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

That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy.

Any just why does the projector have a will?

That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy. Since we've shown that all stars can't be 3100 miles above the FE, you invent a new construct, a magical canvas and decide that stars aren't real now.

Any just why does the projector have a will?

He never said they do. He said there can be as many stars as the projector wills.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:38:48 PM

That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy. Since we've shown that all stars can't be 3100 miles above the FE, you invent a new construct, a magical canvas and decide that stars aren't real now.

Argumentum ad hominem. Please address my argument, not the means I used to construct it.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:38:48 PM

Any just why does the projector have a will?

By that I meant the entity which creates the projection, not the tool that is used to do so.

Nope, that's not an ad hominem. I attacked your argument by demonstrating that it rests on a fallacy.

So you now need "the entity" now. How special pleading of you!

Quote from: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:57:47 PM

Nope, that's not an ad hominem. I attacked your argument by demonstrating that it rests on a fallacy.

It doesn't rest on anything you attacked. My argument doesn't require me to invent it as a result of this thread in order to be valid. It stands in its own right, regardless of how it was arrived at.

If you can't respond to my argument itself, you won't get very far.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 10:57:47 PM

So you now need "the entity" now. How special pleading of you!

That was my intended meaning from the beginning. I do apologise for assuming that you would have the mental capacity to come to this realisation on your own, however.

This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

That is a response to your argument.

When you have to make up new features that you haven't verified to solve a problem in your theory, you make a 'special pleading' fallacy.

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/

This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

So while it may be true that I have committed a fallacy, it does not follow that what I have said is false. Once again, I will ask you to address my argument.

Who actually counted these stars?

As far as I know people just looked at some blobs of supposedly distant galaxies and said "oh there must be several billion stars in there."

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.

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.

The night sky (and possibly also the daytime sky, though this is uncertain) is simply a projection onto an overhead surface, probably made of canvas. The stars therefore do not exist as objects unto themselves, but are projected from an unknown location on the Earth's surface.

Therefore, there can be as many stars as the projector wills there to be.

I see no reason that I, or anyone else, should argue against your unsupported point. The burden is on you to show first that what you've said is true. Once you make a well-formed argument that your position is true, I'll, and others, will be happy to respond.

What is the resolution of the projector? You haven't solved the problem whatsoever. You just changed it from the stars must be impossibly small to the projector's pixels must be impossibly small.

Who said anyone actually counted these starts? We have estimated the number of stars by statistical methods.

I don't see why there must be one projection facility. Each star can be projected by its own individual facility...

...which focuses its light such that its width is that of a single wavelength when it reaches the stellar canvas.

In this way, the many facilities may be spread across the unexplored glaciers beyond the ice wall.

Quote

Who said anyone actually counted these starts? We have estimated the number of stars by statistical methods.

If the number of stars is unknown then it defeats the purpose of this thread.

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.

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.

Quote from: Parsifal on December 27, 2011, 05:32:52 AM

I don't see why there must be one projection facility. Each star can be projected by its own individual facility...

You still haven't solved anything. All you're doing is making it more and more complicated. You've gone from 300 sextillion stars; to 300 sextillion pixels in a single projector; to 300 sextillion individual projectors.

Stars visible to the naked eye are in the thousands, but I don't see how that's relevant unless the FE'ers want to add at least a few million people to the Conspiracy.

stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

Your point was that 300 sextillion stars would never fit in the sky, and yet a galaxy that represents ~100 billion stars can take up a blotch of just a few pixels on the hubble ultra deep field. Stop being dishonest and actually come up with an argument.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 01:00:12 PM

stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 01:07:07 PM

Your point was that 300 sextillion stars would never fit in the sky, and yet a galaxy that represents ~100 billion stars can take up a blotch of just a few pixels on the hubble ultra deep field. Stop being dishonest and actually come up with an argument.

Again the range of uncertainty is not wide enough. Even if we assume that those splotches aren't made up of billions of more stars, it doesn't work. The ultra-deep field is so far away (or "apparently far" according to FET) -- 13 billion light-years -- that even those entire galaxies would have to be too small to possibly exist.

So you agree with me then.

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 01:52:05 PM

So you agree with me then.

Yes, we are both in agreement that FET is bullshit.

Well, before playing devil's advocate you should be sure you know what the other side is saying. I haven't seen any FE'er deny that the stars exist. The fact that you see more as you look closer with telescopes must mean either that they are farther away or that they are smaller. RET says they are farther away, while FET says they are smaller.

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?

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 01:00:12 PM

stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

Quote from: zarg on December 27, 2011, 01:50:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 01:00:12 PM

stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

ORLY?  How many of those 300 sextillion stars can be seen?

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 05:23:01 PM

Quote from: zarg on December 27, 2011, 01:50:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 01:00:12 PM

stars that can't be seen (even by the most powerful telescopes)

An overwhelming majority of them can be.

ORLY?  How many of those 300 sextillion stars can be seen?

Yes, really. You understand that the "barely visible" galaxies you mention are only the ones at the outermost range, right? The rest can be observed close enough to see the individual stars.

From what I understand, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field surveys showed that most of the galaxies in the universe fall into the "barely visible" category.

Then you're not being consistent. First your argument was that distant galaxies might not actually consist of smaller stars since they aren't clearly visible in a HUDF image; now you're saying none of the distant bodies exist in the first place, which makes your original point useless.

More importantly, if the HUDF is fabricated, why aren't the images clearer? As I said in an earlier post,

Quote from: zarg on December 08, 2011, 01:51:50 PM

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?

But of course you don't need the HUDF, or indeed Hubble or NASA at all, to determine that there are too many stars for them to exist at 3100 miles. So could you please compile a complete list of organizations who publish fake images or build hoax telescopes, with accompanying evidence and motive for each?

And why do they keep wasting so much money repairing and building new telescopes if they're just hunks of metal that don't actually do anything?

Come on NASA_Lies, I know you can do better.