[Gulliver]

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

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

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?

[Rama Set]

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

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.

[Rama Set]

Except the test of applying to the actual universe.

You sound like an obese person telling a olympic sprinter how to run fast.

[markjo]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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

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

Except the test of applying to the actual universe.

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[model 29]

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

[Thork]

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?


You are only helping me show that the sun isn't a ball.

[Rama Set]

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:

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]

[markjo]

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?

[Thork]

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:

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

To say nothing of what you could see at a professional planetarium, unaffiliated with NASA.

[markjo]

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. 

[Thork]

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. 

The dark side of the moon was Pink Floyd, wasn't it?

[Wes]

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.

[alex]

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?

[dave]

the sun and moon are the same size...32 miles in diameter.