A line does nor reduce to a dimensionless point

nightbat wrote

Oriel36 wrote:

The relationship between diameter and circumference is the Pi value,if
the diameter is 1 meter,the circumference will be 3 meters 1415...cm.

A line is a diameter,create a circumference from that diameter where
the lenght of both is maintained through the Pi value.

If there is a circumference there also is a radius which is in itself
a discrete lenght half the original diameter.

http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/Measurement...engthPerim.gif

Begin again and the diameter generates a circumference which in turn
generates a radius as an infinite regression.There is no means to
reduce a line to a point where the relationship between
diameter,circumference and radius breaks down for the Pi value
maintains the relationship between circumference, diameter and center
at all times.

In mathematical descriptions of so-called 'singularities',the
components are given in terms of volume which is a property of
geometry and density which is not.Geometrically, there is no means to
reduce a volume to a dimensionless point (singularity) even though it
is given as zero volume/infinite density.Unfortunately Infinite
volume/zero density means exactly the same as its inverse - 'NOTHING'
and currently cosmological evolution renders the BB singularity valid
as a physical quantity when ultimately it is just a mathematical
limit.

It is funny to see tortured descriptions of what constitutes an event
horizon and its geometrical relationship to a singularity,it is much
like trying to describe which timezone the Earth's polar singularity
exists in,all of them or none or them.Again it is a mathematical or
rather geometrical limit that men are better off leaving even as they
attempt to destroy the most fundamental of natural and geometric
constants -Pi and its relationship between diameter circumference and
the ability to discern a radius half the original diameter from it.

nightbat

Yes, both sad and funny too Oriel36, that so many are still
looking for black nothings, inter diminsional universes, collapsed
strings, infinite singularities with no limits and ad hoc multi worlds.
Glad to see fnally someone else sees the humor in it.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Oriel36 wrote:

The relationship between diameter and circumference is the Pi value,if
the diameter is 1 meter,the circumference will be 3 meters 1415...cm.

A line is a diameter,create a circumference from that diameter where
the lenght of both is maintained through the Pi value.

If there is a circumference there also is a radius which is in itself
a discrete lenght half the original diameter.

http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/Measurement...engthPerim.gif

Begin again and the diameter generates a circumference which in turn
generates a radius as an infinite regression.There is no means to
reduce a line to a point where the relationship between
diameter,circumference and radius breaks down for the Pi value
maintains the relationship between circumference, diameter and center
at all times.

In mathematical descriptions of so-called 'singularities',the
components are given in terms of volume which is a property of
geometry and density which is not.Geometrically, there is no means to
reduce a volume to a dimensionless point (singularity) even though it
is given as zero volume/infinite density.Unfortunately Infinite
volume/zero density means exactly the same as its inverse - 'NOTHING'
and currently cosmological evolution renders the BB singularity valid
as a physical quantity when ultimately it is just a mathematical
limit.

It is funny to see tortured descriptions of what constitutes an event
horizon and its geometrical relationship to a singularity,it is much
like trying to describe which timezone the Earth's polar singularity
exists in,all of them or none or them.Again it is a mathematical or
rather geometrical limit that men are better off leaving even as they
attempt to destroy the most fundamental of natural and geometric
constants -Pi and its relationship between diameter circumference and
the ability to discern a radius half the original diameter from it.

nightbat

Yes, both sad and funny too Oriel36, that so many are still
looking for black nothings, inter diminsional universes, collapsed
strings, infinite singularities with no limits and ad hoc multi worlds.
Glad to see fnally someone else sees the humor in it.


the nightbat

We should know from observation that the rotation of the Earth
generates a particular observational feature,I suppose you could call
it the 'Polaris effect'

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

Anyone who takes stellar rotation around the galactic axis into
account may realise that on a cosmological scale there would also be a
'Polaris effect' perpendicular to the Milky Way axis,this is not just
a solid prediction but an unavoidable conclusion that anyone can
appreceate.

As with the Polaris effect generated by the Earth's rotation,the
greater cosmological Polaris effect would appear to be an unwanted
consequence of galactic rotation however for the first time
astronomers would have a cosmological compass to base cosmological
modelling on.The chances are that this effect has already been
observed but in this relativistic epoch,men have attributed
pseudo-gravitational causes to what is merely a consequence of
galactic rotation.

Unfortunately men would deny a relative axis derived from galactic
rotation even though it is plainly seen in terms of the Earth's
rotation.For once this is something that is testable from
observation,cosmological modelling based on that observable feature is
a different and more difficult matter.

Oriel36 wrote,

Anyone who takes stellar rotation around the galactic axis into
account may realise that on a cosmological scale there would also be a
'Polaris effect' perpendicular to the Milky Way axis,this is not just a
solid prediction but an unavoidable conclusion that anyone can
appreceate.

Although good in theory, it would seem a galactic-cosmological 'polaris
effect' would be meaningless from any observational standpoint, due to
the glacially slow speed of light across such distances. For instance,
just observe a galaxy that's tipped nearly edge-on to us; light from its
near edge is arriving much sooner than light from its far edge. So we
observe a time-distorted image of that galaxy. Now multiply that
distortion out to cosmological distances, and try to gauge a 'polaris
effect' relative to our galaxy's pole axis.
A more mundane example of time-distorted images is seen
in old (pre-digital) photos of a rotating airplane propeller; as the
shutter sweeps across the scene, the propeller is caught at different
points of its rotation, making the straight blades appear curved in the
picture. oc

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

We should know from observation that the rotation of the Earth
generates a particular observational feature,I suppose you could call
it the 'Polaris effect'

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

Anyone who takes stellar rotation around the galactic axis into
account may realise that on a cosmological scale there would also be a
'Polaris effect' perpendicular to the Milky Way axis,this is not just
a solid prediction but an unavoidable conclusion that anyone can
appreceate.

As with the Polaris effect generated by the Earth's rotation,the
greater cosmological Polaris effect would appear to be an unwanted
consequence of galactic rotation however for the first time
astronomers would have a cosmological compass to base cosmological
modelling on.The chances are that this effect has already been
observed but in this relativistic epoch,men have attributed
pseudo-gravitational causes to what is merely a consequence of
galactic rotation.

Unfortunately men would deny a relative axis derived from galactic
rotation even though it is plainly seen in terms of the Earth's
rotation.

Google: galactic pole

BTW, the galaxy is not the cosmos.


For once this is something that is testable from
observation,cosmological modelling based on that observable feature is
a different and more difficult matter.

John Zinni wrote:
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

We should know from observation that the rotation of the Earth
generates a particular observational feature,I suppose you could call
it the 'Polaris effect'

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

Anyone who takes stellar rotation around the galactic axis into
account may realise that on a cosmological scale there would also be a
'Polaris effect' perpendicular to the Milky Way axis,this is not just
a solid prediction but an unavoidable conclusion that anyone can
appreceate.

As with the Polaris effect generated by the Earth's rotation,the
greater cosmological Polaris effect would appear to be an unwanted
consequence of galactic rotation however for the first time
astronomers would have a cosmological compass to base cosmological
modelling on.The chances are that this effect has already been
observed but in this relativistic epoch,men have attributed
pseudo-gravitational causes to what is merely a consequence of
galactic rotation.

Unfortunately men would deny a relative axis derived from galactic
rotation even though it is plainly seen in terms of the Earth's
rotation.


Google: galactic pole

BTW, the galaxy is not the cosmos.



For once this is something that is testable from
observation,cosmological modelling based on that observable feature is
a different and more difficult matter.




Bzzzt!
The north galactic pole is the
perpendicular to the center of the disc
that is in the same galactic hemisphere
that the celestial north pole happens to
point at.
This pole is simply the axis of disc
rotation. This axis will be found
to travel in a circle wrt the background.

Because the pole you want is the
one parallel to the disc and
perpendicular to a line drawn between
the two places on 85% of observable spirals
where the opposite edges of the disc warp in
opposite ways out of the plane of the disc.
This warping is caused
by disc *precession* and it is this axis
which will remain fixed wrt the cosmos.
John

"John Sefton" wrote in message
...

Bzzzt!
The north galactic pole is the
perpendicular to the center of the disc
that is in the same galactic hemisphere
that the celestial north pole happens to
point at.
This pole is simply the axis of disc
rotation. This axis will be found
to travel in a circle wrt the background.

Because the pole you want is the
one parallel to the disc and
perpendicular to a line drawn between
the two places on 85% of observable spirals
where the opposite edges of the disc warp in
opposite ways out of the plane of the disc.
This warping is caused
by disc *precession* and it is this axis
which will remain fixed wrt the cosmos.

Now there's a statement screaming out for a reference!!!
Please provide one.

John Sefton wrote in message ...
John Zinni wrote:
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

We should know from observation that the rotation of the Earth
generates a particular observational feature,I suppose you could call
it the 'Polaris effect'

http://home.t-online.de/home/sjkowollik/polaris.jpg

Anyone who takes stellar rotation around the galactic axis into
account may realise that on a cosmological scale there would also be a
'Polaris effect' perpendicular to the Milky Way axis,this is not just
a solid prediction but an unavoidable conclusion that anyone can
appreceate.

As with the Polaris effect generated by the Earth's rotation,the
greater cosmological Polaris effect would appear to be an unwanted
consequence of galactic rotation however for the first time
astronomers would have a cosmological compass to base cosmological
modelling on.The chances are that this effect has already been
observed but in this relativistic epoch,men have attributed
pseudo-gravitational causes to what is merely a consequence of
galactic rotation.

Unfortunately men would deny a relative axis derived from galactic
rotation even though it is plainly seen in terms of the Earth's
rotation.


Google: galactic pole

BTW, the galaxy is not the cosmos.



For once this is something that is testable from
observation,cosmological modelling based on that observable feature is
a different and more difficult matter.




Bzzzt!
The north galactic pole is the
perpendicular to the center of the disc
that is in the same galactic hemisphere
that the celestial north pole happens to
point at.
This pole is simply the axis of disc
rotation. This axis will be found
to travel in a circle wrt the background.


John

When stellar rotation around the galactic axis was discovered in the
1920's,the first thing they should have done was considered the how
this rotation effects observation.Unfortunately they still leave it
stand which creates multiple problems in principle.

Nobody can model the structure and motion of the Milky Way based on
the Earth's rotation wrt polaris and the stellar circumpolar illusion
it creates and it is no different in modelling the greater cosmos off
the greater polaris effect generated by stellar rotation around the
Milky Way axis.





Because the pole you want is the
one parallel to the disc and
perpendicular to a line drawn between
the two places on 85% of observable spirals
where the opposite edges of the disc warp in
opposite ways out of the plane of the disc.
This warping is caused
by disc *precession* and it is this axis
which will remain fixed wrt the cosmos.
John


No more than we would class polaris the terrestial north pole neither
would we class the greater cosmological effect the galactic north and
south pole.When these illusionary polar coordinates are present,a
cosmological sphere is created much as the local effect generates a
local celestial sphere.

No wonder these guys come to the absurd conclusion that "every valid
point is the center of the universe",they forgot that celestial
observation contains two polaris type effects which are the same in
cause and effect but only differ in scale.