The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop 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?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CEzPvM3XE7E/TTTUguXvzQI/AAAAAAAAAi4/1hmEW2HVYIw/s1600/eclipsesolar.jpg)
-
Nope, it's not always perfect:
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/annular_eclipse1.jpg)
-
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 (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-difference-calculator.php) 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.
-
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 (http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/astronomical/the-solar-eclipse-odds)
-
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 (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-difference-calculator.php) 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.
-
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 (http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/astronomical/the-solar-eclipse-odds)
Well, considering all the other ways they have measured the size and distance of the sun and moon, what other explanation could you propose in RET to explain it? God?
-
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 (http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/astronomical/the-solar-eclipse-odds)
Well, considering all the other ways they have measured the size and distance of the sun and moon, what other explanation could you propose in RET to explain it? God?
That the earth is flat and their model is wrong.
-
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 (http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/astronomical/the-solar-eclipse-odds)
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 (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-difference-calculator.php) 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.
-
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 (http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/astronomical/the-solar-eclipse-odds)
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!
I think that is the difference between the area of the sun and the volume of the sun. The latter being cubed, the former being squared.
But anyhow, the odds are so small it is laughable to cry coincidence.
-
But anyhow, the odds are so small it is laughable to cry coincidence.
Based on all measures, this is the situation they are left in, so what should they cry instead?
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.
I agree. This has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
-
...
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/ (http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-the-sun-compared-to-the-earth/)
-
...
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/ (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.
-
Does FET have a better answer?
-
What exactly is Venus and according to Flat Theory it can only be 100 miles or less across?
https://www.google.com/search?q=venus+transit+sun&tbm=isch&imgil=gvDVYnNMzw7q0M%253A%253BlFNkB60YGWdFKM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.nbcnews.com%25252Fid%25252F47506288%25252Fns%25252Ftechnology_and_science-space%25252Ft%25252Fnext-amazing-sky-sight-venus-transit-sun-june%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=gvDVYnNMzw7q0M%253A%252ClFNkB60YGWdFKM%252C_&usg=__2RTYo5EWVARLb3uHh6467srfdyg%3D&biw=1059&bih=472&ved=0CDcQyjc&ei=QOPwVLLLJdimyASJzIGACw#imgdii=_&imgrc=gvDVYnNMzw7q0M%253A%3BlFNkB60YGWdFKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia3.s-nbcnews.com%252Fj%252FMSNBC%252FComponents%252FPhoto%252F_new%252F120521_tch_venus-transit-gipa.grid-6x2.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nbcnews.com%252Fid%252F47506288%252Fns%252Ftechnology_and_science-space%252Ft%252Fnext-amazing-sky-sight-venus-transit-sun-june%252F%3B474%3B474
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
Except that having the sun and moon the same size would make eclipses much more problematic (especially annular eclipses).
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?
-
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.
-
All of them.
Oh great. Can you explain how entropy favors this? Why is the Earth so much bigger than the sun and moon in FET?
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.
Let's go one more... Have you ever seen a sun the same size as a moon?
-
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?
Have you ever seen a pebble as big as a boulder?
"Pebble" and "boulder" are names for the relative sizes of rocks, not rocks themselves.
Ever seen an elephant as small as a mouse...
I would contend that mouse embryos and elephant embryos start out about the same size.
...or a volcano as big as an ant hill?
Well, you seem to be pretty good at making mountains out of a mole hills.
I could go on, but you get my drift.
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/182953/691420/f/6770761-Krishna-s-Butter-Ball-0.jpg)
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.
-
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"
(http://www.geocaching.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Moeraki-Boulders.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So now you are assuming the sun and moon are airborne? Less and less Zetetic all the time...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
...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?
...
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
Except the test of applying to the actual universe. :(
-
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 (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?
-
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.
Don't misrepresent what I said. The word 'virtually' was there for a reason.
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.
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.
http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html
<Brief summary of dark matter and dark energy>
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.
They don't know yet if GR has failed. Considering the success of GR to this point, which is astounding, Dark Matter and Dark Energy seems like a fruitful line of inquiry. So far it has not been... But I digress.
When they add in values for the inferred properties of dark matter and energy, they can, as per my claim, accurately model the life cycle of our universe. Which would indicate that they are not as far off as you want them to be.
They are the same size, exist at around the same altitudes, and move at similar rates.
This is a big fat assumption on your part. At least REers go through the effort of concisely measuring their distances.
-
Except the test of applying to the actual universe. :(
You sound like an obese person telling a olympic sprinter how to run fast.
-
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.
No, pebbles are not "flawlessly smooth".
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.
Have you ever looked at a pebble under strong magnification? I'm willing to wager that if you scale a pebble up to the size of a boulder, then you will find plenty of jagged cracks all over its surface.
Also, are you suggesting that all pebbles are exactly the same size, or do you admit that pebbles can come in various sizes?
(http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060714/images/060710-15.jpg)
-
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 (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?
(http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060714/images/060710-15.jpg)
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.
-
First off, learn the science. Rotational velocity does change with distance from galactic center, it is just anomalous to what is predicted.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
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.
-
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.
-
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.
That would be making one case more important and defining than any other which is a mistake because you are ignoring all the successful cases. But then you have a heavy stake in proving FET correct so I could hardly expect you to be fair and reasonable. I imagine you are much like Hampden when he lost to Wallace.
-
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.
So, are you arguing that GR's prediction was somehow "fitted" to the answer before it was known? So, are you arguing that FET is superior to RET in its predictive powers? When will the sun set according to FET this evening? Do you need some time to go fit that up first? RET doesn't.
-
Is it just some kind of astonishing coincidence ....
So with FET is it some kind of astonishing coincidence that a series of factors such as humidity, temp, aetheric whirlpools, others?, always (despite obvious fluctuations some) make the sun and moon appear the same size throughout the day despite being several times further away when seen on the horizon versus overhead, and also keeps us from viewing any other face of them if they're spheres, or if they're disks, always makes them appear round instead of an ellipse when not straight overhead
-
and also keeps us from viewing any other face of them if they're spheres, or if they're disks, always makes them appear round instead of an ellipse when not straight overhead
You've seen the dark side of the moon then? Or is it a coincidence on round earth the moon revolves at exactly the same speed as it takes to orbit the earth always facing the same way. Again I'm given 'tidal locking' as a fallacious rebuttal from RET. And yet I don't see tidal locking anywhere else when I look in the solar system. The earth isn't tidally locked with the sun for example, despite it being the most obvious comparison as it purports to do the same thing.
So with FET is it some kind of astonishing coincidence that a series of factors such ... always makes them appear round instead of an ellipse when not straight overhead
And the sun always appears round even when not being overhead? Have you ever observed a sunset?
(http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/Nuggets/2002/020301/sundistorted.jpg) (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/atmosphere/misc/sunset030130.jpg) (http://bte999.jalbum.net/Terry's%20Astrophotos/Earth/Atmospheric%20Phenomena/Desert%20Sunset%20crop%20060329.jpg)
You are only helping me show that the sun isn't a ball.
-
You've seen the dark side of the moon then? Or is it a coincidence on round earth the moon revolves at exactly the same speed as it takes to orbit the earth always facing the same way. Again I'm given 'tidal locking' as a fallacious rebuttal from RET.
What exactly makes tidal locking fallacious?
And yet I don't see tidal locking anywhere else when I look in the solar system. The earth isn't tidally locked with the sun for example, despite it being the most obvious comparison as it purports to do the same thing.
You, unsurprisingly, did a terrible job of looking. From the wiki page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking):
Locked to the Earth
Moon
Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus
Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton
Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)
Extra-solar
Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.[7]
-
You've seen the dark side of the moon then?
Yes, and I'm fairly sure that you have too. Or do you only ever come out during a full moon?
-
You've seen the dark side of the moon then? Or is it a coincidence on round earth the moon revolves at exactly the same speed as it takes to orbit the earth always facing the same way. Again I'm given 'tidal locking' as a fallacious rebuttal from RET.
What exactly makes tidal locking fallacious?
And yet I don't see tidal locking anywhere else when I look in the solar system. The earth isn't tidally locked with the sun for example, despite it being the most obvious comparison as it purports to do the same thing.
You, unsurprisingly, did a terrible job of looking. From the wiki page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking):
Locked to the Earth
Moon
Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus
Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton
Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)
Extra-solar
Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.[7]
I said "When I look". I can't see the moons of Jupiter. Nor can a regular person get near a telescope that can pick up how the are spinning. Your just going on what NASA says again. If your source is NASA, I'm not intrested. They lie. They lied about the moon landings, they lie about the ISS, they lie about their images ... I don't believe a word they say.
You've seen the dark side of the moon then?
Yes, and I'm fairly sure that you have too. Or do you only ever come out during a full moon?
Don't be a retart. The far side of the moon. The bit we never ever see.
-
I said "When I look". I can't see the moons of Jupiter. Nor can a regular person get near a telescope that can pick up how the are spinning. Your just going on what NASA says again. If your source is NASA, I'm not intrested. They lie. They lied about the moon landings, they lie about the ISS, they lie about their images ... I don't believe a word they say.
Why would you assume you need a NASA telescope to see the Moon's of Jupiter? You can discern them with binoculars and there are amateurs who have mapped their surface very roughly (http://www.space.com/17782-jupiter-moon-ganymede-amateur-astronomy.html).
To say nothing of what you could see at a professional planetarium, unaffiliated with NASA.
-
You've seen the dark side of the moon then?
Yes, and I'm fairly sure that you have too. Or do you only ever come out during a full moon?
Don't be a retart. The far side of the moon. The bit we never ever see.
At least I know the difference between the far side of the moon and the dark side of the moon. :P
-
You've seen the dark side of the moon then?
Yes, and I'm fairly sure that you have too. Or do you only ever come out during a full moon?
Don't be a retart. The far side of the moon. The bit we never ever see.
At least I know the difference between the far side of the moon and the dark side of the moon. :P
The dark side of the moon was Pink Floyd, wasn't it?
-
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.
I must ask, have you considered the measurement of heat from a sun the size of the moon? I'd love to see the math on what the minimum size for the sun could be based on the amount of heat input to Earth.
-
I would guess people argue that the sun is a kind of campfire.
Or maybe the sun is just using the new bright LED's...?
Maybe NASA put the sun where it is?
-
the sun and moon are the same size...32 miles in diameter.
-
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.
I must ask, have you considered the measurement of heat from a sun the size of the moon? I'd love to see the math on what the minimum size for the sun could be based on the amount of heat input to Earth.
We did some math on the .org forum for how much energy the sun needs to put out to heat the earth under the FE model. Unfortunately it seems that the owner of that site turned on thread pruning at one point because we haven't been able to find that thread again.
The equations demonstrated that, even though the sun is much smaller under the FE model, since it is very close to the earth's surface, it actually outputs less energy per square inch surface area than the 93 million mile distant Round Earth sun.
-
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.
From the RE perspective this is an unspectacular observation. The moon split off from the earth billions of years ago and has been receding from the earth as time progresses. There has to be a point in time when the moon and sun appear to be the same size.
-
So with FET is it some kind of astonishing coincidence that a series of factors such ... always makes them appear round instead of an ellipse when not straight overhead
And the sun always appears round even when not being overhead? Have you ever observed a sunset?
(http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/Nuggets/2002/020301/sundistorted.jpg) (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/atmosphere/misc/sunset030130.jpg) (http://bte999.jalbum.net/Terry's%20Astrophotos/Earth/Atmospheric%20Phenomena/Desert%20Sunset%20crop%20060329.jpg)
You are only helping me show that the sun isn't a ball.
Forgot to reply. I guess I've been slacking.
Anyway, have you ever observed a disk from an angle?
Nice examples of a superior mirage/refraction of light. You can see the same thing with ships, buildings, and such of a distance of a couple miles. I've posted pictures of that before.
Now at the angle above the horizon that the sun is in those pictures you posted, how far away would it need to be? Unless the light is somehow bending around in a huge curve from the other side of the disk, the sun would be somewhere beyond the "icewall" if that light is traveling a path anywhere near 'straight'. If the light is bending around the long way from the other side of the disk, what blocks the light that should be seen from straight across?