Do Stars Move?

If one was to move a significant distance from 1 part of the Earth to another, you would see a different set of stars in the sky at night. This wouldn't happen if the Earth was flat.

As the stars are close to the earth's surface, when you move from one part of the earth to another you are bringing up a different set of stars.

I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...

I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...

Is this statement supposed to be relevant to the discussion?

I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...

The celestial bodies are calculated to be within a few thousand miles of the earth's surface in the Flat Earth model. They are very close to the earth.

The concept is illustrated with the sun here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

stars are approximately 5100 km above the earth. and they move in planar and spherical earth thoery.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 08:54:42 AM

I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...

The celestial bodies are calculated to be within a few thousand miles of the earth's surface in the Flat Earth model. They are very close to the earth.

The concept is illustrated with the sun here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

The calculations include magnifying the sun/stars near the horizon being magnified. This has been shown to be fallacious due to the fact that it is claimed that the stars & sun are also dimmed at this point, which is not in line with observed effects.

If the stars are a mere 5100km high, why don't the stars directly overhead get smaller and closer together as one heads several thousand miles north or south.

The southern cross would be a little smaller when viewed from near the equator (in fact, would it even resemble a cross when viewed from that angle?)

Same with the far north constellations and the north star.  Wouldn't they appear smaller and flattened as one's distance from the stars increase a thousand miles and the viewing angle becomes much shallower?

"In the Times newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence," it is stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in 23.53 latitude, and longitude 35.46"

No mention of any distortion.  I would think something like that would have been noticed by now.

If the stars are a mere 5100km high, why don't the stars directly overhead get smaller and closer together as one heads several thousand miles north or south.

The southern cross would be a little smaller when viewed from near the equator (in fact, would it even resemble a cross when viewed from that angle?)

Same with the far north constellations and the north star.  Wouldn't they appear smaller and flattened as one's distance from the stars increase a thousand miles and the viewing angle becomes much shallower?

"In the Times newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence," it is stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in 23.53 latitude, and longitude 35.46"

No mention of any distortion.  I would think something like that would have been noticed by now.

its taken over a year for somebody to post this! you just uncovered the truth and a fatal blow to the fes. constellations wouldnt even exist on a flat earth because they would look different depending where you are. there is a small change now but nothing like it should be.
tangled in your own web of perspective tom.

The reason the stars don't build up at the horizon line and change configuration, seeming to be squished together near the horizon, is because they are all descending towards the earth at a constant velocity. It is widely observable that when a receding body increases its altitude it approaches the horizon line at a more constant pace. For example, an airplane moving away from you at 40,000 feet in altitude would move slower and more constantly into the horizon than an airplane at 4,000 feet in altitude, despite the two moving at the same speed into the horizon. The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they have broadened the perspective line to their maximum angle in relation to an observer on earth, all stars descending at a constant or near constant pace. Hence, multiple bodies which move into the horizon at the same consistency would not change configuration.

There's an article in the Wiki about this, but it is about the sun: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

We weren't talking about the stars descending towards the horizon, we were talking about changing your location on the earth. The constellations should look different from Quebec than they do from New Jersey, but they don't. They look the same. Go to any planetarium. They all show the same constellations. You can also do this research for yourself. Record the stars you see and their angular distance from one another, then record it from a location 1000 miles away. There will be no change when there should be according to your figures. You are using perspective laws to explain one phenomenon that apply to something totally unrelated.

The stars are moving at a constant pace into the horizon. They don't build up near the horizon line and wouldn't change configuration.

Regardless if you move to another location on the earth, or you wait for the stars to move, they are not going to build up and change configuration on the horizon line if they are descending at a constant pace in relation to each other.

Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.

Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.

It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 11:49:38 AM

Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.

It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.

Yet they shouldn't descent at all, but that's a whole different topic.

This isn't about movement, it's about seeming location. Your two planes at different altitudes scenario is not the same as what we're talking about. If the stars are 5100km above the surface of the earth, then they are at the same altitude as each other. So let me pitch a scenario to you.

If two planes are flying at 40,000 feet while maintaining 0 relative velocity to each other, which means, for all who don't know, that they are staying the exact same distance from each other and maintaining the exact same airspeed, then as they move away, the should appear to approach one another. As things fade into the distance, they appear to get smaller. Since these two objects and traveling exactly equal in relation to one another, we can treat them as the same object. That object should appear to get smaller.

The above scenario should be happening with the stars. Yes, 6000 miles is a huge difference and should appear as such, but it does not. The stars to not appear to move in relation to one another as they should, shown by the scenario I just presented.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 11:49:38 AM

Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.

It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.

Here's a nice simple 2D 'fill in the blank' diagram. 

How do the stars directly over person 'A' appear the same when seen by person 'B' with no visual shrinking or squashing of the layout or constellations?

The reason the stars don't build up at the horizon line and change configuration, seeming to be squished together near the horizon, is because they are all descending towards the earth at a constant velocity. It is widely observable that when a receding body increases its altitude it approaches the horizon line at a more constant pace. For example, an airplane moving away from you at 40,000 feet would move slower and more constantly into the horizon than an airplane at 4000 feet, despite the two moving at the same speed into the horizon. The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they have broadened the perspective line to their maximum angle in relation to an observer on earth, all stars descending at a constant or near constant pace. Hence, multiple bodies which move into the horizon at the same consistency would not change configuration.

There's an article in the Wiki about this, but it is about the sun: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

then nothing can 'squish together' according to this. lets swap it around and say 2 objects are stationary but im moving at a constant velocity. will this mean they wont appear to squish together?
the short answer is yes they will.
even if your post was irrelevant to the subject at hand because you didnt understand what we were saying it was still wrong.

The reason the stars don't build up at the horizon line and change configuration, seeming to be squished together near the horizon, is because they are all descending towards the earth at a constant velocity. It is widely observable that when a receding body increases its altitude it approaches the horizon line at a more constant pace. For example, an airplane moving away from you at 40,000 feet would move slower and more constantly into the horizon than an airplane at 4000 feet, despite the two moving at the same speed into the horizon. The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they have broadened the perspective line to their maximum angle in relation to an observer on earth, all stars descending at a constant or near constant pace. Hence, multiple bodies which move into the horizon at the same consistency would not change configuration.

There's an article in the Wiki about this, but it is about the sun: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Nothing yet?  Here then I'll give it a try.

C is wider than D.  I guess multiple objects at the same height appear closer together when viewed from an angle.

well its very easy to beat tom in debate, especially when there isnt a conspiracy involved.

Where's Tom Bishop with another one of his long answers that completely avoid the question at hand?

Where's Tom Bishop with another one of his long answers that completely avoid the question at hand?

This is the other way he avoids the question at hand.

So true. He avoids questions like black men avoid their children...yes...Negrodamus said it.

If this is the best that you can do, then don't bother.  Such responses are inappropriate in the discussion forums.  Don't let it happen again.

I guess multiple objects at the same height appear closer together when viewed from an angle.

Assuming light travels in straight lines in an absolute preferred reference frame from the stars.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2012, 01:17:02 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 11:49:38 AM

Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.

It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.

Yet they shouldn't descent at all, but that's a whole different topic.

This isn't about movement, it's about seeming location. Your two planes at different altitudes scenario is not the same as what we're talking about. If the stars are 5100km above the surface of the earth, then they are at the same altitude as each other. So let me pitch a scenario to you.

If two planes are flying at 40,000 feet while maintaining 0 relative velocity to each other, which means, for all who don't know, that they are staying the exact same distance from each other and maintaining the exact same airspeed, then as they move away, the should appear to approach one another. As things fade into the distance, they appear to get smaller. Since these two objects and traveling exactly equal in relation to one another, we can treat them as the same object. That object should appear to get smaller.

The above scenario should be happening with the stars. Yes, 6000 miles is a huge difference and should appear as such, but it does not. The stars to not appear to move in relation to one another as they should, shown by the scenario I just presented.

For a visual imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your heat at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

My argument is that the stars are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence do not appear to change configuration.

Here's a nice simple 2D 'fill in the blank' diagram. 

How do the stars directly over person 'A' appear the same when seen by person 'B' with no visual shrinking or squashing of the layout or constellations?

http://imageshack.us/a/img33/4171/starsbg.jpg

While attempts have been made, true and accurate illustration of perspective is impossible. The problem is that perspective cannot be properly visualized on a small scale. For example, that's not really a distances of 3,000 miles in your image, but more like 4 inches on a computer screen.

Such a small scale illustration is like looking into a shoe box with a peep hole at one end and calling it a reproduction of perspective which appears in the world. The ceiling of the shoe box is a mere 8 inches in altitude. The perspective is incompatible with the real world, no matter if you write "3000 miles" on shoe box wall. If the length of the shoe box continued indefinitely it would reach a vanishing point much closer than if you were in, say, an ampatheater with a 500 foot ceiling continuing indefinitely into the distance.

no tom the scaled drawing is accurate in this case. you missed my comment on stationary objects too.

Try again Tom.

no tom the scaled drawing is accurate in this case. you missed my comment on stationary objects too.

How is it accurate? The distance from the surface to the stars is only four inches, not 3,000 miles.

its to scale thats why. i do see your point though. are you saying that over that distance its hard to tell? only the scaled picture its easy to see.

The stars are moving at a constant pace into the horizon. They don't build up near the horizon line and wouldn't change configuration.

Regardless if you move to another location on the earth, or you wait for the stars to move, they are not going to build up and change configuration on the horizon line if they are descending at a constant pace in relation to each other.

this quote in particular needs more reasoning. if i was to walk down the road at a constant pace the street lights still appear to 'squash' together even though they are receding at a constant velocity.