Position relative to stars

  • 7 Replies
  • 1200 Views
Position relative to stars
« on: August 04, 2008, 03:53:24 PM »
Another question. If the Earth is a plane then we all see the same celestial hemisphere. Yet the 'northern' and 'southern' 'hemispheres' on Earth do not see the same star patterns. If we take current distance estimates to be correct in so far as they are large relative to the solar distance scale, then the size of the Earth should not be significant. By this is mean the distance between one side of the disc and another should not make any difference to what we see. This evidently is not the case.

Therefore you have to bring the cosmos to a distance where our view is significantly changed by your position on the Earth. Of course at this distance you have to explain why the Earth is not bathed in a radiation steralising it of all life. The anthropic principle suggests this is not the case.

The southern cross can be used to act as south pole constellation, serving a similar purpose to polaris. While not as good this constellation can be seen from the outside of the disc, but not from the inside.

?

narcberry

  • 5584
  • Reason > RET
Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2008, 11:50:48 PM »
The stars are much closer on FE than on RE. Otherwise I would be obliged to agree.

Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2008, 02:21:33 AM »
I do not believe that this response addresses all of my points. I accepted that if you assume the stars are close, that is roughly in the solar distance scale then we would expect to see a difference in star pattern with respect to our location on the Earth. Except I suspect we will have to modify a substational part of stellar physics (all the distances are wrong), cosmology (the unverse is smaller), nuclear phyics (we must be wrong about how stars burn), atomic physics (spectral lines must be wrong). If stars burn the way we think they do then bringing the universe into the near field would in short fry us. I havent even considerd the effect of more exotic phenomena such as bleck holes and neutron stars.

I was going to attempt calculations but I think I read that the sun orbits the Earth in this theory? Yet the other planets still orbit the sun? Many body gravitational systems are pretty unstable entitities, we're very lucky to be here, even in the heliocentric model i'd be very suprised if this model were stable. Maybe im wrong, well while I come to think about it im pretty sure if you put a heavy body in orbit around a massively lighter body things wont stay that way for long. Im really not that bothered but you can download freeware apps that solve these equations for the solar system someone should try putting the sun in oribt around the earth. Though if you take a 2-body system where one body is much heavier than the other, say the Earth and the Sun then the centre of mass will approximate to the larger body. So if the Earth doesnt go round the sun out goes classical mechanics and graivty (GR ahs absolutely no effect here as it limits to Newtonian mechanics in the low potential limit).

Anyway my main point was this: consider the Earth as the flat discoid seating area within a planetarium. The people around the outside are the inhabitants of the Southern Hemisphere, while those seated in the middle are the inhabitants of the Northern Hemisphere. Someone in the centre of the planetarium looks up and sees Polaris and the northern hemisphere constellations but as you go away form the centre people at constant radius should be seeing the same thing, but they wont. In the extreme case the people in Patagonia will see something totally different from the good citizens of Sydney.

?

narcberry

  • 5584
  • Reason > RET
Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2008, 11:34:41 AM »
The sun doesn't orbit the earth. Read the FAQ. Or research the links found in my index.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2008, 11:41:56 AM »
I may be wrong, but as far as I know, cosmology is the single largest hole in FET, and one I have yet to see adequetely accounted for. In my opinion, this is the single largest challenge facing FET today, and a predictive system for the movements of the heavens will herald the undoing of the conspiracy. That said, I speak only for myself; other FE'ers may have their own views/beliefs.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2008, 12:01:10 PM »
The sun doesn't orbit the earth. Read the FAQ. Or research the links found in my index.
so the sun no longer moves in a circle over the earth, while the planets orbit around the sun?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2008, 12:37:42 PM »
My question was not about what orbits what, we can discuss how the stars are seen without needing to infer the Earth orbits anything. Refer to my planetarium example.

?

narcberry

  • 5584
  • Reason > RET
Re: Position relative to stars
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2008, 03:59:35 PM »
The sun doesn't orbit the earth. Read the FAQ. Or research the links found in my index.
so the sun no longer moves in a circle over the earth, while the planets orbit around the sun?

Circle over the earth = orbiting the earth? I guess by that logic I can finally agree the ISS *can* orbit the flat earth.