What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: October 21, 2019, 09:35:14 PM »
FE Wiki rather vagely describes the stars as 'luminous elements'.  Anyone on the FE side care to elaborate on what that means a bit?  What causes them to be luminous, how far away are they and why are some brighter than others?

Offline Todii

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2019, 11:14:20 PM »
Quote
space is invisible mind-dust and stars are wishes

I could not say it better my self  8)

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2019, 11:48:05 AM »
If I was after a purely poetic reply then that would be perfect.

Lets now try for a reply that actually tells me sonething useful.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2019, 02:55:04 PM »
If I was after a purely poetic reply then that would be perfect.

Lets now try for a reply that actually tells me sonething useful.

There are a lot of FE models. The twinkling things in the night sky could be described very differently based on the different FE models:


1. They could be described as luminous elements
2. They could be described as giant balls of gas generating heat and light
3. They could be described as pieces of heaven in a more biblical FE model

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2019, 05:12:42 PM »
Well out of those three I would imagine that FE theorists would favour 1 and 3 since they are based on nothing more than fantasy or faith.

The twinking effect of course has got nothing to do with the stars themselves but is due to the turbulent atmosphere. The twinkling effect is greatest for stars low down near the horizon as they light from those is passing through a thicker later of atmosphere based on the location of the observer.

I understand that the astrophysical account of the nature of the stars will be largely incompatible with the FE view of the stars and so most of that will be dismissed. However you cannot argue with direct observations and there has been more than enough research carried out into the nature of starlight to understand that the stars are indeed balls of gas which are self energising.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2019, 05:54:13 PM »
How come , using direct observation , the planets don't twinkle ? Doesn't their  weak reflected light travel through the turbulent atmosphere ?

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2019, 07:09:22 PM »
Because planets have measurable disks.  Stars are point sources of light owing to their great distance compared to their size.  Therefore all the light from a star is coming from the same spot on the sky which as you will appreciate is a lot more prone to turbulent distortion than a planet is where the light is spread over a small but non-point source.  Any source of light on the sky which is not a point source is known as an extended object.

The pockets or bubbles of air which are continually moving around in the air (along very short mean free paths) are smaller than the sizes of planetary disks and so the light from the is not affected by them in the same way.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2019, 07:29:11 PM »
Waffle .

Here's an attempt at a proper explanation .
 https://earthsky.org/space/why-dont-planets-twinkle-as-stars-do

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2019, 07:33:11 PM »
So what is different about what your link says and what I said?  Take two lines from your link for example and compare with what I said.  I think you will find its the same.  I use slightly different words but that doesn't alter the meaning.

Quote
Stars twinkle because … they’re so far away from Earth that, even through large telescopes, they appear only as pinpoints.

Quote
Planets shine more steadily because … they’re closer to Earth and so appear not as pinpoints, but as tiny disks in our sky.

Anyway, what has that got to do with my original question... what are the stars according to FE theorists?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 08:49:33 PM by TheMatrix »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2019, 10:26:00 AM »
You presented your explanation as established fact . Read the article I linked properly - that explanation uses the word "might " in it's explanation that light traveling from different edges of a planet may due to a "zigzag" effect  cancel refraction . That is theory because science cannot find a satisfactory explanation .
             The stars are near but out side ,or part of the dome , the planets sun and moon are luminaries and are inside the dome - that's the simple explanation why they don't twinkle . That's one FE view .

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 860
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2019, 03:29:18 PM »
Waffle .

Here's an attempt at a proper explanation .
 https://earthsky.org/space/why-dont-planets-twinkle-as-stars-do

Your link literally agreed with the post you are arguing against.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2019, 03:03:18 AM »
That is theory because science cannot find a satisfactory explanation .

First, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.

Second, about satisfactory explanations:
A)  You'd need a definition in order to identify one
B)  Please offer a definition that can make even the slightest sense of the FE wiki.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2019, 04:05:25 PM »
You presented your explanation as established fact . Read the article I linked properly - that explanation uses the word "might " in it's explanation that light traveling from different edges of a planet may due to a "zigzag" effect  cancel refraction . That is theory because science cannot find a satisfactory explanation.
I think you read the article wrong. Here.
Quote
You might think of it as the light traveling a zig-zag path to our eyes, instead of the straight path the light would travel if Earth didn’t have an atmosphere.
She's not expressing doubt, this is a well understood phenomenon. She's simplifying it so it might be easier to understand to those unfamiliar with the concepts. She uses 'Might' three times in the article. That was the first time. Here's the second:
Quote
You might see planets twinkling if you spot them low in the sky. That’s because, in the direction of any horizon, you’re looking through more atmosphere than when you look overhead.
Interestingly points out a flaw in the claim that planets don't twinkle. The third:
Quote
Experienced observers often can, but, at first, if you can recognize a planet in some other way, you might notice the steadiness of its light by contrasting it to a nearby star.
Neat article. Thanks for posting it.  :)

Addendum: missed one, and it looks like this is the one you were talking about.
Quote
But – while the light from one edge of a planet’s disk might be forced to “zig” one way – light from the opposite edge of the disk might be “zagging” in an opposite way. The zigs and zags of light from a planetary disk cancel each other out, and that’s why planets appear to shine steadily.
Although the use of the word 'might' still isn't used to cast doubt on the concept itself. The article even points out that planets can still twinkle if viewed closer to the horizon, meaning that sometimes the refraction is severe enough that they won't cancel each other out.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2019, 04:23:01 PM by Nefarious »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2019, 05:07:52 PM »
You presented your explanation as established fact . Read the article I linked properly - that explanation uses the word "might " in it's explanation that light traveling from different edges of a planet may due to a "zigzag" effect  cancel refraction . That is theory because science cannot find a satisfactory explanation.
I think you read the article wrong. Here.
Quote
You might think of it as the light traveling a zig-zag path to our eyes, instead of the straight path the light would travel if Earth didn’t have an atmosphere.
She's not expressing doubt, this is a well understood phenomenon. She's simplifying it so it might be easier to understand to those unfamiliar with the concepts. She uses 'Might' three times in the article. That was the first time. Here's the second:
Quote
You might see planets twinkling if you spot them low in the sky. That’s because, in the direction of any horizon, you’re looking through more atmosphere than when you look overhead.
Interestingly points out a flaw in the claim that planets don't twinkle. The third:
Quote
Experienced observers often can, but, at first, if you can recognize a planet in some other way, you might notice the steadiness of its light by contrasting it to a nearby star.
Neat article. Thanks for posting it.  :)

Addendum: missed one, and it looks like this is the one you were talking about.
Quote
But – while the light from one edge of a planet’s disk might be forced to “zig” one way – light from the opposite edge of the disk might be “zagging” in an opposite way. The zigs and zags of light from a planetary disk cancel each other out, and that’s why planets appear to shine steadily.
Although the use of the word 'might' still isn't used to cast doubt on the concept itself. The article even points out that planets can still twinkle if viewed closer to the horizon, meaning that sometimes the refraction is severe enough that they won't cancel each other out.

Here is another nice article - a bit more scientific and less confusing .

 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/58-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/planet-watching/251-why-do-planets-not-twinkle-intermediate

The assistant professor of physics and physical science (at the time of writing ) states a bit more specifically that " No , planets never twinkle to the naked eye for exactly this reason ." in his explanation for this fact .

Of course any luminary would twinkle when distant and very low near the horizon ,especially on the plane or seen through say the exhaust of a rocket or jet .

I would like to point out that according to science planetary light is sunlight reflected from a distant sun and obeying the laws optics , reflection of light rays from a spherical object is a big problem for these explanatory theories , spherical bodies scatter light . Unless the planets are luminaries and close by , as in FE theory .

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2019, 07:21:30 PM »
I would like to point out that according to science planetary light is sunlight reflected from a distant sun and obeying the laws optics , reflection of light rays from a spherical object is a big problem for these explanatory theories , spherical bodies scatter light.
I’m unclear why you think this is a problem.
The problem with the planets being close is we have radar measurements and can use parallax to demonstrate they are not.
And the problem with them being luminaries is we observe phases and moons casting shadows on them.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2019, 07:40:09 PM »
I would like to point out that according to science planetary light is sunlight reflected from a distant sun and obeying the laws optics , reflection of light rays from a spherical object is a big problem for these explanatory theories , spherical bodies scatter light .

Well, when you observe a beach ball in daylight at the beach you are observing sunlight from a distant sun being reflected off a spherical object.  So why does this become a problem if the sphere is bigger, like the moon or Jupiter?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2019, 09:13:33 PM »
He’s mentioned a hot spot before which I have dealt with but just in case he does again, that is a feature of a smooth, reflective surface, not a rough terrain like a moon or planet.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2019, 08:37:07 PM »
So , we now see there is no heliocentric model explanation for the fact that the planets do not twinkle , only an unsatisfactory theory  - which includes the word "might" and requires light rays , from the outer edges of the planets , to be focused . 

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2019, 09:51:45 PM »
So , we now see there is no heliocentric model explanation for the fact that the planets do not twinkle
Well, there actually is.  The size subtended by planets to viewers on earth is large compared to the tiny distortions caused by the slight turbulence between areas of different density in the atmosphere. Therefore those distortions make no visible difference to how we observe them (at least to the naked eye and even small telecscopes).  It is as simple as that.  Stars are true point sources of light that are smeared and appear to wobble and change size (and hence brightness) by those same tiny distortions.  They twinkle.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2019, 07:35:26 AM »
So , we now see there is no heliocentric model explanation for the fact that the planets do not twinkle
You have to be trolling at this point.
You literally posted a link above with the explanation (strangely, you did so replying to disagree with a post giving you that exact explanation). By the very nature of twinkling it implies the effects of a chaotic atmosphere, the word “might” reflects that. The light might do one thing or another, it depends on the atmospheric effects which change over time, hence the twinkling.

And I see you are doing the tired FE thing of trying to poke holes in the heliocentric model (as usual, because of your failure to understand it) while ignoring the huge chasms and contradictions in your own “model”.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.