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

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 06:09:23 PM

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.

Hardly!

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=153

Did you actually read the posts in that link?

If astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?

The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.

How wide is the Ultra Deep Field's slice of the heavens?

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is called a "pencil beam" survey because the observations encompass a narrow, yet "deep" piece of sky. Astronomers compare the Ultra Deep Field view to looking through an eight-foot-long soda straw.

The Ultra Deep Field's patch of sky is so tiny it would fit inside the largest impact basin that makes up the face on the Moon. Astronomers would need about 50 Ultra Deep Fields to cover the entire Moon.

Astronomers chose what they believed to be an empty chunk of sky to survey.  If there are that many galaxies in such a tiny, empty piece of sky, then how do you suppose that compares to the number of galaxies that are more readily visible?

The reason that they weren't clearer is because we know they would expect us to expect them to try to make the images as clear as possible. Therefore, they made the images unclear so we wouldn't think they were fabricated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html

There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Well, yes, that's the point. Why are there so many different unaffiliated groups trying to perpetuate the same hoax? If even one of them is not hoaxing, then your whole theory is destroyed. Therefore, you need to individually prove that each one is a hoax, or at least propose individual motives for each one, otherwise you have no logical reason to believe it's happening.

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 06:30:46 PM

The reason that they weren't clearer is because we know they would expect us to expect them to try to make the images as clear as possible. Therefore, they made the images unclear so we wouldn't think they were fabricated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html

Come on dude, please use your brain. They would obviously expect us to expect them to get some of them right.

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 06:30:46 PM

There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Well, yes, that's the point. Why are there so many different unaffiliated groups trying to perpetuate the same hoax? If even one of them is not hoaxing, then your whole theory is destroyed. Therefore, you need to individually prove that each one is a hoax, or at least propose individual motives for each one, otherwise you have no logical reason to believe it's happening.

You're changing your point. Before you wanted me to compile a list, now you're changing your point because you know that your previous point can't stand up to the fact that no list is needed.

If you have any more questions, read the FAQ.

Astronomers chose what they believed to be an empty chunk of sky to survey.  If there are that many galaxies in such a tiny, empty piece of sky, then how do you suppose that compares to the number of galaxies that are more readily visible?

Less than one percent.

Do you need me to draw you a picture?



Yellow represents the UDF. Red represents the rest of the area that would fall under the "barely visible category". Blue represents the rest of the visible universe, or "more readily visible" area.

Check me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every galaxy in the UDF is in the "barely visible" category.  That was the whole point of the UDF. 

Quote

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 06:30:46 PM

There is no need to compile such a list since they all do it.

Well, yes, that's the point. Why are there so many different unaffiliated groups trying to perpetuate the same hoax? If even one of them is not hoaxing, then your whole theory is destroyed. Therefore, you need to individually prove that each one is a hoax, or at least propose individual motives for each one, otherwise you have no logical reason to believe it's happening.

You're changing your point. Before you wanted me to compile a list, now you're changing your point because you know that your previous point can't stand up to the fact that no list is needed.

Nope, not changing my point. You mistakenly believed that the the green statement was in reference to the blue clause, but I was referring to the red one. I'm still asking you to compile a list, for the reason given in orange.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 06:37:43 PM

Astronomers chose what they believed to be an empty chunk of sky to survey.  If there are that many galaxies in such a tiny, empty piece of sky, then how do you suppose that compares to the number of galaxies that are more readily visible?

Less than one percent.

Do you need me to draw you a picture?



Yellow represents the UDF. Red represents the rest of the area that would fall under the "barely visible category". Blue represents the rest of the visible universe, or "more readily visible" area.

Ok, you're being inconsistent now. For three reasons, actually.

1) If yellow is the "UDF" and blue is the universe, then what is red?

2) Why the hell is the universe blue? Do round earthers now think that the universe is blue?

3) The UDF has to be a fabrication because it is impossible for a telescope to fly in space for that long.

Please think before posting.

Do round earthers now think that the universe is blue?

It is. Look out your window.

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 07:14:30 PM

Do round earthers now think that the universe is blue?

It is. Look out your window.

Ok I just did. It's black. Anything else you want me to do?

I love how you have to do all this verbal gymnastics to make me think anything you have to offer is legitimate. Pathetic.

Check me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every galaxy in the UDF is in the "barely visible" category.  That was the whole point of the UDF.

The blurry galaxies are blurry because they're at the extreme range of the telescope, obviously. As such they represent only the outermost extremes of the observable universe, which is nowhere near its total area. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this?

The blurry galaxies are blurry because they're at the extreme range of the telescope, obviously. As such they represent only the outermost extremes of the observable universe, which is nowhere near its total area.

The Universe has the property of area? Funny, I thought that applied only to two-dimensional objects.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2011, 06:59:15 PM

Check me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every galaxy in the UDF is in the "barely visible" category.  That was the whole point of the UDF.

The blurry galaxies are blurry because they're at the extreme range of the telescope, obviously. As such they represent only the outermost extremes of the observable universe, which is nowhere near its total area. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this?

I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.  This goes back to my original point that of the estimated 300 sextillion stars in the universe, only a tiny fraction are visible to observers.

I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.

Your second sentence contradicts the first, since what I just finished explaining was why it's false. The quality of the HUDF is not representative of the rest of the observable universe, it's only representative of the rest of its farthest extremes.

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2011, 06:16:05 AM

I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.

Your second sentence contradicts the first, since what I just finished explaining was why it's false. The quality of the HUDF is not representative of the rest of the observable universe, it's only representative of the rest of its farthest extremes.

So you're saying I can go outside right now and see on the order of 150 sextillion (half of the total number if, as you claim, you can observe most of the stars) stars?

Nope, can't see that many. The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

Irrelevant to which conversation? The one I was having with markjo was specifically about said telescopes, so they are absolutely relevant. I'm not really interested in a conversation with a lazy and unimaginative troll such as you.

No one admitted Tom Bishop is a scammer and a fraud yet? Hmmm. I see nothing will change things around here.

May I remind you, your "wiki" says this guy CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated the world is flat.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626

Quote from: NASA_Lies on December 28, 2011, 07:14:42 PM

The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

Irrelevant to which conversation? The one I was having with markjo was specifically about said telescopes, so they are absolutely relevant. I'm not really interested in a conversation with a lazy and unimaginative troll such as you.

I am most certainly not unimaginative.

Posts like "Well I say they aren't there" and "You're just saying that to hide the fact that you know I'm right" suggest otherwise. You can be even more boring than Parsifal at times.

Where is scam bishop to argue his fake claims?

Where is scam bishop to argue his fake claims?

Probably pestering ICANN about Daniel not loggin in here enough.