While the concave model is more detailed than the flat earth model, it never hurts to go into even more detail.
Astronomers say there are extremely many stars because they assume each 'galaxy' contains countless stars. However, if we make that assumption false, and only count the stars that are clearly seen, then it's approximately 100 billion stars. Then, we calculate the total volume of the universe in the concave model to approximately 1,030,000,000,000 because the radius from center to ground is 6370 km then we take 100 for the sky dome and come to 6270 km, out of which we receive that number, by the spherical volume formula. Then, we estimate the average volume of stars. If the sun is 51 kilometers across, then the stars, according to eye observation, would be something like 1 kilometer or less. We plug this number in to the volume formula and we receive volume of 0.5 km. Then, we divide the volume of the universe by the volume of stars and we receive how many stars could fit within the universe if placed one next to the other which turns out to be 2,060,000,000,000 stars. Then we reduce this number to how many have been observed and it becomes 2,060,000,000,000  1,960,000,000,000 = 100,000,000,000 This leaves us with 1,960,000,000,000 'stars' of free space, which translates to 980,000,000,000 km since they are 0,5 km in volume. This is the space seen in between stars. If everything in the calculation is correct, then this is perfect, right? :) We have 100,000,000,000 stars with 980,000,000,000 km of total space in between them, which is approximately 10 km of free space around each star. Btw, I do not know if I messed something up, I went through this fast and without rereading. Just a thought. 
Banned User

Of course, only the volume of the celestial sphere must be calculated, because stars must be all inside it.
Of course, we cannot count the imaginary stars inside imaginary galaxies. But without the correct average size (I beleave very small) of each star, and without knowing perfectly how the light curve inside a celestial sphere (the magnectic fields must be enormous and the path of light following like golden number graphics must be more complex), any calculation is, by now, irrelevant. 
Banned User

In reply to this post by michael
But, 1km or 0,5km for a star size is certainly very far from the truth. That might be probably at least 10000 times less. Steve said ' as big as a grain of sand'...
And that is 1 million times less.... 
I would like to know how you can see a grain of sand hundreds of kilometers up.

Banned User

Maybe the same (even without consider the bending light, or speed of light, of course) way you think you can see enormous imaginary stars millions of light years away...
:) What would be easier to see?: 1. A light from a big star many millions light years away (considering that light travel 300.000 km/s that is far from beeing a science fact...considering it as an obviously not confirmed limit) through imaginary vacuum and ridiculous straight lines (even Einstein accepted that light can be bend by the weakest force od nature  gravity. But we still cannot accept that light can be bend by strong magnetic fields as the ones created by the sun) 2. A light from a brilliant sonoluminiscent grain of sand real close (less than 4000km) amplified by celestial lens. and other space natural lenses (1. karman line, 2. Sun and moon level, 3. planet level) 1. Is much more dificult to see. Much more complicated to explain and understand (even being the mainstream explanation that is in all school text books). Occam Razor 
Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 