Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Yet somehow they were still visible for us to reach the conclusion that the stars and planets weren't destroyed. Now you're just arguing to argue.
That does not function as a reply to the content you quotted.
Appropriate replies would have been, "Oh sh*t, you're right. I was a total idiot. My bad. Yeah, I see your point. I just overlooked that because I got too engrossed in flexing my e-peen."
Try to properly reply, again. Except actually admit when you screwed up.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
You purport that galaxies are somehow not visible because of the proximity of an observer to their respective star.
Wrong: those galaxies are not viewable, period, except for andromeda and a very small-handful, without technology. That is regardless of your proximity to a local star.
That local star problem I described was being able to see other stars within the galaxy depending on how far away you are from a local star.
Those are two different things.
I should not have had to explain that. 🙁
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Let's say the star in question is ourt Sun, and the planet from which said observation is taking place is Earth. In that case, what you claim would indeed be true, except for all the galaxies that are visible to the naked eye for an Earth resident. Yes, that's right, these galaxies [b]are visible to the naked eye, you don't need fancy telescopes to see them. [/B]
*slow-clap*
Congratulations, you can repackage my own points and pretend they are yours.
Here is what I stated on the previous page:
"In order to experience all those other galaxies (most, not all..."
Now try to argue with points other than my own.
Seriously, you really really really suck at this "internet arguing" thing. I genuinely feel sorry for you.
I would also note that viewing those galaxies almost always gas specific conditions which almost always require you to actually know what you are seeing is a galaxy.
Additionally, and the biggest problem with you using my own point to pretend you're making any semblence of a point, is that this list is extremely small and will not, in any way, function to make your over-reaching point of those "objects in space" being something other than local stars in the South Galaxy. Sorry, bro, you failed to overcome my point and only served to strengthen my point. A very small list of observable galaxies does not explain all those heavenly bodies we saw in the film.
Got anything else? lol
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am not going to point out a day old post to you.
The answer to my question is: I didn't "say" or post that. Thank you for conceding?