Heavens Above

  • 32 Replies
  • 5722 Views
Heavens Above
« on: August 31, 2008, 12:08:26 AM »
Two points

1. We know it took millions of years for the light of the stars to reach our planet, but if everything in the universe was constantly accelerating upwards, thus producing gravity, we would not see individual specks of light but rather streaks in the sky.

2. If our planet was flat all continents would see the same stars in the sky, but they do not.
 

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2008, 01:19:01 AM »
1. In the Flat Earth model, it took only a fraction of a second for the light from the stars to reach us.

2. No they wouldn't.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2008, 04:41:43 AM »
1. In the Flat Earth model, it took only a fraction of a second for the light from the stars to reach us.

2. No they wouldn't.

2. Why not?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2008, 04:46:51 AM »
2. Why not?

Because the stars are only five thousand kilometres away.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2008, 04:49:06 AM »
Based on?  That would mean red shift theorem are wrong as well?

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2008, 04:52:21 AM »
2. Why not?

Because the stars are only five thousand kilometres away.

What...? All of them? Ok. Leave it... How do you know?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2008, 04:53:56 AM »
Based on?  That would mean red shift theorem are wrong as well?

That is what is written in the FAQ. Perhaps there is a gravitational explanation for the redshifting, I do not know.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2008, 04:54:24 AM »
What...? All of them? Ok. Leave it... How do you know?

Again, that is what is written in the FAQ. I do not know how that figure was derived.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2008, 04:57:10 AM »
Starting the gravity/gravitation semantics debate again, ought to liven things up...

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2008, 05:10:51 AM »
What...? All of them? Ok. Leave it... How do you know?

Again, that is what is written in the FAQ. I do not know how that figure was derived.

Ok, I did that already. But it is ridiculous. Who made that up? I'd really need more explanation than that...

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2008, 05:12:52 AM »
The figures were derived in the Flat Earth Literature, which can be found in my signature link.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 05:21:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2008, 05:21:22 AM »
Anything more contemporary?

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2008, 01:49:21 AM »
also why wouldn't we all see the same stars? surely if you lived at the north pole you could see some of the stars uk sees and some australia sees?

but no instead you see all northern hemisphere stars

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2008, 02:01:59 AM »
Part of the Southern cross can be observed in Hawaii

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2008, 02:03:21 AM »
yes as it is half way down and so can see some of the southern stars.

yet in the FE model the north pole is pretty much central so should be able to see some of the southern stars ie. southern cross or centaurus

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2008, 03:01:24 AM »
Quote
also why wouldn't we all see the same stars? surely if you lived at the north pole you could see some of the stars uk sees and some australia sees?

but no instead you see all northern hemisphere stars

Like the sun, the stars are shining upon a limited portion of the earth's surface.

See this thread on celestial light mechanics.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2008, 03:04:07 AM »
it makes no sense, i mean in your FE model australia can't see the same stars as south america as they are on opposite edges of the "Disc" yet they do. care to explain?

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2008, 03:13:18 AM »
Can you prove the FE theory incorrect?  The model provided in that thread is pretty straightforward.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2008, 03:16:20 AM »
i've looked at that thread but call me stupid i can't see the bit that explains about the stars.

also you stated how the sun and moon rise, but how do the stars? do they orbit us also?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2008, 03:19:41 AM »
it makes no sense, i mean in your FE model australia can't see the same stars as south america as they are on opposite edges of the "Disc" yet they do. care to explain?

They can't. The only stars they can see which are the same are the ones on the outer edges of the Northern celestial system which rotates over Australia, Africa, and South America in a 24 hour period.

You have provided no evidence that they can see the same southern stars.

Quote
also you stated how the sun and moon rise, but how do the stars? do they orbit us also?

The stars rise through the same mechanism I've described in the thread I linked above.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 03:23:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2008, 03:20:06 AM »
orbit is a subjective term.  In the gear analogy, the stars rotate in and out of frame.  A central gear with gears rotating around the central one.  I have to look for the link that has an animation of this, but Tom might be able to link it faster.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2008, 03:22:30 AM »
so are these gears invisible?

oh and also dont forget that at different times of year different stars are visible.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2008, 03:27:28 AM »
Again, it's just an analogy.  There are those who advocate multiple gears to account for rising and setting times.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2008, 03:28:56 AM »
Again, it's just an analogy.  There are those who advocate multiple gears to account for rising and setting times.

Multiple gears are not necessary for this. The stars just need to rotate once every 23 hours 56 minutes, while the Sun orbits the celestial pole every 24 hours.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2008, 03:29:31 AM »
so who built the damn gears then ;D

surely not us as we've never travelled in space.

you're right this all makes far more sense than a round earth.

fake moons, ballon satelites, and invisible gears making the stars turn. ???


Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2008, 03:42:56 AM »
glad to see the elephants and turtles weren't neglected in that crap.

seriously some people will beleive anythin.

so as stars can get oculted by planets that must mean the planets are closer than the stars.

making them only at most 3100 miles away as i think the FAQ said.

WOW we have been seriously oversizing jupiter ::)

Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2008, 03:50:39 AM »
Aparently so.  But it's not too big.  The sun and moon are only 37 miles across.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2008, 04:52:20 AM »
That's my crap Algol, and I'm proud of it... I made it to show just how stupid it looks in reality.

Here's some more.


Assuming that you're going with 3 gears in your theory like your graphic suggests and you have them over the 3 largest land masses, you've got some gaps and problem areas. This shows South America top left, Africa bottom left, and Australia center right.

It looks fine for points anywhere in a straight line between the 2 focal points, but not so much if you move away from those.

On American Samoa you would see the star gears coming together in the sky above you, and likewise on the Keeling Islands you would see them coming apart.

On French Polynesia you would see nothing but dead sky looking south.

And on the Pitcairn Islands you would see not one, but two southern focal points, one to the left and one to the right.

I think an observer in the Southern Hemisphere would think quite a bit about discrepancies like these.

Even if you're going to pull the bendy light card, on the Pitcairn Islands you would have light from both points bending in, and this phenomena would still be apparent. To get the gear theory to work for this point you'd need another set of outer gears between each of the 3 original ones. To get it to work at points between those, another set of gears. And so on and so forth, with each new set interfering with the old ones until the sky looks nothing like it does in reality...

Also, you have here 2 stars on the inner disk
and a star on the outer disks. These stars always show up near each other in the visible sky.

As you can see, there are 3 outer disk stars. Now if the star on the Australia disk were to supernova, would the other disk stars supernova as well, and why? Out of sympathy?

On an unrelated note, what about galaxy's?


There are literally millions of them, and they follow the apparent paths of these gears. You can see a number of them with the naked eye, most notably andromeda,

and you can see thousands more with a hobbyist telescope.

Is it the FE assertion that these are merely 5000 miles away?
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Heavens Above
« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2008, 10:06:47 AM »
it makes no sense, i mean in your FE model australia can't see the same stars as south america as they are on opposite edges of the "Disc" yet they do. care to explain?

They can't. The only stars they can see which are the same are the ones on the outer edges of the Northern celestial system which rotates over Australia, Africa, and South America in a 24 hour period.

You have provided no evidence that they can see the same southern stars.

Quote
also you stated how the sun and moon rise, but how do the stars? do they orbit us also?

The stars rise through the same mechanism I've described in the thread I linked above.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506

Tom,

Human experience* suggests that the same constellations can be viewed across the southern hemisphere. 
  -All the southern continents have major observatories.
  -There are no separate star charts for S/America, S/Africa and South America. 

It is up to YOU to prove otherwise!

* that's intelligent collaborative experience; Not limited one individual's repeated attempts to reinvent a wheel and making a square one by mistake.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.