Ghost of V

Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres
« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2014, 07:30:16 PM »
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?

Atmospheric refraction.
Nope.




I'm sorry, but that's not how you start a debate. Come back when you've learned some manners.





If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?

Atmospheric refraction.

What medium does the light from the stars travel through before entering the atmosphere?




The aetheric membrane that holds the Sun & Moon discs in place.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 07:36:23 PM by Vauxhall »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9849
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres
« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2014, 07:57:58 PM »
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?

Atmospheric refraction.
Nope.




I'm sorry, but that's not how you start a debate. Come back when you've learned some manners.





If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?

Atmospheric refraction.

What medium does the light from the stars travel through before entering the atmosphere?




The aetheric membrane that holds the Sun & Moon discs in place.

Do you have a theory as to why the refraction through this membrance does not behave in the slightest like refraction from any other medium?  Specifically, why do the sun, moon, planets and stars behave exactly as if they are the distances measured by astronomers, being at distances from 100,000s to billions of kms distant, yet they are all actually 3,000-3,100kms distant?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2014, 08:09:40 PM »
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
Nope.
I'm sorry, but that's not how you start a debate. Come back when you've learned some manners.
That's exactly a polite way to start a debate. Hiding my determination of the inaccuracy of your claim would be impolite. Now do you have any evidence, particularly to the zetetic  standard, to support your outlandish claim?

Quote from: EnaG, p, 5
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15326
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2014, 05:47:49 PM »
That's exactly a polite way to start a debate. Hiding my determination of the inaccuracy of your claim would be impolite.
You're mistaking honesty for politeness. It's possible to be both honest and impolite (as you have demonstrated), largely because the two are unrelated.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2014, 08:01:07 PM »
That's exactly a polite way to start a debate. Hiding my determination of the inaccuracy of your claim would be impolite.
You're mistaking honesty for politeness. It's possible to be both honest and impolite (as you have demonstrated), largely because the two are unrelated.
No, they are related, though not the same. Regardless, the challenge to back up his outlandish claim remains unanswered, like so much of FEt. I suggest that you (all) post your data supporting your outlandish claims to the zetetic process's standard.
Quote from: EnaG, p, 5
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.