Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)

  • 169 Replies
  • 27205 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #30 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. 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.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 12:20:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #31 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.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #32 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?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #33 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. 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.

Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #34 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. 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?
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #35 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.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 12:15:03 PM by Tausami »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #36 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.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41916
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #37 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. 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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #38 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.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 02:10:27 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #39 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?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41916
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #40 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #41 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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #42 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

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #43 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

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.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #44 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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #45 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

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?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #46 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

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.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #47 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

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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #48 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

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?
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #49 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

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.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #50 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

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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #51 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.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #52 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.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #53 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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #54 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. 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?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 04:18:05 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #55 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. 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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #56 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. 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?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #57 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. 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

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #58 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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #59 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 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.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 01:24:40 AM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.