Not okay.

If this is true, then I'll have to upload w/o the audio and let the user substitute whatever audio files he/she wants.
Bummer.  Can someone please confirm this for me?  I'd like a little more than Not okay, please understand, before I make the effort.  Thanks.

I Googled "What is a seamless pattern?"

Top result: A seamless pattern is an image that can be placed side-by-side with copies of itself without any visible seams or interruptions on the content, so you can repeat this image and create a pattern that can go on infinitely to create unique backgrounds, text effects or brand elements.

In other words, images that when tiled, will blend perfectly on all sides of the image.

The image I provided blends perfectly on all four sides of the image when tiled.

Well, if you see my version of the image exactly the way I do, then you're seeing it as I meant it to be, and I consider it seamless enough.  As long as you don't see a sudden jump or shift in the image, I don't see any problem.  Your version, when it's the same size as mine, has more frequent repetition than I prefer.  If my code were modified to work with larger BG images, then it might work nicely with the interlaced pattern you've created, if that's the word for it.
Anyway, these days, I can just barely concentrate on this programming thing, so I think I'll just leave it as is.

Very nice parallax effect!

Maybe a seamless background is the only thing that could make the effect even better.

Here's your [dark_Tiled] made seamless...

I'll have to try it with your version of the image.  But what do you mean by seamless?  As far as I can see, my original has very faint seams that all but vanish with all the layers of stars, and other things, passing over them.  It looks plenty seamless to me.  Is there a flaw I've missed?

The title says it all.....probably, I think.  Too much, maybe?
Anyway, you can control the movements of the stars using keyboard or mouse...

'=====================  C O N T R O L S  ======================

' Keyboard Input:

'  C.............Center the Black Hole
'  Space......Center the Black Hole + stop all movement
'  Enter.. .....Stars are sucked in;  no other movement
'  R..............Reverse the rotation
'  T..............Toggle twisting/spiral motion
'  V..............Reverse stars going in/out (vacuum/vent)
'  H.............Toggle hole's halo/glow
'  +/-...........Increase/decrease size of hole

' Mouse Button - Outside of Hole:

'     Left button.......Increase anticlockwise rotation
'     Right button.....Increase clockwise rotation

' Mouse Button - Inside of Hole:

'     Button click + drag will move the Black Hole to any place
'     on screen, but moving mouse too fast will drop the hole.

' Mouse Wheel:

'  Forward..........Increase vacuum speed (or slow vent rate)
'  Reverse..........Decrease vacuum speed (or speed vent rate)
'  Click...............Stop all movement w/o centering

'==============================================================
As usual, my code is messy, but it seems to run all right.

This would be a REALLY COOL screensaver!

Oh, but one issue: Where is the Enterprise, or the Defiant?  Star Treking in space!

GREAT JOB!

Thank you.  If I could make a screensaver of it easily, I'd love to.

That is really a cool effect, opens new horizons for me.
Thank you for sharing, @SirCrow !

Glad you liked it, thanks.

So, if sometimes array exists and sometimes not, maybe try this method for array size test:

DIM c(5) AS LONG 'long = 4 bytes, records from 0 to 5 (6 records), so LEN = 24
PRINT LEN(c())

Or - if your code is used in SUB but array Seat is not SHARED, this can also do this error.

Edit:
If you use LEN on a field that does not exist, it will not return a value of 0, as you might expect, but a field value of 11 records. For example, if you write PRINT LEN (NotExists ()), you get a result of 44. The reason is that all variables in QB64 automatically get the assigned size of 10 (including 0)  therefore 11 records. Well, if the "NotExists" field does not exist, QB64 counts with the default SINGLE type, which is 4 bytes per record * 11 = 44.

So instead of a complicated field existence test, would always leave it defined, allow a record of 0, and insert a value of 1 if I wanted to process the field, or a value of 0 if I didn't want to process the field. Or you can use an auxiliary variable, but again, that's pretty confusing when more are needed and it's an easy way how to go crazy...  look to me... :)

I think I had Seat SHARED at one time, encountered errors that confused me, and ended up changing it.  Much still confuses me, despite all the experience.  Anything I don't do often tends to drift to the back of my mind, if not entirely out of my head.

Indeed, I try to avoid adding more variables whenever possible.  In fact, I think it's due to my desire to reuse as much code as possible that my programs always seem to end up all twisty and complicated.  I believe it was once called spaghetti code.  Thanks for the input.