facts straight...

Quote from: zorbakim on February 15, 2019, 07:57:26 PM

The Earth is a concept that makes it easy to understand the world.

No, Earth is a real physical object.
It is not merely a concept.

Let zorbakim propose and explain alternative science. Because textbooks are dying~