Explain why the stars look different in different hemispheres

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 06:42:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on November 10, 2015, 06:39:49 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 06:30:37 PM

Quote from: jroa on November 10, 2015, 06:29:01 PM

Oh, so you did just make it up. 

No, I didn't. I have traveled to the Southern Hemisphere on multiple account and observed this!. It didn't just make this shit up on a whim. It comes from common knowledge, common sense, and personal experience.

Yeah, and I am sure you are an Astronaut and an Antarctic explorer, too.  Perhaps you will claim to be a U-2 pilot as well? 

No. I'm none of those things. I went on vacation, I looked at the stars, I noticed the differences. Is that a hard concept for little Jroa to understand?

Oh, so this is just an anecdotal story then?

*sigh*. How hard is it for you to understand that I went on a vacation to the Southern Hemisphere? It's not just some "false story". I'm simply stating facts based on my experience.

*sigh*. How hard is it for you to understand that I went on a vacation to the Southern Hemisphere? It's not just some "false story". I'm simply stating facts based on my experience.

Next time take pictures. 

With a flat Earth model, all the stars in the sky should look the same based on where you're standing, as everyone faces the same direction on a flat Earth, yet, this isn't true. If one is in the southern hemisphere, they'll see a different night sky than someone in the northern hemisphere. Example:



How does the flat Earth model explain this? At this point, it doesn't seem to have much of an explanation to back it up, so I'd say this is a pretty good disproof of the flat Earth model.

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

The answer is simple. The stars are different in the hemispheres because the earth is Round.

It cannot be flat, otherwise, only a few locations could spot them looking south. This clarifies why FET is bullshit 

Kirk Johnson: are you implying that someone at each of those points can simultaneously see the same stars at the same time?

Good example. Lets assume FET. If the stars are really that close, how it is possible that both gemini constellations look exactly the same on both pictures? Furthermore, you can take a photo of gemini basically from every point of the Earth (proper season required) and obtain the same picture. Why?

Kirk Johnson: are you implying that someone at each of those points can simultaneously see the same stars at the same time?

Local time, yes. They can see it during night.

Quote from: jroa on November 10, 2015, 10:04:09 PM

Kirk Johnson: are you implying that someone at each of those points can simultaneously see the same stars at the same time?

Local time, yes. They can see it during night.

So, then the stars are not over all three of those places simultaneously, and therefore revolve, correct?

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 10, 2015, 02:41:11 PM

If you're basing an argument on astrology, I've heard all I need to.

A good way to deny facts is by plugging your ears and yelling "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

Petition to ban permanoob Kirk Johnson.

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:16:07 AM

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Wrong. 

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 11, 2015, 01:20:47 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:16:07 AM

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Wrong.

Prove it

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 11, 2015, 01:20:47 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:16:07 AM

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Wrong.

Nope. You're wrong.

We have over 2000 years of evidence to back up a round Earth model. We had mathematical proofs, we had physical experiments, people have observed the effects one sees on a round Earth. At this point, a round Earth isn't a "theory". It's a fact.

The flat Earth conspiracy "theory" has been nothing but a bunch of crazies running around, claiming the Earth is flat, and then changing their model every hundred years or so, because it doesn't work with the presented facts. This happens more often today due to even more scientific and mathematical discoveries. In short, unless you can back up your "flat Earth model" with physical, scientific, and mathematical evidence, of which I can call "falsified", "stupid", or "blasphemous" like you flat Earthers do, the flat Earth "theory" will remain as a nothing but a pretty little story. An un-ideal pretty little story at that.

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Good thing I explicitly said it possesses observational evidence.
You don't know the model. If you're going to make such grand claims in light of that, your dishonesty is on full display.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Sort of like black holes, dark energy, and dark matter?  Or, we could even throw in worm holes, string theories, and bosons?  What about white holes, multidemensions, and all the other BS that your scientists can think up without observational evidence? 

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:00:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Sort of like black holes, dark energy, and dark matter?  Or, we could even throw in worm holes, string theories, and bosons?  What about white holes, multidemensions, and all the other BS that your scientists can think up without observational evidence?

Observational evidence can be mathematical. All those theories have been mathematically proven. If JRoweSkeptic can prove his model mathematically, then I might be inclined to believe it.

Quote from: jroa on November 11, 2015, 07:12:31 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:00:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Sort of like black holes, dark energy, and dark matter?  Or, we could even throw in worm holes, string theories, and bosons?  What about white holes, multidemensions, and all the other BS that your scientists can think up without observational evidence?

Observational evidence can be mathematical. All those theories have been mathematically proven. If JRoweSkeptic can prove his model mathematically, then I might be inclined to believe it.

None of those have been proven.  At best, some of them have some evidence that leads scientists to make logical guesses.  At worst, some of them are made up to explain things with no evidence at all.  Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence? 

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:23:44 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 11, 2015, 07:12:31 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:00:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Sort of like black holes, dark energy, and dark matter?  Or, we could even throw in worm holes, string theories, and bosons?  What about white holes, multidemensions, and all the other BS that your scientists can think up without observational evidence?

Observational evidence can be mathematical. All those theories have been mathematically proven. If JRoweSkeptic can prove his model mathematically, then I might be inclined to believe it.

None of those have been proven.  At best, some of them have some evidence that leads scientists to make logical guesses.  At worst, some of them are made up to explain things with no evidence at all.  Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence?

*sigh*. They have quote strong mathematical evidence to back up their existence, which, I'd like to point out, is a pretty strong form of evidence. "logical guesses" is quite a misunderstatement here. You don't just make "guesses" when you're dealing with math. The only time you'd do that would be in the field of probability, which has little to no involvment in the things you've described.

Also, stop being an ass because people accidentally say something wrong.

Quote from: jroa on November 11, 2015, 07:26:46 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:23:44 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 11, 2015, 07:12:31 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:00:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Sort of like black holes, dark energy, and dark matter?  Or, we could even throw in worm holes, string theories, and bosons?  What about white holes, multidemensions, and all the other BS that your scientists can think up without observational evidence?

Observational evidence can be mathematical. All those theories have been mathematically proven. If JRoweSkeptic can prove his model mathematically, then I might be inclined to believe it.

None of those have been proven.  At best, some of them have some evidence that leads scientists to make logical guesses.  At worst, some of them are made up to explain things with no evidence at all.  Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence?

*sigh*. They have quote strong mathematical evidence to back up their existence, which, I'd like to point out, is a pretty strong form of evidence. "logical guesses" is quite a misunderstatement here. You don't just make "guesses" when you're dealing with math. The only time you'd do that would be in the field of probability, which has little to no involvment in the things you've described.

Also, stop being an ass because people accidentally say something wrong.

I think it would be good for you to do some research on the definition of "Theoretical Physicist".  It might be eye opening for you. 

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:24:43 AM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 11, 2015, 01:20:47 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:16:07 AM

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Wrong.

Nope. You're wrong.

We have over 2000 years of evidence to back up a round Earth model. We had mathematical proofs, we had physical experiments, people have observed the effects one sees on a round Earth. At this point, a round Earth isn't a "theory". It's a fact.

The flat Earth conspiracy "theory" has been nothing but a bunch of crazies running around, claiming the Earth is flat, and then changing their model every hundred years or so, because it doesn't work with the presented facts. This happens more often today due to even more scientific and mathematical discoveries. In short, unless you can back up your "flat Earth model" with physical, scientific, and mathematical evidence, of which I can call "falsified", "stupid", or "blasphemous" like you flat Earthers do, the flat Earth "theory" will remain as a nothing but a pretty little story. An un-ideal pretty little story at that.

You keep telling yourself that.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:19:01 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:24:43 AM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 11, 2015, 01:20:47 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:16:07 AM

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Wrong.

Nope. You're wrong.

We have over 2000 years of evidence to back up a round Earth model. We had mathematical proofs, we had physical experiments, people have observed the effects one sees on a round Earth. At this point, a round Earth isn't a "theory". It's a fact.

The flat Earth conspiracy "theory" has been nothing but a bunch of crazies running around, claiming the Earth is flat, and then changing their model every hundred years or so, because it doesn't work with the presented facts. This happens more often today due to even more scientific and mathematical discoveries. In short, unless you can back up your "flat Earth model" with physical, scientific, and mathematical evidence, of which I can call "falsified", "stupid", or "blasphemous" like you flat Earthers do, the flat Earth "theory" will remain as a nothing but a pretty little story. An un-ideal pretty little story at that.

You keep telling yourself that.

I will keep telling myself that. After all, I actually took, and payed attention in history class. Why don't you touch yourself up on that before assuming it's wrong.

Observational evidence can be mathematical. All those theories have been mathematically proven. If JRoweSkeptic can prove his model mathematically, then I might be inclined to believe it.

It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have.
Math can't be made up on the spur of the moment, or with no resources, no matter what you seem to believe. That's not going to change the fact the model works, and a mathematical description is allowed for.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

I never claimed FET has no answers. FET do have answers, I agree, however they are just against every observation and therefore are false.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 07:00:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:56:49 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 11, 2015, 05:27:57 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 10, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

"FET has an answer, but I don't want to hear it, so I'll just reject a model I haven't tried to learn and so cannot possibly know whether it is justified or not!"

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
It has the same evidence behind every scientific theory, lacking only that which requires resources I do not have. Observational evidence: it forms an explanation for all observations, and does so without unnecessary assumptions.

Without observational evidence, you really can't prove that it's correct. I think it's just a load of bullshit assumptions anyways.

Sort of like black holes, dark energy, and dark matter?  Or, we could even throw in worm holes, string theories, and bosons?  What about white holes, multidimensions, and all the other BS that your scientists can think up without observational evidence?

OK, for the sake of argument, let's throw those out.

Can we throw out DEF too?

It has 2 axioms:

• Sun/Moon are inside the Earth. Observational evidence - we see them in the sky.
• Aether exists. Observational evidence - none. All its properties exist. (Axioms on Axioms)

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 09:05:07 AM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 11, 2015, 05:19:01 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:24:43 AM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 11, 2015, 01:20:47 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 11, 2015, 01:16:07 AM

Astrology isn't a fact.
I find it interesting you say that, and forgot to omit your line about not accepting an answer based on 'DET', I've only seen a little about that, but there's about as much proof as there is for your round earth.

FET isn't a fact either. So, where does it gets us?

Wrong.

Nope. You're wrong.

We have over 2000 years of evidence to back up a round Earth model. We had mathematical proofs, we had physical experiments, people have observed the effects one sees on a round Earth. At this point, a round Earth isn't a "theory". It's a fact.

The flat Earth conspiracy "theory" has been nothing but a bunch of crazies running around, claiming the Earth is flat, and then changing their model every hundred years or so, because it doesn't work with the presented facts. This happens more often today due to even more scientific and mathematical discoveries. In short, unless you can back up your "flat Earth model" with physical, scientific, and mathematical evidence, of which I can call "falsified", "stupid", or "blasphemous" like you flat Earthers do, the flat Earth "theory" will remain as a nothing but a pretty little story. An un-ideal pretty little story at that.

You keep telling yourself that.

I will keep telling myself that. After all, I actually took, and payed attention in history class. Why don't you touch yourself up on that before assuming it's wrong.

History and science are different topics.

Except your model has no proof. There's physical, mathematical, or scientific proof to back it up. Unless you can back it up, then I don't want to hear it.

How can you possibly make such a claim given you haven't learnt the model?
[/quote]

How can you claim someone did not learn the model? Can you read minds over a distance?