[sandokhan]

If you want anyone to believe you that the surface of Jupiter has a spherical shape, then you must explain both the faint young sun paradox and the dating of the comets' tails paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

The upper age of the comets, based on very precise calculations, cannot be higher than 2,000 years (heliocentrical context). Not nearly enough time for the Sun and Jupiter to attain a spherical shape.

[shootingstar]

I personally don't care a hoot who believes me or not. I would be interested to know what calculations you are basing your comet age on.  You have missed a fews zeros off your results there I'm afraid. 

[Bad Puppy]

I'd like to know how the spot on Jupiter can be seen sliding across from one side to the other, disappearing, waiting the appropriate amount of time it would take on a sphere to appear on the other side, then reappearing only to cross again and again.  This pac-man effect is logical on a sphere, and not on a disk.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.

[Bad Puppy]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.

...when science meets religion...

[ChrisTP]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.

...when science meets religion...

well recorded history is more than 2000 years old so not much to do with science.

[AATW]

If you want anyone to believe you that the surface of Jupiter has a spherical shape, then you must explain both the faint young sun paradox and the dating of the comets' tails paradox

Jupiter is observably a sphere.

[shootingstar]

Yes and that red spot that you see in the equatorial belt is three times the diameter of Earth or about 24,000 miles.

[sandokhan]

What you have are layers of clouds which are rotating around an unspecified geometrical shape.

Again, if you want anyone to even look in your direction regarding your claims (Jupiter is a sphere) you must prove/explain the faint young sun paradox: not enough time for Jupiter to have attained a spherical shape.

Yes and that red spot that you see in the equatorial belt is three times the diameter of Earth or about 24,000 miles.

Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon/Shadow Moon/Black Sun/Sun: some 636 meters. Therefore, that red spot has some 100 meters in diameter, that's all.

[shootingstar]

With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument?   Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific.  Where do you get that from?  Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

I'm sorry but the young sun paradox has nothing to do with the age of the solar system.  It is a paradox based on the sun's calculated output at the time which known lifeforms first populated earth and also how water was not frozen at the time. It has nothing to do with age of anything.  You are connecting a paradox to a comet trail age paradox.  Two separate unrelated things and extrapolating it out to some odd theory that the Earth is only 2000 years old? By the way, its 2019.  You are 19 years off.

[shootingstar]

So do these people who make these wild claims about the age of the solar system take no notice of the results of carbon dating of rock material from various parts of the world.  You don't need a huge budget or funding to get hold of the equipment you need to do that and the results are self conclusive.

[Bad Puppy]

What you have are layers of clouds which are rotating around an unspecified geometrical shape.

And the rotation of said layers of clouds is consistent with that of a spheroid shape.  Not a square, hexagon, dodecahedron, dinosaur, or discoidal shape.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Apparently, Sandhokan reads Faulkner - some young earth creationist that has been debunked multiple times.  It has been proven that the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt exists and is the source of comets.

My kids like dinosaur shaped chicken nuggets.

[Tom Bishop]

With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument?   Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific.  Where do you get that from?  Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.

You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.

[stack]

With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument?   Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific.  Where do you get that from?  Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.

You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.

The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.

[shootingstar]

You need to prove your own self right

Well I appreciate your request Tom but I don't think I need to prove anything that hasn't been more than adequately proved already.  I have taken countless images of Jupiter at various stages of rotation and through those I have been able to measure Jupiters rate of rotation through my own data and no one elses. Which incidentally is a shade under 10 hours for the equator and a shade more for the polar regions.  If you check the Internet you will find a lot of data from a lot of different and verifiable sources that will back me up on that.

As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.


"Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed" - Another one of your opinions Tom and not one widely shared I don't think.

[Tom Bishop]

With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument?   Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific.  Where do you get that from?  Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.

You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.

The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.

He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.

As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.

I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.

For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.

[shootingstar]

Has anyone shown the analysis to be right?

[stack]

With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument?   Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific.  Where do you get that from?  Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.

You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.

The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.

He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.

As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.

I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.

For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.

This is essentially the summation of Kings Dethroned (It falls into the classic, "everyone is doing it wrong bucket"):

"By that almost inconceivable blunder real and
imaginary angles came into conflict on two different
planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as
a consequence the distance of the moon is no more
known to-day than it was at the time of the flood. "

The author believes he is showing how all astronomical measurements are wrong and then proceeds not show what the correct measurements should be. A measurement method he believes he has that is superior to the ones commonly used back in the day. Yet no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method. Odd.