9161

Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon

« on: March 03, 2015, 11:31:03 PM »

As I've mentioned before, I do not believe that Parker is asking a question.  "Copy that.  We've also got SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it on the Rover, if you have any...yeah, you have some of those today," doesn't sound at all like a question to me.  It doesn't sound like a question to me when I listen to the audio (here it is again).  It certainly isn't inflected like one.

I interpret Parker's statement like this: "I understand.  Also, the thing with the rover samples in it is on the rover if you have any samples...Oh yeah, you do have some samples today."

I'm sure that's "blatantly absurd," but it makes sense to my enfeebled, sheeple brain.

Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.

9162

Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon

« on: March 03, 2015, 07:22:02 PM »

Firstly, it is blatantly absurd that the astronauts would interrupt Huston in the manner described.

Secondly, according to the recording the Astronaut responds "No" immediately after Huston asks the question, as if they were right next to each other in real-time. It is against all odds that the Astronauts would interrupt Huston and then Huston would happen ask a question with the exact length, down to millisecond accuracy, that the delay takes for the Astronaut's reponse to get to earth. How is this incredible coincidence explained?

9163

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay shot us down

« on: March 02, 2015, 08:33:41 PM »

That other guy, Matthew Boylan, is a better pick. I don't know why we would want to court someone who believes in reptilian conspiracies and has a life goal to "expose every conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion," regardless of his ability to create some youtube videos explaining elements of FET.

9164

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: March 01, 2015, 08:41:08 AM »

First off, learn the science. Rotational velocity does change with distance from galactic center, it is just anomalous to what is predicted.

I didn't say that it didn't change, I said it should be different and the interiors should be spinning faster than they are. Rotational velocity also changes toward the edge on a spinning disk. Think about it.

Now, you are being incredibly myopic about the scope of GR, as if the large scale structure of the universe is the only thing of value to apply GR to. It may well fall out that GR cannot explain these things and it would still be incredibly successful.  It may fall out that the answer is right in front of us but we have not connected the dots on existing theories, like the plasma physicists propose in your link. Regardless, we can model virtually everything and the mainstream view is not a "free for all" as you assert.

I don't know why you would even talk about GR in this way though. It is as if you don't even believe in FET.

If 96% of the universe needs to be filled with undiscovered and undetectable matters and energies for GR to work, I would call that 96% unsuccessful.

9165

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: March 01, 2015, 05:57:21 AM »

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.

Really? Are you claiming the experiment showing the predicted procession of the aphelion of the Mercury was not in the actual Universe?

If you manage to fit General Relativity up to explain the precision of Mercury, those equations you used can't be used predict the precision or aphelions of stars or galaxies. You took a puzzle piece and were able to fit one piece into a slot on the board, but in doing so the three other slots on that piece do not fit. It screams failure.

It was more to explain the distribution of galaxies and the increasing rate of expansion of the universe, but meh.  You tend to misrepresent and misinterpret science as it suits you.

Actually, they can't even use GR to explain very simple things like the spinning movement of galaxies. Galaxies are observed to spin as if they were solid disks, but according to theory, the center of the galaxy should be spinning much faster than the edges. In order to explain the rotation of galaxies they need the entire galaxy filled with some kind of substance which holds the stars strongly together.

See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

Considering the success of GR to this point, which is astounding

I would hardly call a theory for gravity which needs 96 percent of the universe filled with undiscovered and undetectable dark matter and dark energy "astounding". Well, I would. But not in the way you intended.

No, pebbles are not "flawlessly smooth".

They are certainly much smoother than the boulders we have been shown in this thread.

Also, are you suggesting that all pebbles are exactly the same size, or do you admit that pebbles can come in various sizes?

The stones in that picture seem to be a mixture of cobbles and pebbles. Pebbles will never be over 64 mm or under 2 mm.

9166

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: March 01, 2015, 03:46:05 AM »

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.

9167

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: March 01, 2015, 03:41:32 AM »

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.

9168

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 09:58:58 PM »

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.

9169

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 08:51:04 PM »

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.

9170

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 08:35:19 PM »

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.

9171

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 07:55:32 PM »

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.

9172

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 07:09:18 PM »

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.

9173

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 03:39:17 PM »

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.

9174

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 28, 2015, 03:03:11 AM »

It also makes sense to have a universe with kinds of bodies that are the same sizes. Not wildly different sizes, where one star can be thousands or millions of times bigger than another.

Ehhh.... Not really. Makes sense to you maybe, but what physical principle are proposing that favors this kind of extreme homogeneity?

All of them.

It also makes sense to have a universe with kinds of bodies that are the same sizes. Not wildly different sizes, where one star can be thousands or millions of times bigger than another.

Just about everything in nature comes in various sizes.  Why should celestial bodies be any different?

Actually, everything does not come in various sizes. Do the atoms of the ocean come in various sizes? Have you ever seen a pebble as big as a boulder? Ever seen an elephant as small as a mouse, or a volcano as big as an ant hill?

I could go on, but you get my drift.

9175

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 27, 2015, 09:42:47 PM »

Does FET have a better answer?

A better answer is that the moon and sun appear to be the same size because they are the same size.

It also makes sense to have a universe with kinds of bodies that are the same sizes. Not wildly different sizes, where one star can be thousands or millions of times bigger than another.

9176

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 27, 2015, 08:50:32 PM »

...

As far as I know RET has been claiming that the sun is over a million times larger than the earth, and that the earth is over four times larger than the moon, which is why I said the sun is over 4 million times larger than the moon in the OP. I don't know where they got about "400 times the size" from.

...

You're making the sophomoric mistake of confusing the usages of "size", mass and diameter. See: http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-the-sun-compared-to-the-earth/

Your link agrees with me that the sun is over a million times larger than the earth. I don't see what the confusion is. Typically if someone were talking about diameter, mass or surface area, that would specified. That is not what is typically meant my larger. In a comparing of size, the sun in RET is millions of times larger than the moon.

The source in Thork's link may have been talking about diameter.

Sun's Diameter 1,391,684 km / Moon's Diameter 3,474.8 km = 400.5

400.5 moons laid side to side in a straight line can make up the diameter of the sun, but I wouldn't use that in a sentence to say that the sun was 400 times larger than the moon. The author of the link is clearly incorrect in their wording.

9177

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 27, 2015, 05:48:40 PM »

Yes, coincidence is the best answer Round Earth Scientists can come up with. The sun is 400 times the size of the moon and 400 times further away ... apparently.

Thus the solar eclipse is against the odds in any solar system.

You can read the full article here

As far as I know RET has been claiming that the sun is over a million times larger than the earth, and that the earth is over four times larger than the moon, which is why I said the sun is over 4 million times larger than the moon in the OP. I don't know where they got about "400 times the size" from.

But they are right, it is a cosmic coincidence!

What is that, like a 5% difference in size? I took the width of the sun (515px) and compared it to the width of the moon (482px). Plugging those values into this calculator tells me that the difference in size is 6.6199% difference.

It still seems like an odd coincidence that both the sun are both 0.5 degrees in the sky, give or take 0.0066 degrees in some situations.

Yeah, and?

To quote Richard Feynman:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

Yes it is not likely, but that does not make it untrue, nor is it evidence of anything.  More of a doubt that can be used as a springboard for productive investigation.

It would be a coincidence if he happened to come across two plates that were sequential to each other. That the sun is 0.5 degrees all by itself is not a coincidence. But that both the sun and the moon, the two most important bodies in the earth's sky are nearly exactly the same size in the sky with such great distances and sizes involved, is astonishing.

9178

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 27, 2015, 05:31:02 PM »

What is that, like a 5% difference in size? I took the width of the sun (515px) and compared it to the width of the moon (482px). Plugging those values into this calculator tells me that the difference in size is 6.6199% difference.

It still seems like an odd coincidence that both the sun and moon are both 0.5 degrees in the sky, give or take 0.0066 degrees in some situations.

9179

Flat Earth Community / Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: February 27, 2015, 07:35:48 AM »

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?

9180

Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon

« on: February 26, 2015, 08:57:13 AM »

"If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is the question.