star coordinate system in fet?

I've asked this in a few threads but haven't received any answers, so I'll just start a thread for it. Maybe it will attract an answer. So:

Observing the night sky, angular distances between extrasolar objects remains the same throughout the night. Easy way to see this is to look at constellations, and see if they change their shape from dusk to dawn: they do not. Is there a fet model of celestial mechanics consistent with this fact? If there is, I have not seen any mention of it. To make observing this even easier, get a planetarium software such as stellarium - free and open source - see how it works in the "re model", go out and see if it's the same or not.

Some fe'rs have insisted repeatedly that this observation is "incorrect", and that the stars would actually move closer and further away from each other throughout the night. They are mistaken, of course - or can you show why they are in fact correct in this?

That is a good point. You can tell by the fe silence.

LOL..... five days on and still no response from the flat earthers.  Sad really.  But expected.

Having spent some more time dabbling with astrophotography this winter I though I'd give this topic a bump; it's been a while, maybe fet has developed a working model by now?

Having spent some more time dabbling with astrophotography this winter I though I'd give this topic a bump; it's been a while, maybe fet has developed a working model by now?

Unfortunately, you'll find that flat earthers will invariably avoid addressing any legitimate round earth questions that are based on accepted, empirical, scientific observations and evidence that they can't (supposedly) refute with a simple throw-away one-liner comment.  When it comes to providing any viable evidence of their own in order to contradict long-established science, they all suddenly go very, very quiet—exactly as happened here.

This is a common trait on the FES forums;  if a round earther raises a question that can't be addressed using flat earth theory, then it's simply ignored, and allowed to disappear over time never to be seen again.  Or so they hope.

I'm pleased that you've resurrected your original constellation question, and it'll be interesting to see if any flat earthers are game to take on the challenge.  I'm betting they won't, but I'm always prepared to stand corrected.

If they don't, we can keep using this principle to win all the arguments against FET. 

They can't even map the earth, how can they be expected to map the stars?

the whirlpool stars are located in remains the same. the paths will be constant, their velocities will be constant relative to one another. it's simple.
the reason no one's responded is because anyone with a brain can see you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

the whirlpool stars are located in remains the same. the paths will be constant, their velocities will be constant relative to one another. it's simple.
the reason no one's responded is because anyone with a brain can see you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Yes, FET is certainly the bottom of the barrel.  So stars keep the same angular position, and the rotate about two different points in the norther and southern hemisphere.  So this whirlpool of stars must be moving relative to a spherical earth.  Well done, thanks for affirming RET.

No-one responded to me in Q and A regarding Equatorial Mounts and meteor showers either.....

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 22, 2015, 08:27:33 AM

the whirlpool stars are located in remains the same. the paths will be constant, their velocities will be constant relative to one another. it's simple.
the reason no one's responded is because anyone with a brain can see you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Yes, FET is certainly the bottom of the barrel.  So stars keep the same angular position, and the rotate about two different points in the norther and southern hemisphere.  So this whirlpool of stars must be moving relative to a spherical earth.  Well done, thanks for affirming RET.

if you can't be bothered to read, what is the point of you coming here? stars travel faster in the outside of the whirlpool as the aether is less dense before it meets in the center. that is why they seem to move at similar speeds. your imagining of a sphere is not the only explanation. they rotate around the center, the pole at the center of the world, as this is the center of the whirlpool (as the world is the cause of it). you think the world is symmetrical, so you should be able to see that circular movement on a flat disc will give the same result.
your unwillingness to use your brain is your problem, not mine.

Quote from: gpssjim on February 22, 2015, 08:30:57 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 22, 2015, 08:27:33 AM

the whirlpool stars are located in remains the same. the paths will be constant, their velocities will be constant relative to one another. it's simple.
the reason no one's responded is because anyone with a brain can see you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Yes, FET is certainly the bottom of the barrel.  So stars keep the same angular position, and the rotate about two different points in the norther and southern hemisphere.  So this whirlpool of stars must be moving relative to a spherical earth.  Well done, thanks for affirming RET.

if you can't be bothered to read, what is the point of you coming here? stars travel faster in the outside of the whirlpool as the aether is less dense before it meets in the center. that is why they seem to move at similar speeds. your imagining of a sphere is not the only explanation. they rotate around the center, the pole at the center of the world, as this is the center of the whirlpool (as the world is the cause of it). you think the world is symmetrical, so you should be able to see that circular movement on a flat disc will give the same result.
your unwillingness to use your brain is your problem, not mine.

Problem being that 'circular motion' over a flat disk does not give the same result. Or if it's just that we're not getting what you're trying to describe, could you elaborate, or maybe provide a diagram?

In a thread I linked to above a fe'r was trying to explain away motion of celestial objects with two celestial domes, one for northern and other for southern hemispheres. This fails for obvious reasons. How is the model you're proposing different?

the whirlpool stars are located in remains the same. the paths will be constant, their velocities will be constant relative to one another. it's simple.
the reason no one's responded is because anyone with a brain can see you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

from http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62851.0#.VOoun_nF-ap

stars planets & moons are all reflected pogections. There's no out of space , there's only earth

Which one of you is correct? and JRowe, can you keep your explanations straight please.

from http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1660956;topic=62851.20

don't trust everything you hear, especially from people known to just be out for money.
you haven't verified it yourself, and it's something no one would even try to because you all blindly follow science, and why would you buy a plane ticket to the poles and stare upward hoping to memorize the stars?

aside from plenty of possible routes, how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy. they want you to think the earth isn't flat. think for yourself, don't believe everything you're told.

hmm, from same thread

i did not say every star, i said that stars could be faked. any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route.
i did not say it has always been done, but it is an example of how the truth can easily be hidden from those who do not think for themselves. how do you even know what people saw before? information can be faked. history is lied about. that is how the world works. you see what they want you to see.

Here's the issue. Because the stars that were faked would be in planes, and therefore lower because not in the aether, someone viewing them against other stars in the sky would look radically different in terms of relative position to true stars over just a small, short distance (less than 7 miles). Furthermore, at maximum cruising altitude, even the F5U Flying Pancake, on of the lowest stall speed planes every created, could not fly slowly enough to maintain flight while tracking the star's path. Weather ballons could not move quickly enough nor accurately enough to keep a position. Finally, you have given two explanations at odds with each other to explain the same gaping hole in your version of FET

I have come to the conclusion you do not believe in FET, and you are simply here for attention and entertainment. I will not longer reply to or acknowledge your posts because they are absolutely garbage in every logical way a human being could contrive.

Which one of you is correct?

Most members here have their own theories. It's a pain to keep track of them, but there isn't really any agreed upon FET. Don't expect the two of them to agree.

Quote from: Agnotology on February 22, 2015, 11:41:10 AM

Which one of you is correct?

Most members here have their own theories. It's a pain to keep track of them, but there isn't really any agreed upon FET. Don't expect the two of them to agree.

What do I do when two theories from the same person don't agree with each other?

What do I do when two theories from the same person don't agree with each other?

With JRowe, brace yourself, he seems to have a temper.
Otherwise, wait and see. If they're serious, you'll either get a rationalization or "thank you for informing me, now I see that ____ is really the case." If they're a troll, an increasingly elaborate explanation.

I just meant that it was asking a bit much to have them argue amongst themselves, when it's a problem with every FEer on this site.

Most members here have their own theories. It's a pain to keep track of them, but there isn't really any agreed upon FET. Don't expect the two of them to agree.

Totally agree.  I'm guessing that I've seem more than a dozen different personal opinions of what the purported flat earth looks like, what its maps look like, what the heavens look like, how the sun and moon work, what gravity is or isn't, etc etc etc.

BTW Jane, ask sceptimatic to explain his "theory" of denpressure to you. It totally refutes the theory of gravity, and also redefines mass, weight, pressure, force and friction, as well as atomic electromagnetic attraction.  He's got it all worked out, and has a working formula defining it.

So stars are actually airplanes now or what? Jesus hell this is even dumber than I thought it would get. And I've been here before too.

So stars are actually airplanes now or what? Jesus hell this is even dumber than I thought it would get. And I've been here before too.

So JRoweSkeptic said:  "I did not say every star, I said that stars could be faked.  Any time they show the truth, that the earth is not round, it is a simple task to charter a plane to fly the route".

Does this mean that they (who?) have a huge fleet of planes for all the major constellations, that fly exactly the same route every night of the year, equipped with a powerful spotlight mounted on their fuselages, and aimed accurately and variably at the earth, and with their navigation lights all turned off, and in complete radio silence, and radar-invisible, and at sufficient altitudes so as to be unheard from the ground?  AND that are capable of flying at around 5 knots!

—William of Ockham must be rolling in his grave.   

AND that are capable of flying at around 5 knots!

This one pretty much seals the deal. JRoweSkeptic forgot how slow stars move across the sky at night- planes can't fly that slow and also fly directly upwards.

So we settle our case then. FET cannot account for the seeming celestial sphere.

fake stars is a remnant. before i had incorporated the aether into my theory, it was useful. it is not necessary for me now, though i find it amusing your entire argument against it rests on knowing the capabilities of militaries whose job it is to keep what they can do secret. the fact all you can do is focus on one minor element shows your desperation.

now the aether is a fine explanation: unpeel your model of the world, along with the views of the stars. the star paths are not affected by whether or not the world is flat. the whirlpool allows faster movement at the outer fringes, where it is thinner. i can see of nothing that is not obviously explained by this. stars move through the aether. until you can provide clear evidence that the same stars are visible from each side of the earth, without appealing to spoon-fed and false information, there is nothing else to discuss. 


i am also curious about the effect aether has on light, so this may be a further explanation even should such stars exist, but i will need to think further. i am still considering the full effects of aether. the outside of the whirlpool is an odd place however, where aether has split from the primary current as it flows inward. a lot of odd behavior could occur there, such as reflection. i expect to convince no one of that until i have a chance to further consider.

Check out Michelson–Morley experiment for the effects of aether.

Check out Michelson–Morley experiment for the effects of aether.

i have explained numerous times that there is little to no aether on earth. it increases as you ascend, with each whirlpool increasing its thickness. it stands to reason that the depth of aether that exists only far above, and immediately to the sides, of the earth will affect light more than the lack of it on earth.
if you cannot be bothered to read what i am saying please do not reply.

fake stars is a remnant. before i had incorporated the aether into my theory, it was useful. it is not necessary for me now, though i find it amusing your entire argument against it rests on knowing the capabilities of militaries whose job it is to keep what they can do secret. the fact all you can do is focus on one minor element shows your desperation.

now the aether is a fine explanation: unpeel your model of the world, along with the views of the stars. the star paths are not affected by whether or not the world is flat. the whirlpool allows faster movement at the outer fringes, where it is thinner. i can see of nothing that is not obviously explained by this. stars move through the aether. until you can provide clear evidence that the same stars are visible from each side of the earth, without appealing to spoon-fed and false information, there is nothing else to discuss. 


i am also curious about the effect aether has on light, so this may be a further explanation even should such stars exist, but i will need to think further. i am still considering the full effects of aether. the outside of the whirlpool is an odd place however, where aether has split from the primary current as it flows inward. a lot of odd behavior could occur there, such as reflection. i expect to convince no one of that until i have a chance to further consider.

When are you going to explain how stars circle around the south celestial pole in your model?

I have explained numerous times that there is little to no aether on earth. It increases as you ascend, with each whirlpool increasing its thickness.

Can you please cite a couple of accredited scientists who support this hypothesis?  Or is it nothing more than a guess on your part?  Empirical evidence is of the utmost importance whenever scientific theories are involved.

No evidence = no hypothesis = no theory.   Sorry.

Check out Michelson–Morley experiment for the effects of aether.

That experiment disproved luminiferous aether, which is similar to our aether but also completely different.

fake stars is a remnant. before i had incorporated the aether into my theory, it was useful. it is not necessary for me now, though i find it amusing your entire argument against it rests on knowing the capabilities of militaries whose job it is to keep what they can do secret. the fact all you can do is focus on one minor element shows your desperation.

now the aether is a fine explanation: unpeel your model of the world, along with the views of the stars. the star paths are not affected by whether or not the world is flat. the whirlpool allows faster movement at the outer fringes, where it is thinner. i can see of nothing that is not obviously explained by this. stars move through the aether. until you can provide clear evidence that the same stars are visible from each side of the earth, without appealing to spoon-fed and false information, there is nothing else to discuss. 


i am also curious about the effect aether has on light, so this may be a further explanation even should such stars exist, but i will need to think further. i am still considering the full effects of aether. the outside of the whirlpool is an odd place however, where aether has split from the primary current as it flows inward. a lot of odd behavior could occur there, such as reflection. i expect to convince no one of that until i have a chance to further consider.

Saying that stars are fake when discussing celestial mechanics is hardly a minor detail. If that's showing desperation it is entirely for your part.

By "proving that same stars are visible in different locations" you're implying exactly what? That constellation orion that I see is not the same constellation orion that is visible at the same time to someone located further south?

JRoweSkeptic writes as though his absurd notion of some "aetheric whirlpool" actually exists, and bases many of his "conclusions" on this major non sequitur.

He describes his fantastical imaginings as "my theory" when in fact no such theory exists;  it's nothing more than a bizarre notion proposed by someone who apparently has no formal training in geophysics, astrophysics or astronomy.  As a science fiction writer, he'd give L Ron Hubbard a run for his money LOL.

He says:  "I am still considering the full effects of aether" as though this will lead to a major breakthrough in science.  But it's like saying he's "considering" the colour and length of a unicorn's horn.

so... is it so that there is no working fe model?