How does flat earth astronomy work?

There seems to be a lot of topics saying that a flat earth contradicts astronomy, but no one has tried making a working of the stars, or asking how they work.
So instead of saying stars can't work on your model. I want to ask you how do they work on your model. How do they move, do they increase in distance, how near do stars need to be for you to see them. How do you get around the SCP problem.

General answers:

How do they move

Aether.

do they increase in distance

Probably not, though not completely sure.

how near do stars need to be for you to see them.

That would require maths. FEers typically avoid providing it.

How do you get around the SCP problem.

Celestial gears, dual Earth theory, or denying it exosts. There are a few models.

Ok, but I would like an honest answer from a FEer.

Ok, but I would like an honest answer from a FEer.

They don't always answer posts like that. I do what I can: a lot of what I've said is quoting them.

There seems to be a lot of topics saying that a flat earth contradicts astronomy, but no one has tried making a working of the stars, or asking how they work.
So instead of saying stars can't work on your model. I want to ask you how do they work on your model. How do they move, do they increase in distance, how near do stars need to be for you to see them. How do you get around the SCP problem.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

That "book" does not explain astronomy without contradicting itself.

Also, that "book" is far from being called "seeker of truth", as it contains many unfinished reasonings and speculates a lot without actual proof.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Hence you will not ever be considered serious. There is a problem, but you just skip it.

Quote from: Empirical on January 06, 2016, 12:16:53 PM

There seems to be a lot of topics saying that a flat earth contradicts astronomy, but no one has tried making a working of the stars, or asking how they work.
So instead of saying stars can't work on your model. I want to ask you how do they work on your model. How do they move, do they increase in distance, how near do stars need to be for you to see them. How do you get around the SCP problem.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

The stars prove the earth is round though, you can call the maps of the earth fake, but you can easily check if a map of the stars works, and spherical maps work.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 
In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 
http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

You are serious I suppose? I can't imagine anyone not looking up at at the night sky in wonder!

"Seeker of truth" you call youself, yet you dismiss the thousands (billions if we observe with a large telescope) of objects in the night sky with "I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them?"  Well, you could look with a powerful telescope at see the wonderful detail of the patterns or colour of  Saturn and it's rings, or the Great Red Spot of Jupiter!  If you can't afford your own (I can't), look at the many thousand available in books and online! Maybe you are scared of NASA! Well there have been astronomers and photos for centuries before NASA was dreamt of!

What a cop-out! I
Curious people have questioned the nature of the sun, moon, stars and planets for millennia!
I had thought to try to explain things, but you don't want to learn anything.  Just go back and study your Sacred Texts!

I'm not sure but doesn't FE astronomy have something to do with the horoscopes in the daily paper?

I'm not sure but doesn't FE astronomy have something to do with the horoscopes in the daily paper?

I don't know about that.  Is there a single word for studying "just lights in the sky", "luminology" might be close, but leaves "the sky" out.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 11, 2016, 03:18:24 AM

I'm not sure but doesn't FE astronomy have something to do with the horoscopes in the daily paper?

I don't know about that.  Is there a single word for studying "just lights in the sky", "luminology" might be close, but leaves "the sky" out.

Mea Cupla, you're right, Horoscope in the daily paper have more validity than FE Astronomy.

I'm not sure but doesn't FE astronomy have something to do with the horoscopes in the daily paper?

 

Maybe you are thinking of "astrology" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

Quote from: Empirical on January 06, 2016, 12:16:53 PM

There seems to be a lot of topics saying that a flat earth contradicts astronomy, but no one has tried making a working of the stars, or asking how they work.
So instead of saying stars can't work on your model. I want to ask you how do they work on your model. How do they move, do they increase in distance, how near do stars need to be for you to see them. How do you get around the SCP problem.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

And stay away from astronomical observatories like....... Palomar and McDonald to name just two.

Some folks think they can figure everything out/they have some obsession with knowledge.  I don't have any control over the stars.  All I can do is look at them and watch them twinkle.  Sure, I can map the stars and look closer at them with a telescope.  O.k., I can do that, but I can't touch them or dig deep into them.  I can't experiment on them.  All I can do is look at them.  Some folks are awed by them.  Others couldn't care less.  But at least I have the humility to admit that all I can do is look at them.  I wouldn't want to be obsessed with gaining knowledge that I wasn't meant to have. 

<I'm not interested in learning anything.>

Yes. We can tell.

Quote from: Marciano on January 12, 2016, 04:53:15 PM

<I'm not interested in learning anything.>

Yes. We can tell.

I think you're projecting. 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 17, 2016, 05:42:39 PM

Quote from: Marciano on January 12, 2016, 04:53:15 PM

<I'm not interested in learning anything.>

Yes. We can tell.

I think you're projecting.

No, I'm reading what you wrote.

I wouldn't want to be obsessed with gaining knowledge that I wasn't meant to have.   

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth.   

How do you not see the contradiction in your thinking?!?!?!?!?!
Your saying your a truth seeker, but only when its convenient!

Your like a cop trying to solve a murder, but stops the minute someone tells you, "I dont want you to catch the bad guy" and then shouts all over the place how he is a symbol of justice.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

It's not like anyone would be using the known angular separations of those "lights in the sky" to be determining their own positions on this globe. Er, oh, that's Celestial Navigation..

Quote from: Marciano on January 21, 2016, 01:09:35 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 17, 2016, 05:42:39 PM

Quote from: Marciano on January 12, 2016, 04:53:15 PM

<I'm not interested in learning anything.>

Yes. We can tell.

I think you're projecting.

No, I'm reading what you wrote.

I think you're just trying to look smart, but disinterested or clever, by twisting it around.   

If you think reason can solve everything fine, but I think there's a limit to that.  At some point, I think, we have to turn to God for that information.

It's the old pyramid:  emotions at the base, reason in the middle and God on top.  So, if we aren't meant to know, then we aren't meant to know.  It's humility. 

  If you think reason can solve everything fine, but I think there's a limit to that.  At some point, I think, we have to turn to God for that information.

It's the old pyramid:  emotions at the base, reason in the middle and God on top.  So, if we aren't meant to know, then we aren't meant to know.  It's humility.

If God decided that we are not meant to know, then humanity will not be capable of knowing. So everything in the universe that is reachable and knowable is for us to know. Unless you believe we can outsmart God?

A truth seeker is someone that stops at nothing for the truth.
A closed minded person has barriers where he refuses to look.
You seem to have fixed barriers

I just noticed that this is in the Q&A thread. Also known as the official "get banned thread" for not answering the OP's question.
So I am off of here, anyone else posting here, do so at your own peril.

I made ^^^^ that ^^^^ yellow so that you dont miss it! And this white so you do miss it 

Oh God yellow is terrible

If you think reason can solve everything fine, but I think there's a limit to that.  At some point, I think, we have to turn to God for that information.

It's the old pyramid:  emotions at the base, reason in the middle and God on top.  So, if we aren't meant to know, then we aren't meant to know.  It's humility.

Which of the gods would that be? Pyramids were built by a race that worshipped a range of gods such as the one with a falcons head or the one with a jackals head.