Night Sky

How come In the southern hemisphere the night sky can look like this:

And on some nights you can even read by the starlight.

But in the northern hemisphere the sky looks like this:

(sorry, couldn't find one without the constellations.)

This is explained in the round earth theory because our galaxy, the milky way looks something like this:

And the southern hemisphere is looking into the middle where there are more stars and the northern hemisphere is looking towards the edge.

I'm curious as to how the flat earth idea explains this.

Go.

Is it so hard to accept that there are some stars visible in our part of the world and some that are visible in others, retard?

yes.  The light travels over 1000 light years yet it cant travel the extra 27,000 miles? That is retarded retard. 

Quote from: narcbery on April 06, 2007, 10:24:14 AM

Is it so hard to accept that there are some stars visible in our part of the world and some that are visible in others, retard?

yes.  The light travels over 1000 light years yet it cant travel the extra 27,000 miles? That is retarded retard. 

Under the FE model, the stars are only a few thousand miles up. Additionally, even if the stars were many lightyears away that does not invalidate this point, as the light would travel that distance largely unhindered. Light can travel indefinitely in the vacuum of space, provided it doesn't go through any solar systems or gas clouds; yet the same light can be easily scattered by a few miles of atmosphere.

You're using wrong-headed round earth figures when you say the distance of the stars.  They are actually only five feet away from the surface of the earth and .25 mm in diameter.

Just shut the fuck up. 

Under the FE model, the stars are only a few thousand miles up. Additionally, even if the stars were many lightyears away that does not invalidate this point, as the light would travel that distance largely unhindered. Light can travel indefinitely in the vacuum of space, provided it doesn't go through any solar systems or gas clouds; yet the same light can be easily scattered by a few miles of atmosphere.

If they are scattered by a few miles of atmosphere then why can I still see then at night?  Why are there pictures take of them from telescoped?  Space isn't a pure vacuum.  You are just repeating the old myth that has no math to back it up. 

If they are scattered by a few miles of atmosphere then why can I still see then at night?

Because you are only seeing the brightest ones with enough intensity to shine through the atmospheric density. In a fairly dark suburb on an average night, the faintest star you can see registers around Magnitude 5.5.

If you look up a standard astronomical reference like Sky Catalogue 2000.0, you'll find a table showing how many stars of each Magnitude of brightness you can actually see. According to this modern and highly respected text, there is a total of 2,862 stars visible down to a brightness of Magnitude 5.5.

Why are there pictures take of them from telescoped?  Space isn't a pure vacuum.  You are just repeating the old myth that has no math to back it up.

Professional telescopes tend to have light pollution filters and can zoom into distant stars barely visible to the the human eye.

I wouldn't talk about magnitude, it is based on distance away from the earth among other things. 

Speaking of telescopes though.  You would thing someone could tell that the sun is only 3,000 miles away when looking at it. 

I wouldn't talk about magnitude, it is based on distance away from the earth among other things.

Magnitude is not based on distance, it's based on the brightness of the star as seen on Earth.
 

Speaking of telescopes though.  You would thing someone could tell that the sun is only 3,000 miles away when looking at it.

How would one be able to tell its size and distance from the Earth by just looking at it through a telescope? The Sun isn't exactly a car on a distant mountain road. It's a very bright beacon in the sky. There are no land features to compare it to.

Once again, the FE'ers totally sidestep the main issue of a thread.

Bravo.

Under the FE model, the stars are only a few thousand miles up.

Then please explain to us how that wouldn't scour this planet of all life. The Sun is the exact safe distance from us. When it balloons in size, later in life, Earth won't be here.

Stars, of that many number, a few thousand miles above our heads? Madness.

You dont know anything. 

The apparent brightness of a star is measured by its apparent magnitude, which is the brightness of a star with respect to the star’s luminosity, distance from Earth, and the altering of the star’s light as it passes through Earth’s atmosphere.

What would make a star brighter or less bright?  Maybe the distance? 

Once again, the FE'ers totally sidestep the main issue of a thread.

Bravo.

First we must assume that the distribution of stars were evenly scattered above the Flat Earth in its Big Bang.

If the stars are indeed rotating above us around the North Pole as suggested by Earth Not a Globe  then eventually after billions of years many of them would have been thrown towards the southern regions. This would explain why we can see many more stars in the Southern Hemidisk.  It's purely a matter of centripetal force.

What would make a star brighter or less bright?  Maybe the distance?

How about the star's mass, density, composition, size, and luminosity.

Even in Round Earth astronomy, the stars wildly vary in size between each other.

See the video on this page for an example:

Tom, if the earth was flat, then wouldn't everybody be able to see every star? the relative position wouldn't even matter, because there is nothing in the way.

Quote: ''To get the size of a star usually involves estimating the distance to the star. Stars that are not too too far away can have their distances measured using parallax. As the earth moves around the sun, we see the stars from a different vantage point every night. Observations made six months apart have the biggest difference in vantage point. If we compare where we see a nearby star, as seen in a background of very faraway stars, at one observation and six months later, we may find that its apparent position has shifted a tiny amount relative to the faraway background stars. By knowing the size of the earth’s orbit and this little angle, we can estimate the distance to the star.

Some stars are close enough to be seen as a disk in high-power telescopes (I believe Betelgeuse is big enough and close enough to see the disk). Most stars appear as points of light in even the largest telescopes, however. To estimate the size of a star where the disk is visible, we simply make a triangle with one angle is the angular radius of the disk, and the side is the distance to the star. The far side is the radius of the star.

Most stars are too far away to use parallax to estimate their distances. Some special kinds of stars, called "Cepheid variable stars", are stars that periodically change their brightness. The time it takes for these stars to dim and get bright again depends on their intrinsic brightness. This is calibrated for nearby Cepheid variable stars and used for faraway ones. By knowing how intrinsically bright a faraway Cepheid variable star is, and by knowing how bright it appears to us, we can estimate how far away it is. If we know other stars are nearby the Cepheid variable, we can use the same distance estimate.''


There is a complete description how a person can measure the distance of a star from earth using a parallax, or if the stars are close enough, using their disk size.
So, Tom, there is no way that the stars can be as close as you said.

uuhmmm...

I haven't actually seen anybody reply to the OP yet...

How about the star's mass, density, composition, size, and luminosity.

Even in Round Earth astronomy, the stars wildly vary in size between each other.

See the video on this page for an example:

Those to but I was trying to compare apples to apples.  Same size stars will still look less bright because they are further away.