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

• 169 Replies
• 32473 Views
?

#### LinearPlane

• 259
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #60 on: December 09, 2011, 07:08:43 AM »
Tom Bishop/This thread = FET destroyed. This guy is quoted in your Wiki as PROVEN the earth is flat. yeah. right.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

?

#### EmperorZhark

• 2229
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #61 on: December 09, 2011, 07:26:45 AM »
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.

The first paragraph is called a sophism.

The second one is a negative sophism.

There must be a better way to demonstrate this idea of a FE sky.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #62 on: December 09, 2011, 01:51:19 PM »
Tom Bishop/This thread = FET destroyed. This guy is quoted in your Wiki as PROVEN the earth is flat. yeah. right.

Conveniently, Tom himself has only posted once in this whole thread, even though it's entirely based on something he said. When this is all over, he can hide from the fact that his claims were utterly destroyed by saying that the posters in this thread weren't speaking on his behalf, keeping his "real" proof hidden so it can continue to be worshiped like the mythical entity that it is.
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.

?

#### LinearPlane

• 259
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #63 on: December 09, 2011, 01:54:29 PM »
Tom Bishop/This thread = FET destroyed. This guy is quoted in your Wiki as PROVEN the earth is flat. yeah. right.

Conveniently, Tom himself has only posted once in this whole thread, even though it's entirely based on something he said. When this is all over, he can hide from the fact that his claims were utterly destroyed by saying that the posters in this thread weren't speaking on his behalf, keeping his "real" proof hidden so it can continue to be worshiped like the mythical entity that it is.

Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

#### PizzaPlanet

• 12259
• Now available in stereo
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #64 on: December 11, 2011, 05:31:37 AM »
Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to. However, calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.
hacking your precious forum as we speak

?

#### 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 #65 on: December 11, 2011, 05:57:06 AM »
Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to. However, calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.

There are several threads where Tom Bishop states things as absolute which were thoroughly disproven. A quick search turns up claims that all published sunset and sunrise times are false, which is enough on its own to show that he plays fast and loose with reality.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #66 on: December 11, 2011, 08:59:17 AM »
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to.

That's what this thread has done. However,
Quote
Conveniently, Tom himself has only posted once in this whole thread, even though it's entirely based on something he said. When this is all over, he can hide from the fact that his claims were utterly destroyed by saying that the posters in this thread weren't speaking on his behalf, keeping his "real" proof hidden so it can continue to be worshiped like the mythical entity that it is.
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.

#### PizzaPlanet

• 12259
• Now available in stereo
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #67 on: December 11, 2011, 11:54:01 AM »
There are several threads where Tom Bishop states things as absolute which were thoroughly disproven.
So you're trying to infer from that that since some of his threads were, in your opinion, disproved, then that also disproves the thread in question here?
hacking your precious forum as we speak

?

#### EireEngineer

• 1205
• Woo Nemesis
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #68 on: December 11, 2011, 12:57:38 PM »
I hate to point out the obvious, but even a cheap telescope reveals that there is a lot more up there than just pinpoints of light.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #69 on: December 11, 2011, 04:49:57 PM »
Apparently Tausami will concede that the stars visible through your telescope are indeed distant, or as he puts it, on a "higher level". But he'd still have to deal with that pesky fact that you can see different stars through your telescope in the north than in the south.
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 #70 on: December 11, 2011, 06:46:57 PM »
^^ the upper two posts are very important.  Please explain these.

Also, is there a place where the heavens meet the earth?  Because that would be pretty awesome.

#### Rushy

• 8971
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #71 on: December 11, 2011, 07:29:58 PM »
^^ the upper two posts are very important.  Please explain these.

Also, is there a place where the heavens meet the earth?  Because that would be pretty awesome.

Yes, its a mystical golden escalator only the purest chosen flat earthers can see. Which hardly explains why I can see it in the first place.

?

#### LinearPlane

• 259
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2011, 08:20:53 AM »
Have you seen the section of the WIKI where it says "TOM BISHOP DEMONSTRATED THE WORLD IS FLAT...."? They say this guy proved the world is flat. What a bunch of BS. What an elaborate hoax.
If you would like to debate his proof, feel free to. However, calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it is somewhat intellectually dishonest.

FET is a hoax. Prove it isn't by buying a 100 dollar telescope.
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 #73 on: December 12, 2011, 10:58:33 AM »
There are several threads where Tom Bishop states things as absolute which were thoroughly disproven.
So you're trying to infer from that that since some of his threads were, in your opinion, disproved, then that also disproves the thread in question here?

Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it. Also some have been disproved regardless of opinion, by presenting data that contradicts Tom's theories and maps. Of course that doesn't mean that his history of being consistently wrong precludes him from being right on another occasion, however it is my belief that he is wrong about most things and therefore the likelihood of him being right about stuff in future is low.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

#### LinearPlane

• 259
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2011, 08:23:12 AM »
Not one person defending the Tom Bishop statement, not even himself. Someone needs to delete that retarded WIKI that says he demonstrated the earth is flat. Makes you guys look real real dumb.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

?

#### YOUR MINDS ARE FLAT

• 3
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2011, 05:30:41 PM »
look out flat earth believers  don't look up to the stars you might get hit by a star rock we must look out cause they are so near i cant believe how deep you talk about that imaginations your minds are in a dream world

?

#### Sean

• Official Member
• 10736
• ...
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2011, 06:28:39 PM »
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

#### PizzaPlanet

• 12259
• Now available in stereo
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2011, 07:04:18 PM »
Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it.
Assuming that he's wrong, that makes him wrong, and not a hoax. Unless you do have evidence of him intentionally misleading people, which is what I asked for.
But you already knew all this, didn't you?
hacking your precious forum as we speak

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #78 on: December 13, 2011, 07:46:16 PM »
So you're falling back on semantics once again. It should be clear that The Knowledge only meant that Tom is full of shit. And to refresh your memory, it was not The Knowledge whom you asked for evidence of Tom intentionally misleading people; it was LinearPlane who initially used the word "hoax" -- and he was not referring to Tom himself, rather the wiki's claim that Tom "demonstrated the Earth is flat".

And we do have evidence that that claim is a "hoax": These people who hold up Tom as some sort of authority with proof, when specifically confronted with Tom's actual claims (such as this thread), they openly deny them and say that they believe something completely different (which I recently witnessed you do yourself regarding Antarctica). Saying that Tom has proved the Earth is flat when that proof is admittedly incompatible with one's own beliefs is claiming something to be true that one knows is false, AKA a "hoax". The only difference between this and a traditional hoax designed to deceive others is that the perpetrators have succeeded in fooling themselves.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 07:48:02 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.

?

#### LinearPlane

• 259
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2011, 09:45:01 AM »
Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it.
Assuming that he's wrong, that makes him wrong, and not a hoax. Unless you do have evidence of him intentionally misleading people, which is what I asked for.
But you already knew all this, didn't you?

That is not Tom Bishop and he's intentionally misleading people. He is a hoaxer just like you.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

?

#### OrbisNonSufficit

• 3124
• I love Gasoline.
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2011, 10:30:31 AM »
Wrong. I'm wiping the floor with your phrase "calling someone a hoax with no single word to support it" by showing that there is a lot more than a single word supporting it.
Assuming that he's wrong, that makes him wrong, and not a hoax. Unless you do have evidence of him intentionally misleading people, which is what I asked for.
But you already knew all this, didn't you?

Examples of Tom misleading people (or at a minimum proving he is an unreliable source), Yeah, i think i might be able to find a few...

Quote
The separation between Grumman and its employees are so distant that they don't even know what their employees are working on.  Grumman knew that their employees were working on some Apollo projects and went with that for their press releases. Their engineers work in government facilities for government managers. The only interaction a contractor has with his company is a paycheck twice a month.

Quote
This particular Grumman Exec is a special case

Quote
Typically the executives and managers at the head-hunting company don't really know what their employees are doing for their clients.

"Though production of the Lunar Module was confined to the „clean rooms" in Plant 5 at Bethpage"
http://www.anft.net/f-14/grumman-gmp.htm

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/obit-gavin.html
http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/inspace/index.html

Here are three sites that all say that he was a Grumman employee, and one even says the year he was hired, 1946!

Well this thoroughly proves that Tom either;

A) Does not do any research but simply spews out BS upon more BS until there is so much BS you cannot see the truth, and this is just an unusual example where its easy to see through the BS.  You usually can see through his BS, but it takes more time than this example.  He really is not trying to mislead people, he is just too lazy and works off the assumption that his experience/knowledge base is sufficient for every topic.  This would explain his refusal to post sources.  So its possible that he is not intentionally misleading people, but simply an idiot that no one should listen to.

B) He knew that Grumman helped on the lander, so he lied to make Grumman just an extension of the government by saying that they had no control over their employees and that they worked on a government facility.  Then i gave him Gavin (vice president of Grumman during the lander development, and head manager of the program.  (not to mention i gave him an article that said Grumman had begun the project before ever being contracted by NASA so that they would be more likely to be awarded the project).  he discredited Gavin by saying he was a NASA employee and not a Grumman employee at the time.  Then i gave him three articles saying he was a Grumman employee., and an article that said the craft was built on a grumman facility in bethpage New york, hell even the plant number was included.

I think the second is more likely, because Tom has been silent on the issue.  Had he come out and said, "your right, im sorry, ive just worked for many government contractors and they never worked like grumman did during the 60s" I would have been entirely copacetic with what had transpired.  But now its too late, so im really just stuck with option B.

Oh and then there is the suggestion that countries would just print money to build GPS towers, that is either stupid or deliberately misleading.

Quote
Considering that countries print their own currencies and can afford anything they want to afford (at least in the short term), I will have to disagree.

And my personal favorite, people on the equator do not have time for complex or alternative threories, they are too busy flinging turds at eachother!

Quote
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2011, 05:10:47 PM »
Notice how Tausami, who was previously active in this thread, immediately disappeared without a trace as soon as I asked him this:

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no.
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.

?

#### 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 #82 on: December 17, 2011, 12:27:09 PM »
Notice how Tausami, who was previously active in this thread, immediately disappeared without a trace as soon as I asked him this:

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no.

Generally, the best way to kill a thread on this forum is to force the FE'ers into a yes/no answer situation. They tend not to answer as they worry you might have an argument that goes "Well in that case, then...[insert cunning argument here]" and they will be unable to backtrack now they have committed to a position.
A good example is the postulate that INS can detect deviation of a path to left or right. They won't say yes because it disproves the "you travel in a circle on a FE" circumnavigation argument, and they won't say no because it leaves them with no explanation of how INS is able to operate successfully.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### Tausami

• 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 #83 on: December 18, 2011, 10:38:26 AM »
Notice how Tausami, who was previously active in this thread, immediately disappeared without a trace as soon as I asked him this:

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no.

Actually, I more or less disappeared from the forum for a few days and forgot about it. I'm working on a project (nothing to do with FES, it's for population control of Chrysaora Quinquecirrha).

Anyway,

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.

My argument is constantly changing as I debate my theories. That's why I bother to do it. In the beginning of the thread I believed Bishop to be correct, and indeed didn't really understand the issue at hand. Now, having debated about it for a while, I believe that he may be incorrect. Is that a good enough answer?
I know the link doesn't work. The wiki is down. Again.

That's a good point. I'll think about it for a bit and get back to you.

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2011, 12:01:34 PM »
The problem is that Tom's inference actually is correct; assuming the Earth is flat, the stars must be close enough for us to only be able to see a certain section of the skyscape depending where on the plane we're standing. If A is true, then B must be -- so if B is false, then A must be false also. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either the stars are all close, or the Earth is not flat.
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

• 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 #85 on: December 18, 2011, 12:03:36 PM »
The problem is that Tom's inference actually is correct; assuming the Earth is flat, the stars must be close enough for us to only be able to see a certain section of the skyscape depending where on the plane we're standing. If A is true, then B must be -- so if B is false, then A must be false also. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either the stars are all close, or the Earth is not flat.

Unless the starlight is angled, like in a holographic billboard.

#### zarg

• 1181
• Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #86 on: December 18, 2011, 01:20:43 PM »
Let's see a drawing that demonstrates how "angled starlight" can account for what the sky looks like at any given time from multiple points -- north, south, equator, etc.

Also, any hypothesis as to why a several-light-years-long cylinder of stars rotates according to Earth's shape?
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

• 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 #87 on: December 18, 2011, 01:24:53 PM »
Let's see a drawing that demonstrates how "angled starlight" can account for what the sky looks like at any given time from multiple points -- north, south, equator, etc.

Also, any hypothesis as to why a several-light-years-long cylinder of stars rotates according to Earth's shape?

It follows the trail of the Aetheric Whirlwind formed by the anti-massiveness of the Earth's shadow.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #88 on: December 18, 2011, 02:20:54 PM »
Is this thread still going?

Who says there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe?

If you could count  and identify 1 per second it would take 9.50662939 * 1015 years to count them. As the universe is only 14 *109 years old, you can see this hasn't happened.

What you have is a guess. As stupid guess. A guess made by someone who just decided to put a ridiculously large number on it. If there were that many stars (think how big a star is in the sky) and imagine a near infinite amount of them (a sextillion is a number incomprehensible to humans - you may as well think infinite), then all those little white stars aren't going to leave any room for darkness. We would all be wearing welding goggles at night. Infinite stars means infinite star-light means a blinding white sky. It doesn't matter that some aren't visible to the human eye, atoms aren't either, but enough of them and you see an object - in this case infinite sources of light.

The whole theory is preposterous. There are not 300 sextillion stars.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« Reply #89 on: December 18, 2011, 03:12:46 PM »
Is this thread still going?

Who says there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe?

If you could count  and identify 1 per second it would take 9.50662939 * 1015 years to count them. As the universe is only 14 *109 years old, you can see this hasn't happened.

What you have is a guess. As stupid guess. A guess made by someone who just decided to put a ridiculously large number on it. If there were that many stars (think how big a star is in the sky) and imagine a near infinite amount of them (a sextillion is a number incomprehensible to humans - you may as well think infinite), then all those little white stars aren't going to leave any room for darkness. We would all be wearing welding goggles at night. Infinite stars means infinite star-light means a blinding white sky. It doesn't matter that some aren't visible to the human eye, atoms aren't either, but enough of them and you see an object - in this case infinite sources of light.

The whole theory is preposterous. There are not 300 sextillion stars.
Let us know when your count is complete. We'd love to know the correct number. Until then we'll have to go with the experts.

Quote from: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/
There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards