Orbits and mass calculations of celestial bodies.

I read this wiki page on Astronomy and gravitation.  I find it interesting that these methods were used to calculate the mass of the planets and sun, and their distance from the earth and the sun.

It appears to contradict FE beliefs about the size of the sun.  The question is, how did FE'ers come about the conclusion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and much closer to the earth than in the RE model?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_(astronomy)

The question is, how did FE'ers come about the conclusion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and much closer to the earth than in the RE model?

They did it as a simple exercise in planar trigonometry.  Here is the diagram...



Once you have a distance to the Sun using that calculation, you can calculate how large the Sun should be given its angular size and that distance.

I can't see the picture.

Can this method that the use also calculate and predict the movement of the planets?

I can't see the picture.

Hmm, interesting.  I can.   

Can this method that the use also calculate and predict the movement of the planets?

No, but it could be used to calculate the height of the Moon, stars and planets.  I will give you one guess as to what answer you will get.

There is a copy of a different diagram and the description of the process here...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm

Quote from: ragnarr on September 19, 2008, 12:34:58 PM

The question is, how did FE'ers come about the conclusion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and much closer to the earth than in the RE model?

They did it as a simple exercise in planar trigonometry.  Here is the diagram...



Once you have a distance to the Sun using that calculation, you can calculate how large the Sun should be given its angular size and that distance.

What's funny is that the stupid bending light theory from robosteve would nullify the results. 

What's funny is that the stupid bending light theory from robosteve would nullify the results. 

Well, that has often been the problem with the "bendy light" theory of OBLSeve.  It contradicts most FE canon.

Quote from: sokarul on September 19, 2008, 01:12:30 PM

What's funny is that the stupid bending light theory from robosteve would nullify the results. 

Well, that has often been the problem with the "bendy light" theory of OBLSeve.  It contradicts most FE canon.

Very true. 

Wow, I disagree with most, if not all of those experiments.  Plus, didn't his Bedford results get debunked later on?  If the RE earth is as large as RE'er predict, it would not be possible to see the curvature at ground level. 

Wow, I disagree with most, if not all of those experiments.  Plus, didn't his Bedford results get debunked later on?  If the RE earth is as large as RE'er predict, it would not be possible to see the curvature at ground level. 

You can still observe the effects of that curvature from ground level though, and that is what he is trying to explain.  The observable effect of ships disappearing beneath the horizon is what this was originally designed to explain.  Unfortunately, it requires proof that light is bent in the manner which he postulates, and that proof just doesn't exist and contradicts most observations about the behavior of light.