1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

« on: May 12, 2023, 02:14:11 PM »

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

Your ignorance would get people navigating ships at sea in bad situations, and people and ships in unnecessary peril.

Everything from nuclear reactions and heat transfer do not need an “atmosphere”, navigating a very real spherical earth, to tide forecasts that are important when around the coast, barrier islands, coming in and out of harbors.

That's funny. Because most navigators prior to GPS used the following tools:
A sextant. A compass (of two sorts, one where you hold and magnetic stuff does its thing, the other of the same sort that Masons use, where you can draw lines between two points). A sea chart and map. 

First off, we've been through this. Here's a nautical chart:



Notice how it says right on the chart that it uses a Mercator projection from a globe and the NAD 83 datum which is based upon the ellipsoid earth - A spherical earth. So you lose here.

And what's even funnier is that part of determining longitude calculations and great circle plotting using a sextant requires spherical trig and tables applied to the dip corrections, geometric horizon, etc. All nautical almanacs used for celestial navigation are predicated on, you guessed it, a spherical earth, a globe.

The only way to refute this is to show how to plot a navigable path using a sextant on a flat earth. You can't. Case closed.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse as seen from space (Impossible on flat earth)

« on: May 10, 2023, 08:27:02 AM »

No claim twisting required...What say you about these routes...

Santiago (SCL) to Sydney (SYD)
Non-stop
11,363 KM (7,060 miles) Great Circle Route
14:31



Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (SYD)
Non-stop
11,044 KM (6,862 miles) Great Circle Route
11:20



Auckland (AKL) to Santiago (SCL)
Non-stop
9,674 KM (6,011 miles) Great Circle Route
10:31

I say they are lies.

What's your direct evidence that it is a lie? You know, actual evidence.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Clearing the Muddle that is Jesus

« on: May 07, 2023, 07:59:04 AM »

But Revelation should be tossed into a dumpster, have oil poured on it until it turns to ash. Then sucked into a vacuum. Tossed into an urn. Sent to the middle of the ocean and dropped in with a rock added. It has nearly 2000 years of leading people away from Jesus and into fundamentalist thinking. The fundies are wrong. They have always been wrong, and they have centuries of violence and murder to answer for. And I'll thank you to stop hating on Christians for what fundies, Muslims, and Catholics do.

Thanks again for proving my point about you cherry-pickers.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse as seen from space (Impossible on flat earth)

« on: May 07, 2023, 07:23:59 AM »

Oh uhhh, they claim this because it is true.
You're twisting the actual claim though.

No claim twisting required...What say you about these routes...

Santiago (SCL) to Sydney (SYD)
Non-stop
11,363 KM (7,060 miles) Great Circle Route
14:31



Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (SYD)
Non-stop
11,044 KM (6,862 miles) Great Circle Route
11:20



Auckland (AKL) to Santiago (SCL)
Non-stop
9,674 KM (6,011 miles) Great Circle Route
10:31

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: harmful impurities

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:50:26 AM »

Millions of Muslims are Converting to Christianity After Having Dreams and Visions of Jesus Christ
/RL2MM_efr6Y

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Clearing the Muddle that is Jesus

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:43:54 AM »

Or else?

Good to know that the people who accuse Christians of being hateful and evil are not above resorting to threats. Or else what? You'll come to my house and hurt me? Or maybe, you'll sic God on me, even though you've decided the Bible is mostly nonsense?

No. It has nothing to do with me. I'm just saying that religious texts are chock full of fear and "or else's". The bible and the quran pretty much top that list.

You're all a bunch of sinners worshipping false idols and no me. So I'm gonna murder all of you and reset.
You believers get the rapture awesomeness, the rest of you lot are destroyed by the 7 seals, four horsemen, fire, earthquakes, famine, pestilence, bowls of gross shit poured all over the place, etc. And all the other other craziness in between. The quran fairs no better.

So sorry, but ummm I have my own canon, and Revelation is at the top of the list of things left out.

Thanks for proving my point.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support Ron DeSantis?

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:30:11 AM »

Why would the FDA approve any drug for any treatment, then? You're not making sense.

The FDA doesn't initiate the process, the drug makers do. The reason the FDA hasn't approved the use of blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria, is because the drug makers haven't taken the steps required to receive approval. These steps are costly, and in the end involve monitoring the safety of the drug. No one promoting the Dutch protocol really wants FDA monitoring.


Hormone blockers are described as a pause on puberty, so the kid has time to grow up before making permanent changes. According to research about 98% of kids on blockers go on to cross sex hormones, according to research 80% of dysphoric kids who do not take blockers will desist. IMO, putting kids on blockers locks them in, because it's not only the obvious physical changes being blocked, but also cognitive development that occurs during puberty.

I'm a little light on the facts:

- Docs can prescribe blockers even if the FDA hasn't directly been asked and approved for an alternate use?
- How long have we've been using blockers specifically for gender dysphoria? Is this kinda a new-ish thing?
- How old can the kids be to receive such a treatment? I assume parents need to approve?

And yeah, I can totally see the slippery slope of whether messing around with cognitive developments cloud or clear the decision making capabilities going forward. The whole thing seems messy at best.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:15:36 AM »

No one is calling anyone dumb. Just ignorant. It's obvious that turbo has no idea what he is arguing against. Having at least a minimum understanding of the thing you don't agree with is the baseline. Otherwise you're just complaining and make your non-argument look even more ridiculous than it is, or even needs to be.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:10:48 AM »

These people didn't come forward because they had a freaking huge paycheck if they went along with it, and a NDA threatening legal action if they didn't. Easy choice there! Only someone like me would speak up, and I'd lose everything. Including my life.

There's a little tiny thing called "evidence". Have you ever heard of the word?

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse as seen from space (Impossible on flat earth)

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:08:20 AM »

Not it is NOT the simpler option.

Simplest observation:

- Predict and map the path of totality that 10's of millions of people see and verify.

You can't. That is the simplest option which cannot be satisfied by option #1. I'm afraid that that is a losing position. Especially considering you don't even have a map to start with...

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Clearing the Muddle that is Jesus

« on: May 05, 2023, 11:37:04 PM »

Make up your mind.

Nothing like cherry-picking from the most cherry-picked book ever to have existed. So trite and obvious. "My god would never murder everyone on the planet except for a handful. No, not my god." Ask the next person,"Oh yeah he would...He had to purge and start over, murdering babies and saving the mosquitoes had to happen..."

Fast forward rounding out the wrath of god in Revelations, here we go again..."My god would never murder everyone on the planet except for the faithful. No, not my god." Ask the next person,"Oh yeah he would...He had to purge and start over, make way for the second coming and all that..."

Nice bookends.

So yeah, just pick and choose what you like and don't like. That's pretty much how religion works. Though you gotta hand it to the creationist/literalists even though they are a bunch of psychopaths. At least they are all in, no whishy-washyness. What's in the book is the word of god, it all happened and will all happen. Buck-up and fly right. Or else!

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

« on: May 05, 2023, 11:08:36 PM »

Again, the important part, which plenty of experiments back up, is that a force is required to change the motion.
If an object is at rest, applying a force will accelerate it. If you then stop applying a force, the object continues with that motion, and another force is required to stop it.

When you throw an object upward in a vaccum chamber, which has no air within it, why does the object slow down and stop moving upward, then? What 'force' is stopping it's motion upward? It is NOT due to another 'force', it is due to the ONLY FORCE that MADE it move, which dies out afterwards, which makes it stop moving.

A force acts on an object, by transferring energy to the object, as kinetic force, which makes the object go into motion. The energy from this force, continues to act on the object, throughout it's movements along the way.

If you tap on a ball with your toe, it might move the ball a few inches over the ground. But if you kick it hard with your foot, it might move 30 yards over the same ground.

Forces don't stop acting on objects, the instant after they apply energy to them. It is this energy which makes them CONTINUE to move afterwards. Forces apply energy to objects, which continues afterwards, making each one move longer or shorter distances, depending on how much FORCE acted on them! If it was 'instantly gone' force, they'd move the SAME distance outward, as there would be NO FORCE ACTING ON THEM ANYMORE, right?

You might want to actually understand what you are arguing against before attempting to argue against it...Start here...

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

« on: May 05, 2023, 10:56:26 PM »

That's some powerful Kool-Aid indeed!

Indeed. Couple of zooms and a split screen still showing the same shot. But for all intents and purposes, uncut as seen below...

Uncut from 9700'


To 159,000'



Uncut from 30,000'


To 350,000'


Not to mention, actual passenger accounts, one from none other than William Shatner. What he had to say about his flight:

"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her."

What is your evidence again?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two centers for stars

« on: May 05, 2023, 10:30:42 PM »

The Earth doesn't have a north or south pole

I was clearly referring to the celestial poles.
All it takes to observe them is a simple time-lapse of the night sky.
At the equator, you can even see both.

Your wilful rejection of reality will not save you.

So again, can you explain why there is a north and south celestial pole, always 180 degrees apart?

If you can't, just admit that you can't explain it on a flat Earth, and that if a south celestial pole exists it demonstrates that Earth isn't flat.

There's no poles on Earth, it's not a ball speeding through endless space.

Compasses read the magnetic CENTER point of our flat Earth, and one star above the center point of Earth, the so-called 'North Star' or 'Polaris', which is the only star which never rotates above the flat Earth below it. No 'south star', or poles of a ball, on 'top' and 'bottom' of a ball Earth! 

A compass wouldn't work on a ball Earth. They find Earth's magnetic center point from anywhere on Earth's flat surface, that's why compasses are 2 dimensional instruments. A ball Earth would need a 3 dimensional instrument of some sort, if it were even possible to create one.

When in the southern half of your ball Earth, you would be UNDER the 'North Pole', on the opposite side of it. There'd be thousands of miles of ball Earth material between you and your 'North Pole', on the other side of your ball Earth. You'd have no way to measure for the opposite pole, by any compass, it is based on the flat Earth we live on.

There's no poles, no southern or northern hemispheres of a made up ball Earth in 'space', it's all BS.

Pretty remarkable out of all that nothing made any sense?

How does a compass work? Have you ever used a compass before? I'm guessing by whatever you were trying to convey is that no, you never have.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth

« on: May 05, 2023, 10:25:32 PM »

They realized long ago, that horizons would curve across Earth, where we would have SEEN a distinct curve across them, in planes, every single day of the year, in order to show a ball Earth from 'space' at the end of it.

So they skipped over that part, and showed a ball Earth from space, and ignored the first part of it, seeing how a horizon magically starts to look 'curved', before it looked like a ball in 'space'.

No matter how large a sphere is, it will show a curve over it, as it MUST curve throughout it's entire surface. That is the big problem they have, and cannot excuse away.

It is impossible to simulate this, and they know it. So they ignore it, and hope nobody notices there's no simulation for it, only some crappy attempts at it, which all have failed, miserably.

Faking it only goes so far, and it stops instantly, right here.

Who is "they"?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

« on: May 05, 2023, 01:40:00 AM »

Kind of an aside, but maybe not. It's not clear to me that denpressure requires a flat earth. Experimentally and actually practically speaking as well.

You could have a globe earth, hermetically sealed like the membrane around a cell and all the properties of denpressure would function exactly the same way as on a domed flat earth. Or am I missing some element of denpressure that requires a planar earth?

Jack and i tried to reason that walking laterally would cause the same compressing of sponges.
So he ad hoc that it also requires something to push straight up in order to push down against.
A 'foundation'

I'm still thinking that a globe earth enshrouded in a membrane would provide the same "foundational" properties as a flat earth. I can see no difference. Also taking into consideration that there is no real up or down in terms of a flat earth relative to whatever it is floating in outside of a membrane. A flat earth could be _ , / , l, doesn't much matter. It just as well could be O, as long as it is encased.

I'm offering that one can completely separate denpressure from the shape of the earth. All that is required is sheath, skin, diaphragm, whatever you want to call it, that encloses the actual earth.

Your global Earth offers no foundation for a dome.

Explain what you mean by "foundation for a dome"?

Cells have membranes around them that separate the inside from the outside environment. A "dome" is not required. Why is a "dome" required here?

A foundation that can allow a build-up of layers.
To make this simpler.
You cannot build a house with a roof unless you have a foundation.
You can't have a dome without a foundation.

Your Earth globe in a space vacuum offers you nothing for a foundation to build up from.

The point is that it doesn't have to be a "dome". How do cells have non-dome membranes that encase them without a foundation? It seems to work on a cellular level. Why not earth?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

« on: May 05, 2023, 12:58:47 AM »

Kind of an aside, but maybe not. It's not clear to me that denpressure requires a flat earth. Experimentally and actually practically speaking as well.

You could have a globe earth, hermetically sealed like the membrane around a cell and all the properties of denpressure would function exactly the same way as on a domed flat earth. Or am I missing some element of denpressure that requires a planar earth?

Jack and i tried to reason that walking laterally would cause the same compressing of sponges.
So he ad hoc that it also requires something to push straight up in order to push down against.
A 'foundation'

I'm still thinking that a globe earth enshrouded in a membrane would provide the same "foundational" properties as a flat earth. I can see no difference. Also taking into consideration that there is no real up or down in terms of a flat earth relative to whatever it is floating in outside of a membrane. A flat earth could be _ , / , l, doesn't much matter. It just as well could be O, as long as it is encased.

I'm offering that one can completely separate denpressure from the shape of the earth. All that is required is sheath, skin, diaphragm, whatever you want to call it, that encloses the actual earth.

Your global Earth offers no foundation for a dome.

Explain what you mean by "foundation for a dome"?

Cells have membranes around them that separate the inside from the outside environment. A "dome" is not required. Why is a "dome" required here?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

« on: May 03, 2023, 03:34:29 PM »

Kind of an aside, but maybe not. It's not clear to me that denpressure requires a flat earth. Experimentally and actually practically speaking as well.

You could have a globe earth, hermetically sealed like the membrane around a cell and all the properties of denpressure would function exactly the same way as on a domed flat earth. Or am I missing some element of denpressure that requires a planar earth?

Jack and i tried to reason that walking laterally would cause the same compressing of sponges.
So he ad hoc that it also requires something to push straight up in order to push down against.
A 'foundation'

I'm still thinking that a globe earth enshrouded in a membrane would provide the same "foundational" properties as a flat earth. I can see no difference. Also taking into consideration that there is no real up or down in terms of a flat earth relative to whatever it is floating in outside of a membrane. A flat earth could be _ , / , l, doesn't much matter. It just as well could be O, as long as it is encased.

I'm offering that one can completely separate denpressure from the shape of the earth. All that is required is sheath, skin, diaphragm, whatever you want to call it, that encloses the actual earth.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Striking Holywood Writers Demand Limits AI Use

« on: May 02, 2023, 08:47:06 PM »

AI will be a great tool for propagandists.

The printing press was a great tool for propagandists.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

« on: May 02, 2023, 10:13:12 AM »

It is even well documented from confessions of pilots and training manuals on documentaries such as LEVEL.

Apparently not very well documented at all...

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse as seen from space (Impossible on flat earth)

« on: May 02, 2023, 10:04:58 AM »

No matter how you yell "No it's not!" real science means you can really test something. The reason scientists give about the existence of God is that he's non-falsifiable. As in, I cannot induce him to come here for an experiment while I test things.

If you would like to put your money where your mouth is, show the 2017 path/duration of totality across N.America using an FE map, coordinates, and topo. If you can't do that, you lose.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

« on: May 02, 2023, 10:01:45 AM »

When your fridge does its job without the aid of external atmospheric pressure then you can claim it as a closed system.
But you know it can't work without it.

Perhaps you're referring to a different context:

A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although – in the contexts of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. – the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.

Energy transfer is allowed in a closed system in the context of diferent disciplines.

As well, the guys and gals over at Maytag state that their refrigerators are closed systems...

Refrigerators vent heat out of the appliance in order to keep your food fresh. Refrigerators use a closed system that relies on refrigerant traveling in coils throughout the fridge. Refrigerant separates hot and cold air by absorbing the heat and carrying it away from the refrigerator's contents.

I'm guessing that Maytag knows a thing or two more about the physics, chemistry, & engineering of their fridges than you do. Unless of course you design and build your own.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse as seen from space (Impossible on flat earth)

« on: May 01, 2023, 08:24:38 AM »

Likewise, again the Saros cycle is based on nothing more than time.

Straight-up incorrect. RE predicts exactly where and when totality will be observed for any place on earth. FE cannot.



If you would like to put your money where your mouth is, show the 2017 path/duration of totality across N.America using an FE map, coordinates, and topo. If you can't do that, you lose.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

« on: April 29, 2023, 11:11:51 AM »

Kind of an aside, but maybe not. It's not clear to me that denpressure requires a flat earth. Experimentally and actually practically speaking as well.

You could have a globe earth, hermetically sealed like the membrane around a cell and all the properties of denpressure would function exactly the same way as on a domed flat earth. Or am I missing some element of denpressure that requires a planar earth?

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Clearing the Muddle that is Jesus

« on: April 29, 2023, 11:05:25 AM »

Complicating mattees is that nany Jewish rabbis arw deeply anti-Christian and tell other Jews that these are false Jews and that they would become cut off if they accepted Jesus was the Messiah.

Complicating matters is that many Christian ministers are deeply anti-Jewish and tell other Christians that these are false Christians and that they would become cut off if they denied that Jesus was the Messiah.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two centers for stars

« on: April 29, 2023, 02:34:24 AM »

The Earth doesn't have a north or south pole, it has one point within it's center, which is magnetic, and is why compasses use it in navigating over the Earth.

Whoa, hold on a second. You single-handedly invented a monopole magnet? How did you do that? How does it work?

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

« on: April 29, 2023, 02:26:27 AM »

Yes, he thought the Firmament was all about SPACE, of course. It's obviously because the Bible constantly mentions 'outer space' in passages.

That's why it was so important to him, and why he wished to tell the world about it, as his last words on Earth!  Trivial, and meaningless, our last words are usually just meaningless drivel!

I'm not sure why you keep going around in circles when this debate was "settled", according to your own criteria, weeks ago...

No, I'm the one who challenges you ball Earth believers to settle who is the liar, and who is telling the truth, by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not, a Firmament above the Earth.

This is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. But when your side refuses to do it, having the rockets to do it, we know who the liar is already, and it's not the one who wants to prove who is right, it s the one who refuses to prove who is right, because they know it's not them.

Yes, this is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. You proposed that we use our rockets to "settle the debate". So here you go, to "settle the debate" as you put it. You asked to send rockets upward to see if they punch a firmament. Here’s one, an uncut rocket flight straight up to 307k feet. It meets your criteria to end the debate and then some:


UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Here's another one to "settle the debate":
351,000 feet...


Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate. You have exactly what you asked for and you know what? You're a very dishonest person. You have something factual that goes against your narrative, exactly what you asked for, and you still stomp your feet. That makes you a liar. You're not seeking any truth and you will openly lie, in front of anyone and everyone. Utterly shameful. I hope you're ok with your dishonesty. I certainly am not.

Debate settled...No firmament.

How would you possibly know it's altitude? You don't know it/ You see their 'gauges' put on the videos, which shows it as being at that altitude. What BS you believe as true, without a shred of evidence for it.

That's why they are launched at night when they put fake readings on the clips. Clouds would ruin the whole sham instantly. Get serious.

Umm, first of all, you apparently don't know the difference between day and night. Both of those videos are during, which I'm surprised I have to mention, the day. Do you realize that? As well, in your world there are always clouds in the sky.

Secondly, I have way more evidence than you have. Your "evidence" being somewhere less than zero. I have eyewitness accounts, first hand even, video confirmation. Not to mention the 100's if not thousands in support of designing, engineering, building, and launching such a vehicle. And you have, ummm, yeah, you have, "I reckon those 'gauges' are fake" with zero evidence that they are. You see how this works? And I guess that means that no matter what video you ever post, all anyone has to do is say, "Oh, that's fake..." Well done.

Thirdly, using your own argument, how would you possibly know there is a firmament? You have zero evidence of it other than you just saying so. I mean, zero, zilch.

Lastly, this is exactly the criteria you asked for to "settle the debate"...Remember this:

"...by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not..."

So you get delivered to you on a silver platter exactly what you asked for and are now trying to side-step it. Do you actually get how dishonest that is? Does that even register? Do you realize that you are making a mockery of your own cause?

You might want to pick a new cause celebre because you are terrible at this flat earth stuff. Straight up lying completely undermines any sort of legitimacy you may think you have. You've done a terrible disservice to anyone who actually believes in FE, making FE look like just a bunch of people who will wiggle and lie there way out of anything when confronted with actual evidence. 

As it stands, considering that you have no evidence to counter any of this and no evidence in support of your dome, as shown here, there is no firmament no matter how much you kick and scream, plead and beg. Debate settled.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse as seen from space (Impossible on flat earth)

« on: April 29, 2023, 12:00:49 AM »

Explain how this would fit FEM

What's the impossible part?

Looks like a GoPro with a fisheye lens attached to a balloon. I'm not sure any shape of the earth would be relevant.

The impossible part is how the shadow moves on the earth

Not so much from a space viewpoint, per se. As FEr's will just default to the "space is fake, rockets aren't real, world-wide conspiratorial" default. But from the perspective of the actual path of the shadow totality. From a terrestrial standpoint.

Take for example the 2017 N.American eclipse. The shadow path was calculated and observed by countless numbers from corner to corner with amazing exacting precision.

Even throwing out the fact that FE has literally no flat earth world map that is relevant let alone usable, an accurate eclipse path of totality just doesn't exist within any FE model. All was calculated down to curve, terrain, topo, shape, everything. And all fit perfectly as to what what was observed by millions, where and when, down to the kilometer/minute.



FE just can't do this. RE can.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

« on: April 28, 2023, 11:19:07 PM »

You don't need all that theory to fly. Just something sturdy enough to hold together at the amount of motion required for flight (why planes are usually made from metal), and light enough to not be what you'd call a brick (why that metal is usually not osmium).

Yeah, super simple stuff. Barely any training, theory involved. Pretty much anyone could do it...

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two centers for stars

« on: April 28, 2023, 11:04:42 PM »

All the stars above Earth, are the very same stars we've always seen above Earth, in their same positions, since day one, to this very day, and all days in future.

Not a very good argument for every star and the Earth speeding through endless space at random, or all in one massive pack, spread out over trillions of miles away from one another, yet magically locked together in their movements, by a super-duper force, that glues all of them in place, while zipping around in endless space!

So that's why a gazillion other stars haven't shown up yet!

I'm sure you have a point in there somwhere.