[fortytwo]

Star size is maximum 10% of the moon, so maximum 3.2 miles; I didn't find the minimum size
List of largest icebergs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recorded_icebergs_by_area
And a current one: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55355381#:~:text=Originating%20in%20Antarctica%20in%202017,Shelf%20in%20the%20Weddell%20Sea.

So it seems to me, that large icebergs could be bigger than the stars. Diameters are even bigger than the moon (mass probably not).
Question is, if UA can make large icebergs weightless?

If this would be possible, then horrible things could happen. Just was thinking of an iceberg blown away by the strong winds in the southern hemisphere and then losing UA when it melts.

Quotes from UA: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

"Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward"
I assume this includes sun, moon and stars (have not found in Wiki if stars are "sufficiently massive")

Option 1)
"The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA"
Option 2)
"Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible"

Could this be an indication to favor the first option over the 2nd?
Or are there any ideas on the mass of stars beeing extreme high compared to their size? For option 2 it needs to be ensured that stars are bigger than the largest objects on earth.

Any thoughts on this? Have I missed something?

[Iceman]

I think you might be reading too much into things. I'm not sure what you mean by star size is 10% of the moon, and how that gets you to 3.2 km.

UA is probably best viewed as an idea based on the equivalency of our apparent downward acceleration due to gravity vs. a possible upward acceleration of everything we stand on.

Ice bergs would behave similarly in both scenarios. Although the paths they take once they break off from ice shelves is affected by ocean currents and surface winds, which are both partially controlled by coriolis effects, among many other factors

[Pete Svarrior]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that your interest here is to cherry-pick quotes and blow them out of proportion. Things like your supposed inability to distinguish between "observable sizes" and "sizes" are an obvious proof of this. I will ask one last time that you argue in good faith. You're not impressing anyone with your flights of fancy.

[fortytwo]

I think you might be reading too much into things. ...

For sure 

All infos are from TFES Wiki

"... the largest being one tenth the diameter of the visible disk of the Moon ..." from https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars
and
"... It has a diameter of 32 miles ..." from https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
Oh, just recognized that I mixed up miles and km, I'll fix this in the original post - but that's not changing the whole thing.

Isn't the Wiki the reference for discussions?
For me it's mostly unclear whats the current status of the theory, what's obsolete and what's single opinions. So I just don't know what to take literally.
Is there something like a commonly accepted base?

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the source for the 1/10th remark in the associated link on that page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

"In On the New Star, Kepler said bright stars measure one-tenth the moon’s diameter, Sirius a bit more."

That page describes an interesting story. Apparently according to RE the stars that we see are illusions and enlargements. It might be a clue of some kind for further investigation.

[fortytwo]

Things like your supposed inability to distinguish between "observable sizes" and "sizes" ...

Fair enought. I made the assumption, that the star layer must be quite close to sun and moon and therefor stars are really that small.
This was my own interpretation and is documented nowhere in the Wiki.
Reasons for this assumption was
a) the distance how far we can see
b) stars raise at the same horizon as the sun and the moon

[fortytwo]

Acknowledging that we cannot proof that stars are smaller than icebergs, the issue "its (UA) effect on smaller bodies is negligible" IMHO still exists.
There are objects on earth with bigger volume than the moon.

I think the biggest objects not connected to earth are icebergs or shelfs.

"Ross Ice Shelf, world’s largest body of floating ice": https://www.britannica.com/place/Ross-Ice-Shelf

"182,000 square miles"
"the shelf’s mean ice thickness is about 1,100 feet (330 m)"
=> ~37.000 cubic miles (vs Moon: 17157 cubic miles)

Since we don't know the mass of the moon (do we?), it might be still bigger than the mass of the ice shelf.

But the issue can also be explained differently without having icebergs with more mass than a celestial object, there are bigger things. It's just less obvious.

One question is, which is the minimum size or mass that UA has effect?
The other question is what separates one object from the other?

Is a mountain (range) part of the earth (=> would have no "weight") or is it a seperate object (of reasonable size?).

What about the ice wall?
Either it is part of the earth or it is a separeate object.
If it would be part of the earth, then UA would be effective and it would not have a "weight".
So when it comes to the coast it would not dive into the water but float on the surface. There would be no gravity that brakes icebergs from the wall.
If it would be not be part of the earth, would we call it "smaller body" then?


So I still think that the "shield" concept shall be favored over the "smaller objects" idea, which seems to me generating more problems than it solves.