The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: LinearPlane on December 05, 2011, 10:57:51 AM

Title: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 05, 2011, 10:57:51 AM

The stars are small and about 3100 miles from the earth's surface. The stars in the Northern Hemisphere rotate around the Northern Barycenter and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotate around the Southern Barycenter.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0


300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 300 sextillion stars in the universe and are all 3100 miles from the earths surface.

Discuss.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 05, 2011, 11:26:08 AM
Crickets.

This is the same guy that (quoted) from the fictional Wiki.

"Further EvidenceTom Bishop conclusively demonstrates that the earth is flat here:" http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626

Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Lord Xenu on December 05, 2011, 11:57:53 AM
They're obviously pretty small.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 05, 2011, 12:03:48 PM
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Rushy on December 05, 2011, 12:25:11 PM
They're all 2000 jiggawatt lightbulbs placed there by the same man that built the pyramids. Yeah, it was one man.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Lord Xenu on December 05, 2011, 12:53:56 PM
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?

Clearly not. They appear much larger than that in the night sky.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 05, 2011, 01:07:15 PM
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?

Clearly not. They appear much larger than that in the night sky.

No they don't. They look like pinpoints of light. So how big are they?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Lord Xenu on December 05, 2011, 01:26:44 PM
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?

Clearly not. They appear much larger than that in the night sky.

No they don't. They look like pinpoints of light.
You can see atoms?  ???
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 05, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?

Clearly not. They appear much larger than that in the night sky.

No they don't. They look like pinpoints of light.
You can see atoms?  ???

I never suggested they were atoms. You suggested they were very small. To be that many in the same space they would have to be incredibly small.

Asking one more time since all questions here get avoided. HOW BIG ARE THE STARS.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 05, 2011, 06:13:12 PM
the faq should read 3100 Miles and beyond...
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 05, 2011, 07:10:52 PM
the faq should read 3100 Miles and beyond...

No, the stars HAVE to be at almost the same distance from each other in FET otherwise travelling 1000 miles would result in differing angular distances between them, which does not noticeably happen.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 05, 2011, 07:28:35 PM
the faq should read 3100 Miles and beyond...

No, the stars HAVE to be at almost the same distance from each other in FET otherwise travelling 1000 miles would result in differing angular distances between them, which does not noticeably happen.

Graphical aid for the above:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Parallax.gif)
If the stars are that close to Earth, yet also "beyond", this effect would be visible. It's not.

Also, the FAQ claims that the stars are being "held" above Earth. Are you (iwanttobelieve) suggesting that "hold" extends infinitely "beyond"? If not, the farther stars would be constantly moving relatively closer, which they are not.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 05, 2011, 07:55:06 PM
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?

Clearly not. They appear much larger than that in the night sky.

And there's the problem, of course. If they are large enough to be visible 3100 miles away, there isn't enough room. Take the surface area of Earth, 510 million square kilometers, divide it by 300 sextillion, you get 1.7 picometers: the necessary average surface area of a star. The smallest atom is helium and has a diameter of 62 picometers.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Lord Xenu on December 06, 2011, 02:24:28 AM
So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?
You can see atoms?  ???
I never suggested they were atoms.

HOW BIG ARE THE STARS.
To be that many in the same space they would have to be incredibly small.
They're obviously pretty small.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: TonySonofGawain on December 06, 2011, 02:31:16 AM
Sorry to interject, but if the stars are small and 3100 miles away (and beyond) etc ... what ARE they??
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 06, 2011, 05:23:51 AM
So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?
You can see atoms?  ???
I never suggested they were atoms.

HOW BIG ARE THE STARS.
To be that many in the same space they would have to be incredibly small.
They're obviously pretty small.

Thanks for nothing.

FYI if you didn't know, ants are pretty small. I'm not going to tell you how small, just small.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 06, 2011, 06:11:04 AM
Sorry to interject, but if the stars are small and 3100 miles away (and beyond) etc ... what ARE they??

They have no idea, it was another complete fabrication.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: bluedevil on December 06, 2011, 09:52:21 AM
if the earth is flat,  why is it things disappear over the horizon?  what is on the other side of this "flat earth?"  if every star is that close to the earth, why is just one star, so big compared to the others? 
sitting in Kansas on highway I-70, watching cars, I notice the cars disappear, where do they go? If the earth was flat how does the weather go around the earth?  where is the edge of the earth? if the earth is flat or even on a plane,  there would have to be an edge?  what is holding the "edges together.


I believe, most of the people on this site, have nothing better to do except argue, so they come up with something to argue about.  The earth, physically, can not be flat, none of our scientist's works would all be correct. 

Also, if the earth were flat, I should be able to get on an airplane, look out the window and be able to see the whole world.  I cant!
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 06, 2011, 10:26:12 AM
if the earth is flat,  why is it things disappear over the horizon?  what is on the other side of this "flat earth?"  if every star is that close to the earth, why is just one star, so big compared to the others? 
sitting in Kansas on highway I-70, watching cars, I notice the cars disappear, where do they go? If the earth was flat how does the weather go around the earth?  where is the edge of the earth? if the earth is flat or even on a plane,  there would have to be an edge?  what is holding the "edges together.


I believe, most of the people on this site, have nothing better to do except argue, so they come up with something to argue about.  The earth, physically, can not be flat, none of our scientist's works would all be correct. 

Also, if the earth were flat, I should be able to get on an airplane, look out the window and be able to see the whole world.  I cant!

You're not allowed to ask questions here. Any questions will just lead to "read the faq" and "lurk moar."
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 06, 2011, 12:58:11 PM

The stars are small and about 3100 miles from the earth's surface. The stars in the Northern Hemisphere rotate around the Northern Barycenter and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotate around the Southern Barycenter.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0


300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 300 sextillion stars in the universe and are all 3100 miles from the earths surface.

Discuss.

I can actually give you a fairly accurate answer, but only if I can find a formula for size change with distance. A cursory google search shows no results.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 06, 2011, 01:46:56 PM

The stars are small and about 3100 miles from the earth's surface. The stars in the Northern Hemisphere rotate around the Northern Barycenter and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotate around the Southern Barycenter.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0


300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 300 sextillion stars in the universe and are all 3100 miles from the earths surface.

Discuss.

I can actually give you a fairly accurate answer, but only if I can find a formula for size change with distance. A cursory google search shows no results.

I'm surprised you didn't try to claim this was either Argumentum ad hominem, George Spock Fallacy or reductio ad absurdum.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 06, 2011, 01:50:48 PM
I already posted the math that shows how small one 300-septillionth the size of Earth is. You don't need another formula to tell you that that is far too small to be seen -- from ANY distance.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 06, 2011, 02:41:19 PM
I already posted the math that shows how small one 300-septillionth the size of Earth is. You don't need another formula to tell you that that is far too small to be seen -- from ANY distance.

What the hell are you talking about? I'd find the average size of a star to a viewer on the Earth, and use the aforementioned formula to determine its actual size. Are you trying to say that the stars visible in the night sky are too numerous to be visible in the night sky?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 06, 2011, 04:21:49 PM
Yes, they are too numerous to all simultaneously exist at a singular height of 3100 miles above a relatively stationary flat plane the size of Earth's surface.

And if some stars can be seen without the aid of a telescope, that means they are relatively enormous and all the other ones need to greatly be even smaller than the figure I posted in order to preserve the overall average.

Not only that, but we can observe that there are great distances between the stars as well.

What Tom Bishop and your FAQ are claiming is that most stars are absurdly small objects, many many times smaller than the smallest element ever discovered.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 06, 2011, 04:47:46 PM
Yes, they are too numerous to all simultaneously exist at a singular height of 3100 miles above a relatively stationary flat plane the size of Earth's surface.

And if some stars can be seen without the aid of a telescope, that means they are relatively enormous and all the other ones need to greatly be even smaller than the figure I posted in order to preserve the overall average.

Not only that, but we can observe that there are great distances between the stars as well.

What Tom Bishop and your FAQ are claiming is that most stars are absurdly small objects, many many times smaller than the smallest element ever discovered.

Argumentum ad Verbosium is a logical fallacy (see, linearplane? I knew I'd find a way to work a logical fallacy into this)
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 06, 2011, 06:11:20 PM
I sincerely hope you're joking.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 06, 2011, 06:31:12 PM
It's possible that we're following two completely different trains of thought. I fail to see why it would be different between RET and FET. If you'd explain better, I might understand. Why would stars, to fit in the night sky, be smaller than they look?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: El Cid on December 06, 2011, 07:37:38 PM
It's possible that we're following two completely different trains of thought. I fail to see why it would be different between RET and FET. If you'd explain better, I might understand. Why would stars, to fit in the night sky, be smaller than they look?
Denial.  You know that it's true.  Anywho, stars are billions of miles wide.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 06, 2011, 07:59:16 PM
I fail to see why it would be different between RET and FET.

??? Did you even read this thread?

There's a huge difference because FET says all the stars are held in place by dark energy 3100 miles above the surface of Earth.

If they are all at the same height then they must all fit inside a 2-dimensional area equal to the surface area of Earth. Basic division and common sense proves that this would require stars to be impossibly small objects. See the problem?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: TonySonofGawain on December 06, 2011, 11:39:45 PM
I still want to know what stars are supposed to BE in FE theory. Is it one of those mysteries that has yet to be explained in FET? Are they immortalized greek heroes, pixie dust, did NASA put them there to make people believe in outer space? I would just like to know what those "small" twinklling things actually are ...
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2011, 12:10:05 AM
I still want to know what stars are supposed to BE in FE theory. Is it one of those mysteries that has yet to be explained in FET? Are they immortalized greek heroes, pixie dust, did NASA put them there to make people believe in outer space? I would just like to know what those "small" twinklling things actually are ...

Why do we have to have answers for everything? We're not disreputable astronomers who sit in their closets hypothesizing all day. Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.

The stars are small bodies suspended above the earth, exactly as they appear to be. Their material, their composition, and their properties, is of course unknown.

The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth. The 3000 and 3100 mile figures for the celestial bodies are based on triangulation in conjunction with a plane surface (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Distance_to_the_Sun). Since the earth is flat, as demonstrated in Earth Not a Globe, simple trig can show that the celestial bodies are very close to the earth, and thus very small bodies.

Trig is also used in the Round Earth Model with the same types of observations to show that the celestial bodies are millions of miles distant. Astronomers use trig on a curved surface to calculate the distance to the sun. The math is much more complicated than the example in the link above. However, as the earth is not curved, these calculations are not true.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 07, 2011, 12:52:34 AM
Just making sure no one misses this hilarious Tom Bishop quote:

Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.

Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 07, 2011, 12:58:32 AM
The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth.

Why, Tom? Why can't we determine their size? Just tell me one thing, Tom: Are there any stars smaller than than a helium atom? What's your opinion, at least?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: TonySonofGawain on December 07, 2011, 01:44:28 AM
I still want to know what stars are supposed to BE in FE theory. Is it one of those mysteries that has yet to be explained in FET? Are they immortalized greek heroes, pixie dust, did NASA put them there to make people believe in outer space? I would just like to know what those "small" twinklling things actually are ...

Why do we have to have answers for everything? We're not disreputable astronomers who sit in their closets hypothesizing all day. Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.

The stars are small bodies suspended above the earth, exactly as they appear to be. Their material, their composition, and their properties, is of course unknown.

The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth. The 3000 and 3100 mile figures for the celestial bodies are based on triangulation in conjunction with a plane surface (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Distance_to_the_Sun). Since the earth is flat, as demonstrated in Earth Not a Globe, simple trig can show that the celestial bodies are very close to the earth, and thus very small bodies.

Trig is also used in the Round Earth Model with the same types of observations to show that the celestial bodies are millions of miles distant. Astronomers use trig on a curved surface to calculate the distance to the sun. The math is much more complicated than the example in the link above. However, as the earth is not curved, these calculations are not true.

First of all, I would like to say that I admire your commitment and dedication to FET aswell as the bravery it must take to challenge such a well established idea as RET. You are also very calm, polite and straightforward with your answers. Well done. I just wonder how you plan to convince the masses when so many things that are adequately explained in RET (for the average person) are simply (and inadequately) put down as "mysteries" by FE'ers. I also wonder how NASA could be the main culprit for a world conspiracy when, surely, it must merely be the face and name of an incredible system of secretive organization that is world wide and deeply ingrained in every country, government and institution above a certain level of development. That, to me, seems like an increeedibly complicated thing to hold together. Ive read the FAQ and dont agree with the conclusions. If you accuse NASA, wouldn't you also have to accuse certain aspects of the US and other world governments? Also, your remark in one of the other threads about the equator and the zebra hunting, loin cloth knitting and odour problems, was, in my opinion, a huge mistake on your part and a terrible blow to your (and FET) credibility as you seem to be one of the more vocal advocates on this website. Why not formulate some rational theories about what the stars are and avoid using words like 'of course' and 'obviously', I see too much of that on this website and it doesn't help anything.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 07, 2011, 08:47:57 AM
I still want to know what stars are supposed to BE in FE theory. Is it one of those mysteries that has yet to be explained in FET? Are they immortalized greek heroes, pixie dust, did NASA put them there to make people believe in outer space? I would just like to know what those "small" twinklling things actually are ...

Why do we have to have answers for everything? We're not disreputable astronomers who sit in their closets hypothesizing all day. Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.

The stars are small bodies suspended above the earth, exactly as they appear to be. Their material, their composition, and their properties, is of course unknown.

The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth. The 3000 and 3100 mile figures for the celestial bodies are based on triangulation in conjunction with a plane surface (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Distance_to_the_Sun). Since the earth is flat, as demonstrated in Earth Not a Globe, simple trig can show that the celestial bodies are very close to the earth, and thus very small bodies.

Trig is also used in the Round Earth Model with the same types of observations to show that the celestial bodies are millions of miles distant. Astronomers use trig on a curved surface to calculate the distance to the sun. The math is much more complicated than the example in the link above. However, as the earth is not curved, these calculations are not true.

Don't F'ing state something as a fact when you have no evidence to back it up. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 07, 2011, 12:02:17 PM
I fail to see why it would be different between RET and FET.

??? Did you even read this thread?

There's a huge difference because FET says all the stars are held in place by dark energy 3100 miles above the surface of Earth.

If they are all at the same height then they must all fit inside a 2-dimensional area equal to the surface area of Earth. Basic division and common sense proves that this would require stars to be impossibly small objects. See the problem?

To the stargazer, they fit into a two dimensional area. I think the real issue is that you're applying RE science to FE. The amount of stars in the universe, in the RE model, is an estimation based on how many we can see in a certain area. Now, this number is itself incorrect because it is fueled by NASA, but I'm not getting into that. There are not 3.0X1021 stars in the universe. I'd estimate that there are about 6.0X105.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 07, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
this number is itself incorrect because it is fueled by NASA

Wrong. Not everything to do with space has any involvement with NASA, least of all star counts. This data is most likely to be worked out by observatories. NASA generally has very little to do with any stars other than the Sun, simply because we have no technology to reach them and NASA's main business is space flight. Oh, and hiding in John Davis's flowerbed with Richard Branson, giggling.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth. The 3000 and 3100 mile figures for the celestial bodies are based on triangulation in conjunction with a plane surface (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Distance_to_the_Sun). Since the earth is flat, as demonstrated in Earth Not a Globe, simple trig can show that the celestial bodies are very close to the earth, and thus very small bodies.

From the wiki article that you wrote and cited:
Quote
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

Tell me Tom, what happens if I do those exact same calculations when the observer is at 30 degrees latitude?  What about at 60 degrees latitude?  What about at the equator or at the north geographic pole?  Are the results consistent?  Why is 45 degrees the correct latitude to perform this observation as opposed to any other latitude?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 07, 2011, 01:57:54 PM
I think the real issue is that you're applying RE science to FE. The amount of stars in the universe, in the RE model, is an estimation based on how many we can see in a certain area.

Now THIS is ironic. You just applied FE science to RE. Only on a flat Earth would all the visible stars be "in a certain area". Only in FET would the number of stars (including the "invisible" ones "underneath" Earth) be an estimation. Only FET claims that all visible stars are within one area at a uniform height. If anything, your FET-science estimation of the total number of stars should be MORE, not less.

But in RET, we assume that we can see the stars IN EVERY DIRECTION. 300 sextillion isn't an estimation of how many stars there MIGHT be if we could see more. No, this is the number of stars in the observable universe.  And don't say "that's just according to RET". No, the only difference is that RET assumes the stars are at greater distances and that they are distributed 3 dimensionally around Earth. The same number of stars can be observed by a person no matter what shape he believes Earth is.

FET's claim means that all the "distant" stars we observe are actually increasingly smaller stars at the same distance. The sizes necessary for this to be true are ludicrous; physically impossible. To an honest scientist, this would lead him to believe that his hypothesis was wrong. To you, you respond by denying reality.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: El Cid on December 07, 2011, 03:16:18 PM
Why do we have to have answers for everything? We're not disreputable astronomers who sit in their closets hypothesizing all day. Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.
And now, I give you a little tune that I find quite funny:

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
I don't wonder what you are.
For by spectroscopic ken,
I know that you are hydrogen.

(Yes, I do know what spectroscopic ken is.  I'll explain if you want.  Or you can just Google it.)



Zarg's post is brilliant.  Also, how can you explain that the stars one sees at night is different from different parts of the world?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2011, 03:23:55 PM
300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 300 sextillion stars in the universe and are all 3100 miles from the earths surface.

Discuss.

Of those, only about 2000 or so are visible to the naked eye on a clear night, far away from city lights.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 07, 2011, 06:43:37 PM
this number is itself incorrect because it is fueled by NASA

Wrong. Not everything to do with space has any involvement with NASA, least of all star counts. This data is most likely to be worked out by observatories. NASA generally has very little to do with any stars other than the Sun, simply because we have no technology to reach them and NASA's main business is space flight. Oh, and hiding in John Davis's flowerbed with Richard Branson, giggling.

Wrong. NASA is in charge of Hubble. The number is based on the amount of stars believed to be in this galaxy, which is mainly based on Hubble's imagery, multiplied by the amount of galaxies believed to be in the universe, which is complete guesswork. It should also be mentioned that it's possible that these stars that aren't visible to the naked eye are on different levels than the visible ones, since it's unlikely that they were tested when this test was done.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 07, 2011, 07:28:45 PM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 06:20:05 AM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

Making shit up is what this site was founded on. How dare you.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 08, 2011, 07:35:37 AM
yes, the FAQ is full of made up non-Zetetic theories.
It really needs to be rewritten or deleted.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 08:00:16 AM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 08:24:47 AM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

That's funny, the FE Wiki and FAQ contain absolutely no facts whatsoever.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 08:26:09 AM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

That's funny, the FE Wiki and FAQ contain absolutely no facts whatsoever.

Neither does this article, apparently.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 10:01:27 AM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

That's funny, the FE Wiki and FAQ contain absolutely no facts whatsoever.

Neither does this article, apparently.

So that justifies creating a FAQ and Wiki full of lies?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 08, 2011, 01:03:23 PM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

No, it's simply that scientists like to be accurate and are not going to say "definitely this is the number to within a precision of three stars" so they couch things in language that can be reviewed at a later date in light of new discoveries. So if it changes you can't send them a whiny trollmail with "but but but you said it was a different number for definite!" in it.
You only have to look at how people jump down each other's throats on this forum when they claim stuff as definite facts to understand why it's better to phrase it in the former fashion.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 01:30:19 PM
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html (http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html)

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

No, it's simply that scientists like to be accurate and are not going to say "definitely this is the number to within a precision of three stars" so they couch things in language that can be reviewed at a later date in light of new discoveries. So if it changes you can't send them a whiny trollmail with "but but but you said it was a different number for definite!" in it.
You only have to look at how people jump down each other's throats on this forum when they claim stuff as definite facts to understand why it's better to phrase it in the former fashion.

You continue to be wrong. If there was any certainty in this count, it would have more than one significant figure. That's just what we do.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 01:51:50 PM
It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

First of all, doesn't that cast doubt upon your claims more than it does theirs? After all, I thought the whole point of these "fake discoveries" was to give the public a sense of certainty. It wouldn't have served them well to say, "we might have gone to the moon," now, would it have?

Anyway, what's your point? Are you suggesting that uncertainty about the number 100 sextillion means that the actual number might be something that could possibly be reconciled with the 3100-mile claim? Consider: The difference between 100 and 300 sextillion is considered unusually enormous enough to be newsworthy. That's a difference of a factor of 3. In order for the 3100-mile claim to even approach plausibility, they'd need to be off by a factor of about a quadrillion. Try again.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 01:53:10 PM
If there was any certainty in this count, it would have more than one significant figure.

See my above post.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 02:31:57 PM
If there was any certainty in this count, it would have more than one significant figure.

See my above post.


They're also making assumptions about the amount of galaxies. And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 04:09:26 PM
They're also making assumptions about the amount of galaxies.

Your point? The same thing applies. Their estimations would need to be ridiculously far off. The range of uncertainty is not wide enough for 3100-Mile Theory to be plausible.

Counting stars is like guessing how many candies are in a filled jar:

Bob guesses 400.
Jim guesses 500.
Steve guesses 450.
Tom Bishop guesses two.

I'm not saying Bob and Jim and Steve are definitely right. But Tom is definitely wrong.


And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work either. See my post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1276024#msg1276024). Remember UA. If the distant stars were beyond Earth's influence, they would appear to be accelerating toward us.

Funny how you suddenly changed your tune from "the star count is wrong" to "the stars are on different levels" after the first was challenged. If the second is your claim, and the star count doesn't refute it, why expend so much energy trying to discount the star count in the first place?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 05:36:07 PM
And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work either. See my post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1276024#msg1276024). Remember UA. If the distant stars were beyond Earth's influence, they would appear to be accelerating toward us.

UA doesn't 'stop' a couple thousand miles past Earth. It keeps going.

Quote
Funny how you suddenly changed your tune from "the star count is wrong" to "the stars are on different levels" after the first was challenged. If the second is your claim, and the star count doesn't refute it, why expend so much energy trying to discount the star count in the first place?

Yes. I am indeed willing to admit it when I'm wrong. It's more than you can say.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 05:51:17 PM
And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work either. See my post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1276024#msg1276024). Remember UA. If the distant stars were beyond Earth's influence, they would appear to be accelerating toward us.

UA doesn't 'stop' a couple thousand miles past Earth. It keeps going.

Then why does your FAQ / Tom Bishop say they are held in place by dark energy? Without even getting into the problems this new claim presents, again I have to wonder why you made the former claims in the first place. If you are willing to accept that some stars are not attached to Earth's field, and may in fact be very distant, why not accept that the visible ones are also distant and large, as is accepted by every credible scientist? Why shoot yourselves in the foot by claiming that thousands of our stars are small objects mysteriously floating around in the atmosphere if such a claim isn't necessarily part of FET?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 06:00:53 PM
And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work either. See my post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1276024#msg1276024). Remember UA. If the distant stars were beyond Earth's influence, they would appear to be accelerating toward us.

UA doesn't 'stop' a couple thousand miles past Earth. It keeps going.

Then why does your FAQ / Tom Bishop say they are held in place by dark energy? Without even getting into the problems this new claim presents, again I have to wonder why you made the former claims in the first place. If you are willing to accept that some stars are not attached to Earth's field, and may in fact be very distant, why not accept that the visible ones are also distant and large, as is accepted by every credible scientist? Why shoot yourselves in the foot by claiming that thousands of our stars are small objects mysteriously floating around in the atmosphere if such a claim isn't necessarily part of FET?

I'm not the FAQ/Tom Bishop. For more information on my theory, visit
http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aetheric_Wind_Model
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: El Cid on December 08, 2011, 09:10:14 PM
If there was any certainty in this count, it would have more than one significant figure.
I'd like to add that this is a summary for people interested in the cosmos, not a scientific paper.  Also, what zarg said.
I'm not the FAQ/Tom Bishop. For more information on my theory, visit
http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aetheric_Wind_Model
Argumentum ad verbosium is a logical fallacy.  Also, the link is broken, but I saw it before.  Also, I learned that logical fallacy from you.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
I'm not the FAQ/Tom Bishop.

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no. If you believed he was, why even argue in this thread at all? Why was your first reply not something to the effect of, "Why yes, LinearPlane, you have a point there; Tom's theory is quite flawed. Here is mine..." If, on the other hand, you don't dispute Tom, then this "I'm not Tom" statement is exactly the evasive waste of time it appears to be.

By the way, your link doesn't work.

Please see the post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1276024#msg1276024) I already linked to. Your claim that the visible stars are at 3100 miles yet others are farther away is easily refutable. If this were true, the closer stars would noticeably appear to be at different angles compared to the distant stars when viewed from a different location.


And you still haven't responded to this:

If you are willing to accept that some stars are not attached to Earth's field, and may in fact be very distant, why not accept that the visible ones are also distant and large, as is accepted by every credible scientist? Why shoot yourselves in the foot by claiming that thousands of our stars are small objects mysteriously floating around in the atmosphere if such a claim isn't necessarily part of FET?

And, just a heads up: either way, you're screwed. If you choose to claim that the closest stars are at only 3100 miles and held within Earth's so-called "dark energy field", while others are distant, you're wrong because there is no visible parallax effect. On the other hand, if you accept that all stars are distant, you no longer have an explanation for why we see different stars in the north and south.

Quite a pickle you've got yourself into there.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 09, 2011, 07:08:43 AM
Tom Bishop/This thread = FET destroyed. This guy is quoted in your Wiki as PROVEN the earth is flat. yeah. right.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 09, 2011, 07:26:45 AM
The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth. The 3000 and 3100 mile figures for the celestial bodies are based on triangulation in conjunction with a plane surface (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Distance_to_the_Sun). Since the earth is flat, as demonstrated in Earth Not a Globe, simple trig can show that the celestial bodies are very close to the earth, and thus very small bodies.

Trig is also used in the Round Earth Model with the same types of observations to show that the celestial bodies are millions of miles distant. Astronomers use trig on a curved surface to calculate the distance to the sun. The math is much more complicated than the example in the link above. However, as the earth is not curved, these calculations are not true.

The first paragraph is called a sophism.

The second one is a negative sophism.

There must be a better way to demonstrate this idea of a FE sky.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 01:51:19 PM
Tom Bishop/This thread = FET destroyed. This guy is quoted in your Wiki as PROVEN the earth is flat. yeah. right.

Conveniently, Tom himself has only posted once in this whole thread, even though it's entirely based on something he said. When this is all over, he can hide from the fact that his claims were utterly destroyed by saying that the posters in this thread weren't speaking on his behalf, keeping his "real" proof hidden so it can continue to be worshiped like the mythical entity that it is.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 09, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Tom Bishop/This thread = FET destroyed. This guy is quoted in your Wiki as PROVEN the earth is flat. yeah. right.

Conveniently, Tom himself has only posted once in this whole thread, even though it's entirely based on something he said. When this is all over, he can hide from the fact that his claims were utterly destroyed by saying that the posters in this thread weren't speaking on his behalf, keeping his "real" proof hidden so it can continue to be worshiped like the mythical entity that it is.

Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 11, 2011, 05:31:37 AM
Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to. However, calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 11, 2011, 05:57:06 AM
Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to. However, calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.

There are several threads where Tom Bishop states things as absolute which were thoroughly disproven. A quick search turns up claims that all published sunset and sunrise times are false, which is enough on its own to show that he plays fast and loose with reality.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 08:59:17 AM
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to.

That's what this thread has done. However,
Quote
Conveniently, Tom himself has only posted once in this whole thread, even though it's entirely based on something he said. When this is all over, he can hide from the fact that his claims were utterly destroyed by saying that the posters in this thread weren't speaking on his behalf, keeping his "real" proof hidden so it can continue to be worshiped like the mythical entity that it is.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 11, 2011, 11:54:01 AM
There are several threads where Tom Bishop states things as absolute which were thoroughly disproven.
So you're trying to infer from that that since some of his threads were, in your opinion, disproved, then that also disproves the thread in question here?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: EireEngineer on December 11, 2011, 12:57:38 PM
I hate to point out the obvious, but even a cheap telescope reveals that there is a lot more up there than just pinpoints of light.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
Apparently Tausami will concede that the stars visible through your telescope are indeed distant, or as he puts it, on a "higher level". But he'd still have to deal with that pesky fact that you can see different stars through your telescope in the north than in the south. :-[
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: El Cid on December 11, 2011, 06:46:57 PM
^^ the upper two posts are very important.  Please explain these.

Also, is there a place where the heavens meet the earth?  Because that would be pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Rushy on December 11, 2011, 07:29:58 PM
^^ the upper two posts are very important.  Please explain these.

Also, is there a place where the heavens meet the earth?  Because that would be pretty awesome.

Yes, its a mystical golden escalator only the purest chosen flat earthers can see. Which hardly explains why I can see it in the first place.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 12, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to. However, calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.

FET is a hoax. Prove it isn't by buying a 100 dollar telescope.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 12, 2011, 10:58:33 AM
There are several threads where Tom Bishop states things as absolute which were thoroughly disproven.
So you're trying to infer from that that since some of his threads were, in your opinion, disproved, then that also disproves the thread in question here?

Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it. Also some have been disproved regardless of opinion, by presenting data that contradicts Tom's theories and maps. Of course that doesn't mean that his history of being consistently wrong precludes him from being right on another occasion, however it is my belief that he is wrong about most things and therefore the likelihood of him being right about stuff in future is low.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 13, 2011, 08:23:12 AM
Not one person defending the Tom Bishop statement, not even himself. Someone needs to delete that retarded WIKI that says he demonstrated the earth is flat. Makes you guys look real real dumb.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: YOUR MINDS ARE FLAT on December 13, 2011, 05:30:41 PM
look out flat earth believers  don't look up to the stars you might get hit by a star rock we must look out cause they are so near i cant believe how deep you talk about that imaginations your minds are in a dream world
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Sean on December 13, 2011, 06:28:39 PM
what is punctuation lol i dont need it
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 13, 2011, 07:04:18 PM
Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it.
Assuming that he's wrong, that makes him wrong, and not a hoax. Unless you do have evidence of him intentionally misleading people, which is what I asked for.
But you already knew all this, didn't you?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 13, 2011, 07:46:16 PM
So you're falling back on semantics once again. It should be clear that The Knowledge only meant that Tom is full of shit. And to refresh your memory, it was not The Knowledge whom you asked for evidence of Tom intentionally misleading people; it was LinearPlane who initially used the word "hoax" -- and he was not referring to Tom himself, rather the wiki's claim that Tom "demonstrated the Earth is flat".

And we do have evidence that that claim is a "hoax": These people who hold up Tom as some sort of authority with proof, when specifically confronted with Tom's actual claims (such as this thread), they openly deny them and say that they believe something completely different (which I recently witnessed you do yourself regarding Antarctica). Saying that Tom has proved the Earth is flat when that proof is admittedly incompatible with one's own beliefs is claiming something to be true that one knows is false, AKA a "hoax". The only difference between this and a traditional hoax designed to deceive others is that the perpetrators have succeeded in fooling themselves.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 14, 2011, 09:45:01 AM
Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it.
Assuming that he's wrong, that makes him wrong, and not a hoax. Unless you do have evidence of him intentionally misleading people, which is what I asked for.
But you already knew all this, didn't you?

That is not Tom Bishop and he's intentionally misleading people. He is a hoaxer just like you.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 14, 2011, 10:30:31 AM
Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it.
Assuming that he's wrong, that makes him wrong, and not a hoax. Unless you do have evidence of him intentionally misleading people, which is what I asked for.
But you already knew all this, didn't you?

Examples of Tom misleading people (or at a minimum proving he is an unreliable source), Yeah, i think i might be able to find a few...

Quote
The separation between Grumman and its employees are so distant that they don't even know what their employees are working on.  Grumman knew that their employees were working on some Apollo projects and went with that for their press releases. Their engineers work in government facilities for government managers. The only interaction a contractor has with his company is a paycheck twice a month.

Quote
This particular Grumman Exec is a special case

Quote
Typically the executives and managers at the head-hunting company don't really know what their employees are doing for their clients.

"Though production of the Lunar Module was confined to the Ąclean rooms" in Plant 5 at Bethpage"
http://www.anft.net/f-14/grumman-gmp.htm

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/obit-gavin.html
http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/inspace/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/business/04gavin.html

Here are three sites that all say that he was a Grumman employee, and one even says the year he was hired, 1946!


Well this thoroughly proves that Tom either;

A) Does not do any research but simply spews out BS upon more BS until there is so much BS you cannot see the truth, and this is just an unusual example where its easy to see through the BS.  You usually can see through his BS, but it takes more time than this example.  He really is not trying to mislead people, he is just too lazy and works off the assumption that his experience/knowledge base is sufficient for every topic.  This would explain his refusal to post sources.  So its possible that he is not intentionally misleading people, but simply an idiot that no one should listen to.

B) He knew that Grumman helped on the lander, so he lied to make Grumman just an extension of the government by saying that they had no control over their employees and that they worked on a government facility.  Then i gave him Gavin (vice president of Grumman during the lander development, and head manager of the program.  (not to mention i gave him an article that said Grumman had begun the project before ever being contracted by NASA so that they would be more likely to be awarded the project).  he discredited Gavin by saying he was a NASA employee and not a Grumman employee at the time.  Then i gave him three articles saying he was a Grumman employee., and an article that said the craft was built on a grumman facility in bethpage New york, hell even the plant number was included.


I think the second is more likely, because Tom has been silent on the issue.  Had he come out and said, "your right, im sorry, ive just worked for many government contractors and they never worked like grumman did during the 60s" I would have been entirely copacetic with what had transpired.  But now its too late, so im really just stuck with option B.

Oh and then there is the suggestion that countries would just print money to build GPS towers, that is either stupid or deliberately misleading.

Quote
Considering that countries print their own currencies and can afford anything they want to afford (at least in the short term), I will have to disagree.

And my personal favorite, people on the equator do not have time for complex or alternative threories, they are too busy flinging turds at eachother!

Quote
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 14, 2011, 05:10:47 PM
Notice how Tausami, who was previously active in this thread, immediately disappeared without a trace as soon as I asked him this:

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 17, 2011, 12:27:09 PM
Notice how Tausami, who was previously active in this thread, immediately disappeared without a trace as soon as I asked him this:

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no.

Generally, the best way to kill a thread on this forum is to force the FE'ers into a yes/no answer situation. They tend not to answer as they worry you might have an argument that goes "Well in that case, then...[insert cunning argument here]" and they will be unable to backtrack now they have committed to a position.
A good example is the postulate that INS can detect deviation of a path to left or right. They won't say yes because it disproves the "you travel in a circle on a FE" circumnavigation argument, and they won't say no because it leaves them with no explanation of how INS is able to operate successfully.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 18, 2011, 10:38:26 AM
Notice how Tausami, who was previously active in this thread, immediately disappeared without a trace as soon as I asked him this:

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no.

Actually, I more or less disappeared from the forum for a few days and forgot about it. I'm working on a project (nothing to do with FES, it's for population control of Chrysaora Quinquecirrha).

Anyway,

I'm not the FAQ/Tom Bishop.

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no. If you believed he was, why even argue in this thread at all? Why was your first reply not something to the effect of, "Why yes, LinearPlane, you have a point there; Tom's theory is quite flawed. Here is mine..." If, on the other hand, you don't dispute Tom, then this "I'm not Tom" statement is exactly the evasive waste of time it appears to be.

By the way, your link doesn't work.

Please see the post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1276024#msg1276024) I already linked to. Your claim that the visible stars are at 3100 miles yet others are farther away is easily refutable. If this were true, the closer stars would noticeably appear to be at different angles compared to the distant stars when viewed from a different location.


And you still haven't responded to this:

If you are willing to accept that some stars are not attached to Earth's field, and may in fact be very distant, why not accept that the visible ones are also distant and large, as is accepted by every credible scientist? Why shoot yourselves in the foot by claiming that thousands of our stars are small objects mysteriously floating around in the atmosphere if such a claim isn't necessarily part of FET?

And, just a heads up: either way, you're screwed. If you choose to claim that the closest stars are at only 3100 miles and held within Earth's so-called "dark energy field", while others are distant, you're wrong because there is no visible parallax effect. On the other hand, if you accept that all stars are distant, you no longer have an explanation for why we see different stars in the north and south.

Quite a pickle you've got yourself into there.

My argument is constantly changing as I debate my theories. That's why I bother to do it. In the beginning of the thread I believed Bishop to be correct, and indeed didn't really understand the issue at hand. Now, having debated about it for a while, I believe that he may be incorrect. Is that a good enough answer?
I know the link doesn't work. The wiki is down. Again.

That's a good point. I'll think about it for a bit and get back to you.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
The problem is that Tom's inference actually is correct; assuming the Earth is flat, the stars must be close enough for us to only be able to see a certain section of the skyscape depending where on the plane we're standing. If A is true, then B must be -- so if B is false, then A must be false also. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either the stars are all close, or the Earth is not flat.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 18, 2011, 12:03:36 PM
The problem is that Tom's inference actually is correct; assuming the Earth is flat, the stars must be close enough for us to only be able to see a certain section of the skyscape depending where on the plane we're standing. If A is true, then B must be -- so if B is false, then A must be false also. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either the stars are all close, or the Earth is not flat.


Unless the starlight is angled, like in a holographic billboard.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 01:20:43 PM
Let's see a drawing that demonstrates how "angled starlight" can account for what the sky looks like at any given time from multiple points -- north, south, equator, etc.

Also, any hypothesis as to why a several-light-years-long cylinder of stars rotates according to Earth's shape?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tausami on December 18, 2011, 01:24:53 PM
Let's see a drawing that demonstrates how "angled starlight" can account for what the sky looks like at any given time from multiple points -- north, south, equator, etc.

Also, any hypothesis as to why a several-light-years-long cylinder of stars rotates according to Earth's shape?

It follows the trail of the Aetheric Whirlwind formed by the anti-massiveness of the Earth's shadow.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 02:20:54 PM
Is this thread still going?

Who says there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe?

If you could count  and identify 1 per second it would take 9.50662939 * 1015 years to count them. As the universe is only 14 *109 years old, you can see this hasn't happened.

What you have is a guess. As stupid guess. A guess made by someone who just decided to put a ridiculously large number on it. If there were that many stars (think how big a star is in the sky) and imagine a near infinite amount of them (a sextillion is a number incomprehensible to humans - you may as well think infinite), then all those little white stars aren't going to leave any room for darkness. We would all be wearing welding goggles at night. Infinite stars means infinite star-light means a blinding white sky. It doesn't matter that some aren't visible to the human eye, atoms aren't either, but enough of them and you see an object - in this case infinite sources of light.

The whole theory is preposterous. There are not 300 sextillion stars.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 18, 2011, 03:12:46 PM
Is this thread still going?

Who says there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe?

If you could count  and identify 1 per second it would take 9.50662939 * 1015 years to count them. As the universe is only 14 *109 years old, you can see this hasn't happened.

What you have is a guess. As stupid guess. A guess made by someone who just decided to put a ridiculously large number on it. If there were that many stars (think how big a star is in the sky) and imagine a near infinite amount of them (a sextillion is a number incomprehensible to humans - you may as well think infinite), then all those little white stars aren't going to leave any room for darkness. We would all be wearing welding goggles at night. Infinite stars means infinite star-light means a blinding white sky. It doesn't matter that some aren't visible to the human eye, atoms aren't either, but enough of them and you see an object - in this case infinite sources of light.

The whole theory is preposterous. There are not 300 sextillion stars.
Let us know when your count is complete. We'd love to know the correct number. Until then we'll have to go with the experts.

Quote from: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/
There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 03:21:32 PM
Quote from: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/
There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe.
Thank you. You proved my point.

Quote from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/number-of-stars-in-universe_n_790563.html
Number Of Stars In The Universe Could Be 300 Sextillion
So there's a guess 30 times the amount. It just shows, they haven't got a clue. 30 times? That's like me estimating my kitchen to be the size of a football field. Spin the wheel, pick a card, roll the dice ... they just tell you anything they think you might swallow. You seem to swallow almost anything.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 18, 2011, 03:28:12 PM
Is this thread still going?

Who says there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe?

If you could count  and identify 1 per second it would take 9.50662939 * 1015 years to count them. As the universe is only 14 *109 years old, you can see this hasn't happened.

What you have is a guess. As stupid guess. A guess made by someone who just decided to put a ridiculously large number on it. If there were that many stars (think how big a star is in the sky) and imagine a near infinite amount of them (a sextillion is a number incomprehensible to humans - you may as well think infinite), then all those little white stars aren't going to leave any room for darkness. We would all be wearing welding goggles at night. Infinite stars means infinite star-light means a blinding white sky. It doesn't matter that some aren't visible to the human eye, atoms aren't either, but enough of them and you see an object - in this case infinite sources of light.

The whole theory is preposterous. There are not 300 sextillion stars.

You're like a poor man's Tom Bishop. But good effort though. It was definitely in his spirit.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 18, 2011, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/
There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe.
Thank you. You proved my point.

Quote from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/number-of-stars-in-universe_n_790563.html
Number Of Stars In The Universe Could Be 300 Sextillion
So there's a guess 30 times the amount. It just shows, they haven't got a clue. 30 times? That's like me estimating my kitchen to be the size of a football field. Spin the wheel, pick a card, roll the dice ... they just tell you anything they think you might swallow. You seem to swallow almost anything.
You do realize that 300 sextillion is less than the halfway point of the range 10 sextillion and 1 septillion, right?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 03:37:56 PM
It doesn't matter how many Clocktower. Those are incomprehensible made up numbers any way. The fact is we would all be blinded it the sky was filled with virtually infinite numbers of stars.

You're like a poor man's Tom Bishop. But good effort though. It was definitely in his spirit.
Thank you ???
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
Hmm. Thork, for some reason, you seem to think that the enormity of the value somehow indicates that it's impossible for a mere mortal to arrive at it. That it must be "incomprehensible made up numbers". I guess you need a lesson in estimation and the power of exponents.

Let me give you something to think about.

Right now, I'm willing to bet you're looking directly at a machine created by mortal men -- a monitor. These days, 32-bit color at a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels is pretty standard. That means it can produce and display 3 x 1022194339 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%5E32%29+%5E+%281920*1200%29) different images. In case you're wondering, that's a bit bigger than 3 x 1023 (300 sextillion). This number doesn't even have a name. And we build tons of these things every day.

Looking out at the sky and estimating the total number of stars is totally within the realm of human capability.

300 sextillion may be incomprehensible, but it is not literally infinite. Your claim that it should be a "blinding white sky" only works if we are talking about literal infinity. There is enough room in space for 300 sextillion stars if we assume they are increasingly distant and in every direction. There is not, however, enough room to put them all at 3100 miles above an Earth-sized disc.


So there's a guess 30 times the amount. It just shows, they haven't got a clue. 30 times? That's like me estimating my kitchen to be the size of a football field. Spin the wheel, pick a card, roll the dice ... they just tell you anything they think you might swallow. You seem to swallow almost anything.

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you? I've addressed (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1277044#msg1277044) this already, twice (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1277084#msg1277084). Let's try another way to help you understand: Let's flip the scale completely upside down, let's say we're estimating the size of something microscopic. We say it's somewhere between one and a hundred picometers, and you say "Ha! A hundred times! How can you be sure of anything??" Meanwhile you're trying to claim it's a couple of centimeters across. You're obviously wrong, because we know it's microscopic. Similarly, we know there is a vast number of stars. We don't need to pinpoint a value to know that it's too vast to fit at 3100 miles. The gap between your claims and these estimates far, far exceeds the uncertainty factor of those estimates.


Cue Conspiracy derailment in 3... 2...
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 03:59:30 PM
Right now, I'm willing to bet you're looking directly at a machine created by mortal men -- a monitor. These days, 32-bit color at a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels is pretty standard. That means it can produce and display 3 x 1022194339 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%5E32%29+%5E+%281920*1200%29) different images. In case you're wondering, that's a bit bigger than 3 x 1023 (300 sextillion). This number doesn't even have a name. And we build tons of these things every day.
Now imagine all those images. You can't. You can't even get close. Because your imagination does not work in numbers approaching infinity. You cannot imagine 300 sextillion stars. No one can. Its why its such a made up bullsh*t guess.

Looking out at the sky and estimating the total number of stars is totally within the realm of human capability.
I estimate there are 752. You were right. Estimating is within the realm of human capability. It means nothing when it can't be proven. Picking a number that cannot be close to be counted is a good safe way to estimate things. Especially numbers humans can't make tangible in their minds.

300 sextillion may be incomprehensible, but it is not literally infinite.
Can you discern between the two? 300 sextillion and infinite? Of course not, your life isn't long enough to verify either number. So how would your eyes tell the difference between 300 sextillion stars and infinite stars? They wouldn't. Both ways you'd be blind.

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?
My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big. They could be out by a factor of a billion. It makes absolutely no difference to your comprehension of the situation. The numbers are just too large. A sextillion means as much to you as a septillion or a duodecatillion or googol. Its so many as to leave no darkness. Its a dumb and unprovable guess.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 18, 2011, 04:16:10 PM

Quote
My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big. They could be out by a factor of a billion. It makes absolutely no difference to your comprehension of the situation. The numbers are just too large. A sextillion means as much to you as a septillion or a duodecatillion or googol. Its so many as to leave no darkness. Its a dumb and unprovable guess.

I had a good laugh at this one.  Big numbers are irrelevant.  HAHAH, that is funny.  You act like we need to imagine all the stars for them to exist.  But you are dodging the point.  There are simply to many for them to be 3100 miles above the earth.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 04:17:35 PM

Quote
My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big. They could be out by a factor of a billion. It makes absolutely no difference to your comprehension of the situation. The numbers are just too large. A sextillion means as much to you as a septillion or a duodecatillion or googol. Its so many as to leave no darkness. Its a dumb and unprovable guess.

I had a good laugh at this one.  Big numbers are irrelevant.  HAHAH, that is funny.  You act like we need to imagine all the stars for them to exist.  But you are dodging the point.  There are simply to many for them to be 3100 miles above the earth.
Prove it. Show me how they counted.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
Right now, I'm willing to bet you're looking directly at a machine created by mortal men -- a monitor. These days, 32-bit color at a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels is pretty standard. That means it can produce and display 3 x 1022194339 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%5E32%29+%5E+%281920*1200%29) different images. In case you're wondering, that's a bit bigger than 3 x 1023 (300 sextillion). This number doesn't even have a name. And we build tons of these things every day.
Now imagine all those images. You can't. You can't even get close. Because your imagination does not work in numbers approaching infinity. You cannot imagine 300 sextillion stars. No one can. Its why its such a made up bullsh*t guess.

Are you saying the figure I gave for the total number of images is bullsh*t?


Quote
So how would your eyes tell the difference between 300 sextillion stars and infinite stars? They wouldn't. Both ways you'd be blind.
Quote
Its so many as to leave no darkness.

...No. You would not be blinded by 300 sextillion stars if the space containing the stars is sufficient to hold 300 sextillion stars plus the space between them. There is much more available "darkness".


Quote
Quote from: zarg
You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?
My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big.
You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:23:11 PM
your imagination does not work in numbers approaching infinity

Every number is equally "approaching infinity".  :)
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
Are you saying the figure I gave for the total number of images is bullsh*t?
Are you saying I can just use multiplication to find out how many randomly spaced stars there are?

...No. You would not be blinded by 300 sextillion stars [Citation Needed]

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?
I accept my limitations. I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars. O0
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 18, 2011, 04:30:06 PM
Are you saying the figure I gave for the total number of images is bullsh*t?
Are you saying I can just use multiplication to find out how many randomly spaced stars there are?

...No. You would not be blinded by 300 sextillion stars [Citation Needed]

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?
I accept my limitations. I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars. O0

You are 100% correct, the glare would be horrendous if they were all crammed into a small area 3100 miles above us.  Thank god they are not.  Are you really such a big troll as to ignore that the universe could be so large as to space them out?  I mean you do not have to believe it but you should still be able to consider it.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 04:32:48 PM
You are 100% correct, the glare would be horrendous if they were all crammed into a small area 3100 miles above us.  Thank god they are not.  Are you really such a big troll as to ignore that the universe could be so large as to space them out?  I mean you do not have to believe it but you should still be able to consider it.
Now you are asking me to imagine that the universe is unimaginably big? RET gets more RETarded by the day.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
Are you saying I can just use multiplication to find out how many randomly spaced stars there are?

What is it that you have an issue with? The fact that the number is huge, or that the stars are randomly placed? Stay focused. Do you accept my calculation of how many possible images there are, despite the enormity of the value? If yes, then the fact that an estimate is huge is irrelevant. As for the random spacing, observed patterns in those spacings are obviously factored in.

You say there are about 700 stars. If this is true, what factors do you see that could cause their estimates to be so far off?


Quote
I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:42:38 PM
Now you are asking me to imagine that the universe is unimaginably big?

 ??? According to this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1280563#msg1280563), you believe in atoms, which means that you already believe that you're an unimaginably big person in an unimaginably big universe.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 04:48:58 PM
You say there are about 700 stars. If this is true, what factors do you see that could cause their estimates to be so far off?
No 700 was a wild estimate. A baseless useless estimate. I could have estimated 70,000.  There is no way you could prove there are not 70,000 stars. The number is already too large for you to verify. However 70,000 is a number you can understand. There are more than 70,000 grains of sand on the beach. More than 70,000 people in your country. Less than 70,000 people at your school/work. 70,000 stars in the sky would not blot out the darkness. I can imagine 70,000 grains of sand on a table. I'd still see some table. 300 sextillion grains of sand? Its unimaginable but there is no way I could see anything but sand. Imagine that with starlight and we are back to welding masks at night time.

Quote
I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.
So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 04:55:13 PM
zarg   01:48:15   Viewing Thork's profile.

And you can pack that in as well. Pervert. >:(
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 18, 2011, 05:13:41 PM
1) No 700, was a wild estimate. A baseless useless estimate. I could have estimated 70,000.  ...
2) ItsIt's unimaginable, but there is no way I could see anything but sand. ...
3) Imagine that with starlight, and we are back to welding masks at night time.
1) Imagine that: an FEDA making a wild estimate and stating it as fact!
2) Learn to grammar. You keep screwing up "its", the possessive, and "it's" the contraction.
3) Prove that. Oh, be sure to explain the "at night time". Do you think stars shine at night only?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 06:34:15 PM
I can imagine 70,000 grains of sand on a table. I'd still see some table. 300 sextillion grains of sand? Its unimaginable but there is no way I could see anything but sand.

Please provide the dimensions of your hypothetical table, multiply it by the ratio of the size of a grain of sand to what you propose to be the size of a star, and then demonstrate that the size of the observable universe is less than or equal to that.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: El Cid on December 18, 2011, 06:46:06 PM
Quote
I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.
So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.
Oh, dear...I'll never look at you the same way again.  You jumped to that because, of course you couldn't resist if you had the slightest reason to say something completely ridiculous.  I searched for what the slightest reason was for quite a while, because I don't really see anything, but I think I see it.  "You would if they were all only 3100 miles away" you interpreted as "They ARE that far, and then that would be the case if there were that many stars!"  So you say, "A-ha!  So you must agree that there are fewer!"

It's not even clever.  No one would have understood it in the slightest.

I'm not going to explicitly state exactly what your problem is, because you know and I know that you know what it is.  I just don't know what to do for you.  You continue to "debate" that the Earth is flat, angrily, irrationally.  You, for some reason, have decided that you really want to believe that the Earth is flat, but you never stop and look, and you haven't realized what you've done.  Well, I'll tell you what you've done:  you've raped and murdered the beauty of nature, tortured yourself, and built a reality with silly constructs that barely manage to allow you to think the Earth is flat, but what is it?  It's a disc with no Antarctica and a sun and moon rotating around a line, and a plane of stars.  A pointless, miserable universe to live in.  You cannot possibly enjoy believing this.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Rushy on December 18, 2011, 06:50:34 PM
The FET universe is so small and boring. I'm certainly glad I don't live in it.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
I was just reading that the average human has 100 billion brain cells. Can you believe that, Thork? Now, I could imagine 70,000 brain cells in your head. But 100 billion? It's unimaginable that you could fit 100 billion things into your head. So clearly there are less. Excellent.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 06:57:29 PM
It's a disc with no Antarctica and a sun and moon rotating around a line, and a plane of stars.  A pointless, miserable universe to live in.  You cannot possibly enjoy believing this.
Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.

The FET universe is so small and boring. I'm certainly glad I don't live in it.
??? But you do live here. Its not boring. Most of you haven't even figured out earth's shape yet. There's so much to find out about it.

I was just reading that the average human has 100 billion brain cells. Can you believe that, Thork? Now, I could imagine 70,000 brain cells in your head. But 100 billion? It's unimaginable that you could fit 100 billion things into your head. So clearly there are less. Excellent.
In your head, this is more than likely.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 18, 2011, 07:16:10 PM
Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.

Because of the universal accelerator, isn't everyone on the Flat Earth being pushed against their will through an unimaginably large bleak nothingness, ever hurtling faster and faster towards oblivion?

Also, are Canadians more important than Americans, since they are closer to the center of the universe?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: El Cid on December 18, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Parsifal on December 26, 2011, 09:47:48 PM
The night sky (and possibly also the daytime sky, though this is uncertain) is simply a projection onto an overhead surface, probably made of canvas. The stars therefore do not exist as objects unto themselves, but are projected from an unknown location on the Earth's surface.

Therefore, there can be as many stars as the projector wills there to be.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on December 26, 2011, 10:04:00 PM
You say there are about 700 stars. If this is true, what factors do you see that could cause their estimates to be so far off?
No 700 was a wild estimate. A baseless useless estimate. I could have estimated 70,000.  There is no way you could prove there are not 70,000 stars. The number is already too large for you to verify. However 70,000 is a number you can understand. There are more than 70,000 grains of sand on the beach. More than 70,000 people in your country. Less than 70,000 people at your school/work. 70,000 stars in the sky would not blot out the darkness. I can imagine 70,000 grains of sand on a table. I'd still see some table. 300 sextillion grains of sand? Its unimaginable but there is no way I could see anything but sand. Imagine that with starlight and we are back to welding masks at night time.

Quote
I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.
So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.

Summary of Thork's argument in this post: If there were 300 sextillion stars 3100 miles away from us, the glare would be huge. There is no huge glare, therefore the variable that MUST be changed is the number of stars, not the distance.
Rubbish attempt, even by his standards.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2011, 10:38:10 PM
Who actually counted these stars?

As far as I know people just looked at some blobs of supposedly distant galaxies and said "oh there must be several billion stars in there."
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:38:48 PM
The night sky (and possibly also the daytime sky, though this is uncertain) is simply a projection onto an overhead surface, probably made of canvas. The stars therefore do not exist as objects unto themselves, but are projected from an unknown location on the Earth's surface.

Therefore, there can be as many stars as the projector wills there to be.
That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy. Since we've shown that all stars can't be 3100 miles above the FE, you invent a new construct, a magical canvas and decide that stars aren't real now. Any just why does the projector have a will?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:42:13 PM
Who actually counted these stars?

As far as I know people just looked at some blobs of supposedly distant galaxies and said "oh there must be several billion stars in there."
Who said anyone actually counted these starts? We have estimated the number of stars by statistical methods.

500 million though have been counted according to: http://www.sdss.org/ (http://www.sdss.org/).
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 26, 2011, 10:50:23 PM
That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy.
I don't see how. Do explain.

Any just why does the projector have a will?
He never said they do. He said there can be as many stars as the projector wills.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Parsifal on December 26, 2011, 10:52:08 PM
That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy. Since we've shown that all stars can't be 3100 miles above the FE, you invent a new construct, a magical canvas and decide that stars aren't real now.

Argumentum ad hominem. Please address my argument, not the means I used to construct it.

Any just why does the projector have a will?

By that I meant the entity which creates the projection, not the tool that is used to do so.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:54:57 PM
He never said they do. He said there can be as many stars as the projector wills.
Okay, so he said that "the projector wills", right? So how can the projector will without having a will?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy. Since we've shown that all stars can't be 3100 miles above the FE, you invent a new construct, a magical canvas and decide that stars aren't real now.

Argumentum ad hominem. Please address my argument, not the means I used to construct it.

Any just why does the projector have a will?

By that I meant the entity which creates the projection, not the tool that is used to do so.
Nope, that's not an ad hominem. I attacked your argument by demonstrating that it rests on a fallacy.

So you now need "the entity" now. How special pleading of you!
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Parsifal on December 26, 2011, 11:03:00 PM
Nope, that's not an ad hominem. I attacked your argument by demonstrating that it rests on a fallacy.

It doesn't rest on anything you attacked. My argument doesn't require me to invent it as a result of this thread in order to be valid. It stands in its own right, regardless of how it was arrived at.

If you can't respond to my argument itself, you won't get very far.

So you now need "the entity" now. How special pleading of you!

That was my intended meaning from the beginning. I do apologise for assuming that you would have the mental capacity to come to this realisation on your own, however.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 11:12:41 PM
Nope, that's not an ad hominem. I attacked your argument by demonstrating that it rests on a fallacy.

It doesn't rest on anything you attacked. My argument doesn't require me to invent it as a result of this thread in order to be valid. It stands in its own right, regardless of how it was arrived at.

If you can't respond to my argument itself, you won't get very far.

So you now need "the entity" now. How special pleading of you!

That was my intended meaning from the beginning. I do apologise for assuming that you would have the mental capacity to come to this realisation on your own, however.
That is a response to your argument. Deal with it. When you have to make up new features that you haven't verified to solve a problem in your theory, you make a 'special pleading' fallacy.

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/
This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

Once you have an argument built on logic and evidence rather than fallacy, you might get a start.

What makes you think that I ever thought that you meant a machine? I never did.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Parsifal on December 26, 2011, 11:25:50 PM
That is a response to your argument.

Incorrect. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

When you have to make up new features that you haven't verified to solve a problem in your theory, you make a 'special pleading' fallacy.

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/
This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

Equating "fallacy" with "false statement" is itself a fallacy. For example, it is perfectly valid for me to point out that you are committing argumentum ad hominem in trying to discredit my argument based on the way in which it has been brought about. However, it would be a fallacy for me to say that because you have committed argumentum ad hominem, you are wrong about the position of the stars.

So while it may be true that I have committed a fallacy, it does not follow that what I have said is false. Once again, I will ask you to address my argument.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 11:44:11 PM
So while it may be true that I have committed a fallacy, it does not follow that what I have said is false. Once again, I will ask you to address my argument.
I see no reason that I, or anyone else, should argue against your unsupported point. The burden is on you to show first that what you've said is true. Once you make a well-formed argument that your position is true, I'll, and others, will be happy to respond.

Let's try this as an example for you....

Let's say that I contend that the Earth is round.

I say we know this because a sphere is more pleasing than a plane.

Since that argument contains a naturalistic fallacy, I suggest that you simply point the error out.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 26, 2011, 11:47:30 PM
Who actually counted these stars?

As far as I know people just looked at some blobs of supposedly distant galaxies and said "oh there must be several billion stars in there."

what's your point? Are you suggesting that uncertainty about the number 100 sextillion means that the actual number might be something that could possibly be reconciled with the 3100-mile claim? Consider: The difference between 100 and 300 sextillion is considered unusually enormous enough to be newsworthy. That's a difference of a factor of 3. In order for the 3100-mile claim to even approach plausibility, they'd need to be off by a factor of about a quadrillion. Try again.
Their estimations would need to be ridiculously far off. The range of uncertainty is not wide enough for 3100-Mile Theory to be plausible.

Counting stars is like guessing how many candies are in a filled jar:

Bob guesses 400.
Jim guesses 500.
Steve guesses 450.
Tom Bishop guesses two.

I'm not saying Bob and Jim and Steve are definitely right. But Tom is definitely wrong.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 26, 2011, 11:48:16 PM
The night sky (and possibly also the daytime sky, though this is uncertain) is simply a projection onto an overhead surface, probably made of canvas. The stars therefore do not exist as objects unto themselves, but are projected from an unknown location on the Earth's surface.

Therefore, there can be as many stars as the projector wills there to be.

What is the resolution of the projector? You haven't solved the problem whatsoever. You just changed it from the stars must be impossibly small to the projector's pixels must be impossibly small.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Parsifal on December 27, 2011, 05:32:52 AM
I see no reason that I, or anyone else, should argue against your unsupported point. The burden is on you to show first that what you've said is true. Once you make a well-formed argument that your position is true, I'll, and others, will be happy to respond.

I don't claim to have evidence for my statement, nor do I know how one might obtain such evidence. I was responding to the topic at hand with a solution; take it or leave it as you will.

What is the resolution of the projector? You haven't solved the problem whatsoever. You just changed it from the stars must be impossibly small to the projector's pixels must be impossibly small.

I don't see why there must be one projection facility. Each star can be projected by its own individual facility, which focuses its light such that its width is that of a single wavelength when it reaches the stellar canvas. In this way, the many facilities may be spread across the unexplored glaciers beyond the ice wall.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2011, 05:51:12 AM
Quote
Who said anyone actually counted these starts? We have estimated the number of stars by statistical methods.

If the number of stars is unknown then it defeats the purpose of this thread.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 12:06:55 PM
I don't see why there must be one projection facility. Each star can be projected by its own individual facility...

You still haven't solved anything. All you're doing is making it more and more complicated. You've gone from 300 sextillion stars; to 300 sextillion pixels in a single projector; to 300 sextillion individual projectors.


...which focuses its light such that its width is that of a single wavelength when it reaches the stellar canvas.

The fact that you used the phrase "width of a single wavelength" to explain the size of an object clearly shows that you have no idea what you're talking about, but even so, the shortest wavelength of visible light is 400 nanometers, which is vastly larger than what apparently distant stars would need to be.


In this way, the many facilities may be spread across the unexplored glaciers beyond the ice wall.

You think you have solved the problem of space by placing the projectors on the infinite plane. You obviously don't understand the problem. No matter where the projectors are, the stars produced are impossibly small if the canvas is only 3100 miles away. The mechanics required to produce such small lights physically cannot exist.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 12:08:29 PM
Quote
Who said anyone actually counted these starts? We have estimated the number of stars by statistical methods.

If the number of stars is unknown then it defeats the purpose of this thread.

what's your point? Are you suggesting that uncertainty about the number 100 sextillion means that the actual number might be something that could possibly be reconciled with the 3100-mile claim? Consider: The difference between 100 and 300 sextillion is considered unusually enormous enough to be newsworthy. That's a difference of a factor of 3. In order for the 3100-mile claim to even approach plausibility, they'd need to be off by a factor of about a quadrillion. Try again.
Their estimations would need to be ridiculously far off. The range of uncertainty is not wide enough for 3100-Mile Theory to be plausible.

Counting stars is like guessing how many candies are in a filled jar:

Bob guesses 400.
Jim guesses 500.
Steve guesses 450.
Tom Bishop guesses two.

I'm not saying Bob and Jim and Steve are definitely right. But Tom is definitely wrong.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2011, 12:15:08 PM
I don't see why there must be one projection facility. Each star can be projected by its own individual facility...

You still haven't solved anything. All you're doing is making it more and more complicated. You've gone from 300 sextillion stars; to 300 sextillion pixels in a single projector; to 300 sextillion individual projectors.

Umm...  Just out of curiosity, how many of these 300 sextillion stars are visible to the naked eye and how many are in galaxies that are barely visible even to the most powerful telescopes?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 12:38:02 PM
Stars visible to the naked eye are in the thousands, but I don't see how that's relevant unless the FE'ers want to add at least a few million people to the Conspiracy.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2011, 01:00:12 PM
It's relevant in that stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes) don't need to be faked by the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 01:07:07 PM
Stars visible to the naked eye are in the thousands, but I don't see how that's relevant unless the FE'ers want to add at least a few million people to the Conspiracy.

Your point was that 300 sextillion stars would never fit in the sky, and yet a galaxy that represents ~100 billion stars can take up a blotch of just a few pixels on the hubble ultra deep field. Stop being dishonest and actually come up with an argument.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.


Your point was that 300 sextillion stars would never fit in the sky, and yet a galaxy that represents ~100 billion stars can take up a blotch of just a few pixels on the hubble ultra deep field. Stop being dishonest and actually come up with an argument.

Again the range of uncertainty is not wide enough. Even if we assume that those splotches aren't made up of billions of more stars, it doesn't work. At the scale we're talking about, 100 billion makes relatively no difference. The ultra-deep field is so far away (or "apparently far" according to FET) -- 13 billion light-years -- that even those entire galaxies would have to be too small to possibly exist.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 01:52:05 PM
stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.


Your point was that 300 sextillion stars would never fit in the sky, and yet a galaxy that represents ~100 billion stars can take up a blotch of just a few pixels on the hubble ultra deep field. Stop being dishonest and actually come up with an argument.

Again the range of uncertainty is not wide enough. Even if we assume that those splotches aren't made up of billions of more stars, it doesn't work. The ultra-deep field is so far away (or "apparently far" according to FET) -- 13 billion light-years -- that even those entire galaxies would have to be too small to possibly exist.

So you agree with me then. I appreciate the concession.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 01:54:38 PM
So you agree with me then.

Yes, we are both in agreement that FET is bullshit. ;)
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 01:57:40 PM
So you agree with me then.

Yes, we are both in agreement that FET is bullshit. ;)

You said they were too far to possibly exist. I agree that they don't exist and the HUDF images are fabrications.

There go all your stars =)
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 02:24:01 PM
Well, before playing devil's advocate you should be sure you know what the other side is saying. I haven't seen any FE'er deny that the stars exist. The fact that you see more as you look closer with telescopes must mean either that they are farther away or that they are smaller. RET says they are farther away, while FET says they are smaller.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 02:51:53 PM
Well, before playing devil's advocate you should be sure you know what the other side is saying. I haven't seen any FE'er deny that the stars exist. The fact that you see more as you look closer with telescopes must mean either that they are farther away or that they are smaller. RET says they are farther away, while FET says they are smaller.

Well I say they aren't there.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Then you're not being consistent. First your argument was that distant galaxies might not actually consist of smaller stars since they aren't clearly visible in a HUDF image; now you're saying none of the distant bodies exist in the first place, which makes your original point useless.

More importantly, if the HUDF is fabricated, why aren't the images clearer? As I said in an earlier post,

I thought the whole point of these "fake discoveries" was to give the public a sense of certainty. It wouldn't have served them well to say, "we might have gone to the moon," now, would it have?

But of course you don't need the HUDF, or indeed Hubble or NASA at all, to determine that there are too many stars for them to exist at 3100 miles. So could you please compile a complete list of organizations who publish fake images or build hoax telescopes, with accompanying evidence and motive for each?

And why do they keep wasting so much money repairing and building new telescopes if they're just hunks of metal that don't actually do anything?

Come on NASA_Lies, I know you can do better.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2011, 05:23:01 PM
stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

ORLY?  How many of those 300 sextillion stars can be seen?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 05:45:45 PM
stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

ORLY?  How many of those 300 sextillion stars can be seen?

Yes, really. You understand that the "barely visible" galaxies you mention are only the ones at the outermost range, right? The rest can be observed close enough to see the individual stars.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2011, 06:09:23 PM
stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

ORLY?  How many of those 300 sextillion stars can be seen?

Yes, really. You understand that the "barely visible" galaxies you mention are only the ones at the outermost range, right? The rest can be observed close enough to see the individual stars.

What percentage of the 300 sextillion stars are contained in those "close enough" galaxies and what percentage are in those barely visible galaxies?  From what I understand, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field surveys showed that most of the galaxies in the universe fall into the "barely visible" category.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 06:28:56 PM
From what I understand, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field surveys showed that most of the galaxies in the universe fall into the "barely visible" category.

Hardly!

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=153 (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=153)
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 06:30:46 PM
Then you're not being consistent. First your argument was that distant galaxies might not actually consist of smaller stars since they aren't clearly visible in a HUDF image; now you're saying none of the distant bodies exist in the first place, which makes your original point useless.

More importantly, if the HUDF is fabricated, why aren't the images clearer? As I said in an earlier post,

I thought the whole point of these "fake discoveries" was to give the public a sense of certainty. It wouldn't have served them well to say, "we might have gone to the moon," now, would it have?

But of course you don't need the HUDF, or indeed Hubble or NASA at all, to determine that there are too many stars for them to exist at 3100 miles. So could you please compile a complete list of organizations who publish fake images or build hoax telescopes, with accompanying evidence and motive for each?

And why do they keep wasting so much money repairing and building new telescopes if they're just hunks of metal that don't actually do anything?

Come on NASA_Lies, I know you can do better.

The reason that they weren't clearer is because we know they would expect us to expect them to try to make the images as clear as possible. Therefore, they made the images unclear so we wouldn't think they were fabricated.

There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Don't attack me just because you can't disprove my scientific theory.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2011, 06:37:43 PM
From what I understand, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field surveys showed that most of the galaxies in the universe fall into the "barely visible" category.

Hardly!

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=153 (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=153)

Did you actually read the posts in that link?
Quote
If astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?

The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.

How wide is the Ultra Deep Field's slice of the heavens?

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is called a "pencil beam" survey because the observations encompass a narrow, yet "deep" piece of sky. Astronomers compare the Ultra Deep Field view to looking through an eight-foot-long soda straw.

The Ultra Deep Field's patch of sky is so tiny it would fit inside the largest impact basin that makes up the face on the Moon. Astronomers would need about 50 Ultra Deep Fields to cover the entire Moon.

Astronomers chose what they believed to be an empty chunk of sky to survey.  If there are that many galaxies in such a tiny, empty piece of sky, then how do you suppose that compares to the number of galaxies that are more readily visible?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 06:41:05 PM
The reason that they weren't clearer is because we know they would expect us to expect them to try to make the images as clear as possible. Therefore, they made the images unclear so we wouldn't think they were fabricated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html)


There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Well, yes, that's the point. Why are there so many different unaffiliated groups trying to perpetuate the same hoax? If even one of them is not hoaxing, then your whole theory is destroyed. Therefore, you need to individually prove that each one is a hoax, or at least propose individual motives for each one, otherwise you have no logical reason to believe it's happening.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 06:47:10 PM
The reason that they weren't clearer is because we know they would expect us to expect them to try to make the images as clear as possible. Therefore, they made the images unclear so we wouldn't think they were fabricated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html)

Come on dude, please use your brain. They would obviously expect us to expect them to get some of them right.

Quote
There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Well, yes, that's the point. Why are there so many different unaffiliated groups trying to perpetuate the same hoax? If even one of them is not hoaxing, then your whole theory is destroyed. Therefore, you need to individually prove that each one is a hoax, or at least propose individual motives for each one, otherwise you have no logical reason to believe it's happening.

You're changing your point. Before you wanted me to compile a list, now you're changing your point because you know that your previous point can't stand up to the fact that no list is needed.

If you have any more questions, read the FAQ.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Astronomers chose what they believed to be an empty chunk of sky to survey.  If there are that many galaxies in such a tiny, empty piece of sky, then how do you suppose that compares to the number of galaxies that are more readily visible?

Less than one percent.

Do you need me to draw you a picture?

(http://i.imgur.com/9rWAp.png)

Yellow represents the UDF. Red represents the rest of the area that would fall under the "barely visible category". Blue represents the rest of the visible universe, or "more readily visible" area.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2011, 06:59:15 PM
Check me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every galaxy in the UDF is in the "barely visible" category.  That was the whole point of the UDF. 
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 07:00:30 PM
Quote
There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Well, yes, that's the point. Why are there so many different unaffiliated groups trying to perpetuate the same hoax? If even one of them is not hoaxing, then your whole theory is destroyed. Therefore, you need to individually prove that each one is a hoax, or at least propose individual motives for each one, otherwise you have no logical reason to believe it's happening.

You're changing your point. Before you wanted me to compile a list, now you're changing your point because you know that your previous point can't stand up to the fact that no list is needed.

Nope, not changing my point. You mistakenly believed that the the green statement was in reference to the blue clause, but I was referring to the red one. I'm still asking you to compile a list, for the reason given in orange.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 07:14:30 PM
Astronomers chose what they believed to be an empty chunk of sky to survey.  If there are that many galaxies in such a tiny, empty piece of sky, then how do you suppose that compares to the number of galaxies that are more readily visible?

Less than one percent.

Do you need me to draw you a picture?

(http://i.imgur.com/9rWAp.png)

Yellow represents the UDF. Red represents the rest of the area that would fall under the "barely visible category". Blue represents the rest of the visible universe, or "more readily visible" area.

Ok, you're being inconsistent now. For three reasons, actually.

1) If yellow is the "UDF" and blue is the universe, then what is red?

2) Why the hell is the universe blue? Do round earthers now think that the universe is blue?

3) The UDF has to be a fabrication because it is impossible for a telescope to fly in space for that long.

Please think before posting.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 27, 2011, 07:29:38 PM
Do round earthers now think that the universe is blue?

It is. Look out your window.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 07:37:24 PM
Do round earthers now think that the universe is blue?

It is. Look out your window.

Ok I just did. It's black. Anything else you want me to do?

I love how you have to do all this verbal gymnastics to make me think anything you have to offer is legitimate. Pathetic.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 28, 2011, 12:23:01 AM
Check me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every galaxy in the UDF is in the "barely visible" category.  That was the whole point of the UDF.

The blurry galaxies are blurry because they're at the extreme range of the telescope, obviously. As such they represent only the outermost extremes of the observable universe, which is nowhere near its total area. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: Parsifal on December 28, 2011, 12:26:41 AM
The blurry galaxies are blurry because they're at the extreme range of the telescope, obviously. As such they represent only the outermost extremes of the observable universe, which is nowhere near its total area.

The Universe has the property of area? Funny, I thought that applied only to two-dimensional objects.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2011, 06:16:05 AM
Check me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every galaxy in the UDF is in the "barely visible" category.  That was the whole point of the UDF.

The blurry galaxies are blurry because they're at the extreme range of the telescope, obviously. As such they represent only the outermost extremes of the observable universe, which is nowhere near its total area. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this?

I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.  This goes back to my original point that of the estimated 300 sextillion stars in the universe, only a tiny fraction are visible to observers.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 28, 2011, 05:32:13 PM
I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.

Your second sentence contradicts the first, since what I just finished explaining was why it's false. The quality of the HUDF is not representative of the rest of the observable universe, it's only representative of the rest of its farthest extremes.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 28, 2011, 07:14:42 PM
I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.

Your second sentence contradicts the first, since what I just finished explaining was why it's false. The quality of the HUDF is not representative of the rest of the observable universe, it's only representative of the rest of its farthest extremes.

So you're saying I can go outside right now and see on the order of 150 sextillion (half of the total number if, as you claim, you can observe most of the stars) stars?

Nope, can't see that many. The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 28, 2011, 08:58:16 PM
The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

Irrelevant to which conversation? The one I was having with markjo was specifically about said telescopes, so they are absolutely relevant. I'm not really interested in a conversation with a lazy and unimaginative troll such as you.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on December 29, 2011, 06:10:16 AM
No one admitted Tom Bishop is a scammer and a fraud yet? Hmmm. I see nothing will change things around here.

May I remind you, your "wiki" says this guy CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated the world is flat.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626

Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 08:20:16 AM
The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

Irrelevant to which conversation? The one I was having with markjo was specifically about said telescopes, so they are absolutely relevant. I'm not really interested in a conversation with a lazy and unimaginative troll such as you.

I am most certainly not unimaginative.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: zarg on December 29, 2011, 01:29:31 PM
Posts like "Well I say they aren't there (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52019.msg1284232#msg1284232)" and "You're just saying that to hide the fact that you know I'm right (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52335.msg1284343#msg1284343)" suggest otherwise. You can be even more boring than Parsifal at times.
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: LinearPlane on January 04, 2012, 09:52:52 AM
Where is scam bishop to argue his fake claims?
Title: Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
Post by: The Knowledge on January 04, 2012, 11:31:55 AM
Where is scam bishop to argue his fake claims?

Probably pestering ICANN about Daniel not loggin in here enough.  ::)