[Tom Bishop]

Oh great. Can you explain how entropy favors this?  Why is the Earth so much bigger than the sun and moon in FET?

The earth is not subject to the same physical processes which shapes the smaller celestial bodies above it. They exist at different scales and so it stands to reason that different physics would apply. Why don't we see rocks shaped to the same shape as a mountain? That is because those two things, at different scales, are subjected to different physical processes to shape them.

Let's go one more... Have you ever seen a sun the same size as a moon?

Yes. See the OP.

Actually, everything does not come in various sizes. Do the atoms of the ocean come in various sizes?

Are you suggesting that hydrogen atoms are the same size as oxygen atoms?

All protons are the same size. All electrons are the same size. Hydrogen atoms and Oxygen atoms are merely different configurations of protons and electrons. A hydrogen atom has one proton and an oxygen atom has eight. When they combine they form a water molecule, which is universally the same size. All of these things exist, at similar sizes, at an orderly and predictable atomic scale. Atoms and molecules do not simply come in "various sizes".

"Pebble" and "boulder" are names for the relative sizes of rocks, not rocks themselves.

A pebble is defined by its smooth features. A boulder with smooth features like that wouldn't be found in nature because the physical processes which shape a pebble do not apply to rocks the size of boulders. Thus, pebbles do not come in boulder size.

I would contend that mouse embryos and elephant embryos start out about the same size.

I thought you were supposed to be arguing that things came in wildly different sizes?

Embryos being the same size in their mother's wombs goes to show that things are of suitable sizes in their environments.

Yes, I get that you completely miss my point.  Mice and elephants are mammals that are vastly different in size.  Pebbles and boulders are rocks that are vastly different in size. 

I could go on, but you get my drift.

A mouse would not be the size of an elephant and a elephant would not be the size of a mouse because evolution would not shape a creature in those ways, at those scales. Pebbles and boulders have different features, which can only exist at their different scales. Your argument that "just about everything in nature comes in various sizes" is simply incorrect. There is a certain template which things fall in. Volcanoes are always going to be huge, and atoms and molecules are always going to be small, and never vice versa. There are physical laws which shapes matter into their respective places.

[markjo]

Actually, everything does not come in various sizes. Do the atoms of the ocean come in various sizes?

Are you suggesting that hydrogen atoms are the same size as oxygen atoms?

All protons are the same size. All electrons are the same size. Hydrogen atoms and Oxygen atoms are merely different configurations of protons and electrons. A hydrogen atom has one proton and an oxygen atom has eight. 

You forgot that atoms can have varying numbers of neutrons which can greatly affect their size.

"Pebble" and "boulder" are names for the relative sizes of rocks, not rocks themselves.

A pebble is defined by its smooth features. A boulder with smooth features like that wouldn't be found in nature because the physical processes which shape a pebble do not apply to rocks the size of boulders. Thus, pebbles do not come in boulder size.

This boulder looks pretty smooth to me:

I would contend that mouse embryos and elephant embryos start out about the same size.

I thought you were supposed to be arguing that things came in wildly different sizes?

Embryos being the same size in their mother's wombs goes to show that things are of suitable sizes in their environments.

So you agree with me that embryos can grow to wildly different sizes.  Good to know.

Yes, I get that you completely miss my point.  Mice and elephants are mammals that are vastly different in size.  Pebbles and boulders are rocks that are vastly different in size. 

I could go on, but you get my drift.

A mouse would not be the size of an elephant and a elephant would not be the size of a mouse because evolution would not shape a creature in those ways, at those scales.

Are you saying that mice and elephants don't come in different sizes?

Pebbles and boulders have different features, which can only exist at their different scales.

Incorrect.  Pebbles and boulders can be subject to the same environmental and erosion forces.

Your argument that "just about everything in nature comes in various sizes" is simply incorrect. There is a certain template which things fall in. Volcanoes are always going to be huge, and atoms and molecules are always going to be small, and never vice versa. There are physical laws which shapes matter into their respective places.

You do realize that huge and small are relative terms, don't you?  Ever heard of jumbo shrimp?  They're vastly larger than cocktail shrimp, wouldn't you agree?  Maybe you need to take a refresher in self-symmetry in nature.

[Rama Set]

Oh great. Can you explain how entropy favors this?  Why is the Earth so much bigger than the sun and moon in FET?

The earth is not subject to the same physical processes which shapes the smaller celestial bodies above it. They exist at different scales and so it stands to reason that different physics would apply. Why don't we see rocks shaped to the same shape as a mountain? That is because those two things, at different scales, are subjected to different physical processes to shape them.

No, physical processes are the same no matter what the scale, until you get down to the quantum scale.

Let's go one more... Have you ever seen a sun the same size as a moon?

Yes. See the OP.

Just a little sarcasm at your expense since you seem to be arguing two different sides at the same time.

All protons are the same size. All electrons are the same size. Hydrogen atoms and Oxygen atoms are merely different configurations of protons and electrons. A hydrogen atom has one proton and an oxygen atom has eight. When they combine they form a water molecule, which is universally the same size. All of these things exist, at similar sizes, at an orderly and predictable atomic scale. Atoms and molecules do not simply come in "various sizes".

But they do simply come in various sizes.  Yes, they are predictable, but each element is of a different size than the other.

A pebble is defined by its smooth features. A boulder with smooth features like that wouldn't be found in nature because the physical processes which shape a pebble do not apply to rocks the size of boulders. Thus, pebbles do not come in boulder size.

You should see what comes up when you google "smooth boulders"

I thought you were supposed to be arguing that things came in wildly different sizes?

And we thought you were arguing things came in the same size, so there you go.  What makes you think that the sun and moon are similar anyway?  Other than size, and sphericity, they share very little in common.

[Tau]

Actually, everything does not come in various sizes. Do the atoms of the ocean come in various sizes?

Are you suggesting that hydrogen atoms are the same size as oxygen atoms? 

'Hydrogen' and 'Oxygen' are names for the relative sizes of atom. The constituents of these atoms do not change in size, Oxygen just by definition has more of them. You can't argue that this difference is meaningful while arguing that the difference between a pebble and a boulder is just pedantism.

[markjo]

Actually, everything does not come in various sizes. Do the atoms of the ocean come in various sizes?

Are you suggesting that hydrogen atoms are the same size as oxygen atoms? 

'Hydrogen' and 'Oxygen' are names for the relative sizes of atom. The constituents of these atoms do not change in size, Oxygen just by definition has more of them. You can't argue that this difference is meaningful while arguing that the difference between a pebble and a boulder is just pedantism.

A granite pebble and a granite boulder both contain granite particles, boulders just contain more of them.  Granite does not stop being granite just because it's a different size.

[Tom Bishop]

A granite pebble and a granite boulder both contain granite particles, boulders just contain more of them.  Granite does not stop being granite just because it's a different size.

A pebble is much different than a boulder. Pebbles are flawlessly smooth, created by water constantly gushing around them and scraping them together from all angles. The picture of the boulder you posted is not smooth. Even if you go out specifically looking for "smooth boulders" as Rama did, you will not find anything like a scaled up pebble. In his picture the rocks have jagged cracks all over their surfaces.

No, physical processes are the same no matter what the scale, until you get down to the quantum scale.

This is incorrect. A boulder isn't constantly surrounded by gushing water passing over them and scraping them together like rocks in a rock tumbler as a pebble in a stream is. Therefore it will be really hard to find one which is flawlessly eroded and smooth. The physical process of a volcano can't happen at anthill-size scale. A scaled up honey bee to the size of a 747 could not fly. There are a lot of different physical processes that happen at different scales. Any assertion otherwise is laughable.

[Rama Set]

This is incorrect. A boulder isn't constantly surrounded by gushing water passing over them and scraping them together like rocks in a rock tumbler as a pebble in a stream is. Therefore it will be really hard to find one which is flawlessly eroded and smooth. The physical process of a volcano can't happen at anthill-size scale. A scaled up honey bee to the size of a 747 could not fly. There are a lot of different physical processes that happen at different scales. Any assertion otherwise is laughable.

The physical processes are the same, but they can produce different results.

Now, what makes you think the sun and the moon are similar enough to end up at the same size?

[Tom Bishop]

The physical processes are the same, but they can produce different results.

No, a pebble attains its shape under a different physical process than a boulder. The boulder does not experience the rock tumbler effect of pebbles in a stream. It exists at a different scale where that does not happen. Hence, pebbles do not get to boulder size.

Now, what makes you think the sun and the moon are similar enough to end up at the same size?

They were subject to the same physical processes which shaped them and keeps them in the system. The may be made of different materials, as different pebbles in a stream are, but are subject to the same processes.

Sand Dunes on the Monterey Bay coast can only get so big before they stop growing. The wind acts as a size-limiter. It is not too surprising to see two big sand dunes side by side, of the same height. Likewise, sand dollars can only get so small to where they are not heavy enough to stay pinned to the bottom of the shore and easily wash away by the moving water. It is not so surprising to see two small sand dollars of the same size. The physical processes of nature shapes reality into standard templates.

[Rama Set]

The physical processes are the same, but they can produce different results.

No, a pebble attains its shape under a different physical process than a boulder. The boulder does not experience the rock tumbler effect of pebbles in a stream. It exists at a different scale where that does not happen. Hence, pebbles do not get to boulder size.

But they both can be subjected to pressure and friction, which is why you do in fact see similar developed boulders and pebbles.

Now, what makes you think the sun and the moon are similar enough to end up at the same size?

They were subject to the same physical processes which shaped them and keeps them in the system.

Evidence?  They appear to be completely different bodies other than their shape indicating that they have had completely different lifecycles.

Sand Dunes on the Monterey Bay coast can only get so big before they stop growing. The wind acts as a size-limiter. It is not too surprising to see two big sand dunes side by side, of the same height. Likewise, sand dollars can only get so small to where they are not heavy enough to stay pinned to the bottom of the ocean and float away. It is not so surprising to see two small sand dollars of about the same size.

The sun and the moon are not comparable to two sand dollars, you are comparing apples to oranges.

[Tom Bishop]

But they both can be subjected to pressure and friction, which is why you do in fact see similar developed boulders and pebbles.

As I said, pebbles are flawless and smooth. What you posted is marred with many fractures and imperfections on the surface. Those boulders obviously didn't go through a rock tumbler process like pebbles do to attain their remarkably smooth and flawless shapes.

Now, what makes you think the sun and the moon are similar enough to end up at the same size?

They were subject to the same physical processes which shaped them and keeps them in the system.

Evidence?  They appear to be completely different bodies other than their shape indicating that they have had completely different lifecycles.

Air-borne particles. Particulate matter floating in the air can only get so massive before it falls to the ground. The particulate matter in the air can be composed of a vast array of different materials, but only the particulate matter of a certain mass and size can stay airborne. Therefore the largest particulate matter which is airborne for a long period of time is of similar mass and size.

Sand Dunes on the Monterey Bay coast can only get so big before they stop growing. The wind acts as a size-limiter. It is not too surprising to see two big sand dunes side by side, of the same height. Likewise, sand dollars can only get so small to where they are not heavy enough to stay pinned to the bottom of the ocean and float away. It is not so surprising to see two small sand dollars of about the same size.

The sun and the moon are not comparable to two sand dollars, you are comparing apples to oranges.

I am bringing up the undeniable fact that there are physical processes which prevent things from getting too small or too large.

Rain drops. When drops are formed, they can only become so small else they are whisked and flitted away away into the air and do not fall properly. They can also only get so large before they break up into multiple drops by air friction. Therefore we have rain drops which can only exist in a narrow size range. The largest of the raindrops are all the same size and the smallest of the rain drops are all the same size.

It makes perfect sense that there are forces in nature which might force types of bodies to be of similar sizes, or even the exact same sizes as exampled by particulate matter in the air, growing sand dunes, and small sand dollars.

[Rama Set]

So now you are assuming the sun and moon are airborne? Less and less Zetetic all the time...

[Tom Bishop]

So now you are assuming the sun and moon are airborne? Less and less Zetetic all the time...

Where did I say that? I don't know what kinds of forces exist at the altitude and scale of the sun and moon, but forces and processes which can make things the same size certainly exist at other locations and scales.

[Tau]

Actually, everything does not come in various sizes. Do the atoms of the ocean come in various sizes?

Are you suggesting that hydrogen atoms are the same size as oxygen atoms? 

'Hydrogen' and 'Oxygen' are names for the relative sizes of atom. The constituents of these atoms do not change in size, Oxygen just by definition has more of them. You can't argue that this difference is meaningful while arguing that the difference between a pebble and a boulder is just pedantism.

A granite pebble and a granite boulder both contain granite particles, boulders just contain more of them.  Granite does not stop being granite just because it's a different size.

The only point I'm making here is that your argument was hypocritical. I agree 100%, you just can't turn around and make the opposite argument about atoms.

[Rama Set]

So now you are assuming the sun and moon are airborne? Less and less Zetetic all the time...

Where did I say that? I don't know what kinds of forces exist at the altitude and scale of the sun and moon, but forces and processes which can make things the same size certainly exist here on earth.

When I asked what evidence you had that the sun and the moon were subject to the same physical processes you provided this answer:

Air-borne particles. Particulate matter floating in the air can only get so massive before it falls to the ground. The particulate matter in the air can be composed of a vast array of different materials, but only the particulate matter of a certain mass and size can stay airborne. Therefore the largest particulate matter which is airborne for a long period of time is of similar mass and size.

If I mis-interpreted please clarify what you meant.

[Tom Bishop]

So now you are assuming the sun and moon are airborne? Less and less Zetetic all the time...

Where did I say that? I don't know what kinds of forces exist at the altitude and scale of the sun and moon, but forces and processes which can make things the same size certainly exist here on earth.

When I asked what evidence you had that the sun and the moon were subject to the same physical processes you provided this answer:

Air-borne particles. Particulate matter floating in the air can only get so massive before it falls to the ground. The particulate matter in the air can be composed of a vast array of different materials, but only the particulate matter of a certain mass and size can stay airborne. Therefore the largest particulate matter which is airborne for a long period of time is of similar mass and size.

If I mis-interpreted please clarify what you meant.

The fact that many other forces in reality force bodies in their systems to be similar or same sizes is evidence that the forces the sun and moon are subjected to would also compel the bodies in that system to be similar or same sizes. An ordered universe. That makes sense. A free-for-all universe does not make sense.

[Rama Set]

Well don't unfairly characterize the mainstream view. After all, it can mathematically model virtually everything which makes it not a free for all almost by definition.

So how do you know the sun and moon are part of the same system?

[Gulliver]

...Typically if someone were talking about diameter, mass or surface area, that would specified. That is not what is typically meant myby larger. In a comparing of size, the sun in RET is millions of times larger than the moon.

Then why didn't you specify diameter here?:

Here is a new one. During a Solar Eclipse the body of the moon perfectly covers the sun. It is remarkable. They are the same size. Is it just some kind of astonishing coincidence that a body over four million times larger than the moon happens to be located at just the right spot that the sun and moon are identical in size, each with a diameter of 0.5 degrees of the sky?
...

[Tom Bishop]

Well don't unfairly characterize the mainstream view. After all, it can mathematically model virtually everything which makes it not a free for all almost by definition.

It doesn't model everything. They tried to use GR and RET astronomy to model the movements of the stars and galaxies and failed utterly. They had to fill the universe with undiscovered "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" to explain the movements.

http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves continue to elude all detection.

Wow! They need 96 percent of the universe filled with an undiscovered and undetectable substances and energies to fill in the gaps where General Relativity fails. If that doesn't scream that the fundamental theories of RET are incorrect, I don't know what does.

So how do you know the sun and moon are part of the same system?

They are the same size, exist at around the same altitudes, and move at similar rates.

[Gulliver]

It doesn't model everything. They tried to use GR and RET astronomy to model the movements of the stars and galaxies and failed utterly.

No, they don't utterly fail. GR passes many amazing tests. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't model everything. They tried to use GR and RET astronomy to model the movements of the stars and galaxies and failed utterly.

No, they don't utterly fail. GR passes many amazing tests. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Except the test of applying to the actual universe.