Angular diameter

  • 45 Replies
  • 13234 Views
*

Raver

  • 777
Angular diameter
« on: June 14, 2010, 10:14:20 AM »
The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees. This can be measured from earth with the right equipment, you don't need a billion dollar budget to accomplish it. This means that the number 0.53 can be verified by basicaly anyone with some time, knowledge and ofcourse at least some ammount of money. The point being that this isn't some fictional made up number by NASA (or any other agency for that matter). The next point I would like to bring up is the formula for the angular diameter:

    angdiameter = 2 * arctan ( 1/2 d/D)

In which d and D are the diameter (visual), and distance respectively. This formula can be verified on a "earthly" scale. For example: take a football of known diameter and put it at X distance from you and measure the angular diameter. You will see that the measurements and calculations are the same (depending on your accuracy ofcourse). So again, something that was not "made up" by NASA and can be verified by anyone if they wish to do so. 

So if you know the distance to the spherical object and have measured the angular diameter, one can calculate the size of the said object. I have shown that both the formula and angular diameter can not really be tampered with and are not "fiction". Now you may point out that there is still a other variable that COULD be made up: the distance. However the distance is not that hard to determine. All you need to do is measure the angular diameter from 2 different heights (thus 2 different distances), since the distance correlates with the angular diameter one can determine the distance to the object. A little drawing to clarify (excuse my mspaint skills):



Now to get to the point, if one uses the distance and angular diameter as mentioned above one will come to the size of the sun as approx. 1.392×10^6 km (diameter). According to FE'ers however, the size of the sun is 32 miles, a slight difference.

Now, if you do find a flaw in my post (besides grammar :P) I would like to point out something that is slightly harder to fault. As said before, both the formula and the measuring of an angular diameter can be verified by anyone, therefor they can be applied in both the "universe" of FE'ers and RE'ers. I have also already stated that the angular diameter is 0.53 degrees. This holds true if one uses the RE'ers data (for lack of a better word :/ ). However if I use the data provided by FE'ers (d=32 miles and D=3000 miles) one ends up with a angular diameter of 0.61 degrees. "that is only 0.08 degrees difference" you may say, but on the scale we are talking about that is quite significant. This last might not "debunk" the FET, it shows however that the data you provide with it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy leads to believe that it is made up and at the very least takes away some credibility in regard to how much of the other data is true or false. Ofcourse you could now say that the given numbers were estimates and now give me numbers that DO fit, but one could do that with everything. Changing your facts to fit, after it has been shown where and how they didn't fit in the first place, damages the believability of the FET. It makes the FET look more like a conspiracy than the RET is according to you.

(my apologies if this is TL;DR, if you read it; discuss. If not, don't bother the rest of us with obvious and or childish remarks)

EDIT: Also, if you see any really weird sentence constructions or flaws in logic or anything else of the kind, please just point it out, readability goes above al else on fora.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 02:51:43 PM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2010, 10:45:55 AM »
This is certainly an interesting experiment, and I would be very interested in the results if attempted. If the distance involved is really 32 miles, even a 1 mile gain in elevation would be plenty to verify the values. Even a good sized skyscraper would do.

What numbers did you plug in to your formula to get your value, and what notation is 1.392×106^6 km (diameter), I'm not familiar with that way of representing numbers?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2010, 11:15:40 AM »
This is certainly an interesting experiment, and I would be very interested in the results if attempted. If the distance involved is really 32 miles, even a 1 mile gain in elevation would be plenty to verify the values. Even a good sized skyscraper would do.

What numbers did you plug in to your formula to get your value, and what notation is 1.392×106^6 km (diameter), I'm not familiar with that way of representing numbers?

The 32 miles is the diameter of the sun according to the FET, the distance is 3000 miles (but even then a skyscraper and descent equipment will do) The numbers I used can be found on the wiki page of "The sun" (not the tabloid). Now I know I am going to get the whole "wiki isn't reliable" yadayada, but as stated before, the numbers involved do not need a billion dollar budget to figure out. Any educated person could get a very good estimate on the numbers. Note that the ancient greeks were already busy with it, and their methods resulted in very similair numbers that we have found today. Here is a post on a different forum showing you some of the greeks findings accompanied by a short explanation. (http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?221445-Ancient-Greek-philosophers-argued-Earth-was-a-Sphere)
As to the number that is a mistake in notation on my part, it should say 1.392×10^6 km (1392000 km, but then in the correct amount of significant numbers)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 03:29:58 AM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2010, 12:44:34 PM »
I just ran through the calculation myself, and using the 32 miles as the "known" quantity, I came up with a D of 1.98 x 105 miles.

Using D=3000 as the known gives a d of 0.4849 miles.

I think you may have used degrees when you should have converted to the dimensionless quantity radians.

In any case, these numbers wildly vary from FE predictions.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2010, 01:03:32 PM »
It's only a matter of time before Parsiphallus slimes into this thread and whines that the diagram is "irrelevant" because there is no scale on it.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2010, 01:08:11 PM »
I just ran through the calculation myself, and using the 32 miles as the "known" quantity, I came up with a D of 1.98 x 105 miles.

Using D=3000 as the known gives a d of 0.4849 miles.

I think you may have used degrees when you should have converted to the dimensionless quantity radians.

In any case, these numbers wildly vary from FE predictions.

What were your calculations exactly? if I fill in 32 for d and 1.98 x 105 for D I get the following:

2*arctang(((1/2)*32)/(1.98 x 105))=9.25*10-3

This doesn't add up with the 0.61 given by me.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2010, 01:10:20 PM »
It's only a matter of time before Parsiphallus slimes into this thread and whines that the diagram is "irrelevant" because there is no scale on it.

That wouldn't matter, because frankly the diagram is irrelevant, it only serves as visual aid since a picture says more than a thousand words (and no that picture wasn't produced by NASA, they would use their hightech CGI tech which was developped in the 80'ies).
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2010, 01:13:19 PM »
angular diameter = .53 degrees = .00925 radians = 2 * arctan(d/2D)

d/2D = 8.081x10-5
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2010, 01:38:42 PM »
angular diameter = .53 degrees = .00925 radians = 2 * arctan(d/2D)

d/2D = 8.081x10-5

But I gave 0.61 for the FET, not 0.53. 0.61 degrees = 0.01066666667 radians. Besides that I am using degrees because of arctang. The answer is given in radians when you leave the arctang bit out. this can be only done if D is significantly bigger than d. In this case it is (d=32 and D=3000). Therefor we now have the formula:

angdiameter= d/D (answer in radians)

Filling in the variables gives us the following:

angdiameter= 32/3000 = 0.0106666667 radians = 0.61 degrees.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 01:40:52 PM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2010, 01:48:16 PM »
The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees.

Ok, I was using that ^ number and filling in one unknown at a time.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2010, 02:35:58 PM »
The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees. This can be measured from earth with the right equipment, you don't need a billion dollar budget to accomplish it. This means that the number 0.53 can be verified by basicaly anyone with some time, knowledge and ofcourse at least some ammount of money. The point being that this isn't some fictional made up number by NASA (or any other agency for that matter). The next point I would like to bring up is the formula for the angular diameter:

    angdiameter = 2 * arctan ( 1/2 d/D)

In which d and D are the diameter (visual), and distance respectively. This formula can be verified on a "earthly" scale. For example: take a football of known diameter and put it at X distance from you and measure the angular diameter. You will see that the measurements and calculations are the same (depending on your accuracy ofcourse). So again, something that was not "made up" by NASA and can be verified by anyone if they wish to do so. 

So if you know the distance to the spherical object and have measured the angular diameter, one can calculate the size of the said object. I have shown that both the formula and angular diameter can not really be tampered with and are not "fiction". Now you may point out that there is still a other variable that COULD be made up: the distance. However the distance is not that hard to determine. All you need to do is measure the angular diameter from 2 different heights (thus 2 different distances), since the distance correlates with the angular diameter one can determine the distance to the object. A little drawing to clarify (excuse my mspaint skills):



Now to get to the point, if one uses the distance and angular diameter as mentioned above one will come to the size of the sun as approx. 1.392×10^6 km (diameter). According to FE'ers however, the size of the sun is 32 miles, a slight difference.

Now, if you do find a flaw in my post (besides grammar :P) I would like to point out something that is slightly harder to fault. As said before, both the formula and the measuring of an angular diameter can be verified by anyone, therefor they can be applied in both the "universe" of FE'ers and RE'ers. I have also already stated that the angular diameter is 0.53 degrees. This holds true if one uses the RE'ers data (for lack of a better word :/ ). However if I use the data provided by FE'ers (d=32 miles and D=3000 miles) one ends up with a angular diameter of 0.61 degrees. "that is only 0.08 degrees difference" you may say, but on the scale we are talking about that is quite significant. This last might not "debunk" the FET, it shows however that the data you provide with it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy leads to believe that it is made up and at the very least takes away some credibility in regard to how much of the other data is true or false. Ofcourse you could now say that the given numbers were estimates and now give me numbers that DO fit, but one could do that with everything. Changing your facts to fit, after it has been shown where and how they didn't fit in the first place, damages the believability of the FET. It makes the FET look more like a conspiracy than the RET is according to you.

(my apologies if this is TL;DR, if you read it; discuss. If not, don't bother the rest of us with obvious and or childish remarks)

EDIT: Also, if you see any really weird sentence constructions or flaws in logic or anything else of the kind, please just point it out, readability goes above al else on a fora.

trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2010, 02:44:52 PM »
The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees. This can be measured from earth with the right equipment, you don't need a billion dollar budget to accomplish it. This means that the number 0.53 can be verified by basicaly anyone with some time, knowledge and ofcourse at least some ammount of money. The point being that this isn't some fictional made up number by NASA (or any other agency for that matter). The next point I would like to bring up is the formula for the angular diameter:

    angdiameter = 2 * arctan ( 1/2 d/D)

In which d and D are the diameter (visual), and distance respectively. This formula can be verified on a "earthly" scale. For example: take a football of known diameter and put it at X distance from you and measure the angular diameter. You will see that the measurements and calculations are the same (depending on your accuracy ofcourse). So again, something that was not "made up" by NASA and can be verified by anyone if they wish to do so. 

So if you know the distance to the spherical object and have measured the angular diameter, one can calculate the size of the said object. I have shown that both the formula and angular diameter can not really be tampered with and are not "fiction". Now you may point out that there is still a other variable that COULD be made up: the distance. However the distance is not that hard to determine. All you need to do is measure the angular diameter from 2 different heights (thus 2 different distances), since the distance correlates with the angular diameter one can determine the distance to the object. A little drawing to clarify (excuse my mspaint skills):



Now to get to the point, if one uses the distance and angular diameter as mentioned above one will come to the size of the sun as approx. 1.392×10^6 km (diameter). According to FE'ers however, the size of the sun is 32 miles, a slight difference.

Now, if you do find a flaw in my post (besides grammar :P) I would like to point out something that is slightly harder to fault. As said before, both the formula and the measuring of an angular diameter can be verified by anyone, therefor they can be applied in both the "universe" of FE'ers and RE'ers. I have also already stated that the angular diameter is 0.53 degrees. This holds true if one uses the RE'ers data (for lack of a better word :/ ). However if I use the data provided by FE'ers (d=32 miles and D=3000 miles) one ends up with a angular diameter of 0.61 degrees. "that is only 0.08 degrees difference" you may say, but on the scale we are talking about that is quite significant. This last might not "debunk" the FET, it shows however that the data you provide with it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy leads to believe that it is made up and at the very least takes away some credibility in regard to how much of the other data is true or false. Ofcourse you could now say that the given numbers were estimates and now give me numbers that DO fit, but one could do that with everything. Changing your facts to fit, after it has been shown where and how they didn't fit in the first place, damages the believability of the FET. It makes the FET look more like a conspiracy than the RET is according to you.

(my apologies if this is TL;DR, if you read it; discuss. If not, don't bother the rest of us with obvious and or childish remarks)

EDIT: Also, if you see any really weird sentence constructions or flaws in logic or anything else of the kind, please just point it out, readability goes above al else on a fora.

trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

3000 miles isn't to be considered "long distances", what you are talking about is light year distances.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 02:49:05 PM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2010, 02:46:32 PM »
trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

Can you prove this? And can you prove that substantial discrepancies arise in this manner over a distance of 3000 miles?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2010, 02:48:23 PM »
...


..

This is a high quality topic.  I was just trying to convince Levee not that long ago that starting from one of the red dots in your picture and trying to measure the distance to the planet is incorrect.  This is indeed a much better way to measure distances. Starting with two points to find one.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2010, 02:50:33 PM »
trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

Can you prove this? And can you prove that substantial discrepancies arise in this manner over a distance of 3000 miles?

That's besides the point, if you are measuring a distance with magnitude beyond that which has been measured before you have to take into account the possibility of new factors which put error into your result which were previously negligible. If you assume these factors do not exist for the purposes of making your calculation easier, you certainly get AN answer... but it may not be correct.. and due to the fact that this is the only method of measuring such things it is impossible to check if you are correct so basically the answer is invalid.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2010, 02:55:26 PM »
trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

Can you prove this? And can you prove that substantial discrepancies arise in this manner over a distance of 3000 miles?

That's besides the point, if you are measuring a distance with magnitude beyond that which has been measured before you have to take into account the possibility of new factors which put error into your result which were previously negligible. If you assume these factors do not exist for the purposes of making your calculation easier, you certainly get AN answer... but it may not be correct.. and due to the fact that this is the only method of measuring such things it is impossible to check if you are correct so basically the answer is invalid.

It is not at all beside the point, unless this effect happens equally on all distance scales. There will be a point at which the warping effects become negligible and can be disregarded.

While I am driving tonight, should I take into account the possibility that a T-rex will bite my car in half? No, because I have no evidence that might happen.

So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2010, 02:58:36 PM »
trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

Can you prove this? And can you prove that substantial discrepancies arise in this manner over a distance of 3000 miles?

That's besides the point, if you are measuring a distance with magnitude beyond that which has been measured before you have to take into account the possibility of new factors which put error into your result which were previously negligible. If you assume these factors do not exist for the purposes of making your calculation easier, you certainly get AN answer... but it may not be correct.. and due to the fact that this is the only method of measuring such things it is impossible to check if you are correct so basically the answer is invalid.

It is not at all beside the point, unless this effect happens equally on all distance scales. There will be a point at which the warping effects become negligible and can be disregarded.

While I am driving tonight, should I take into account the possibility that a T-rex will bite my car in half? No, because I have no evidence that might happen.

So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

no you don't understand.. Just because something works on small distances doesn't mean it works on big ones - universal curvature is just one example of a possible thing which would ruin the measurements. Your analogy doesn't fit.. what you should consider is that driving somewhere you never have driven before will be fine -- but it might turn out they don't have gas for your car as you get very far out or they use a different kind.


?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2010, 03:01:29 PM »
So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

Unless you can prove that your objections have merit, this experiment seems perfectly valid.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2010, 03:06:10 PM »
So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

Unless you can prove that your objections have merit, this experiment seems perfectly valid.

Well they only have merit if you want your measurements to explain reality.. as opposed to just giving you the answers you already wanted (which is certainly all some "scientists" want from their experiments)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2010, 03:09:34 PM »
So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

Unless you can prove that your objections have merit, this experiment seems perfectly valid.

Well they only have merit if you want your measurements to explain reality.. as opposed to just giving you the answers you already wanted (which is certainly all some "scientists" want from their experiments)

I still see no reason why this experiment would not be valid, unless you would care to provide one. Again, please be specific so we can alter the experiment accordingly.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2010, 03:12:15 PM »
So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

Unless you can prove that your objections have merit, this experiment seems perfectly valid.

Well they only have merit if you want your measurements to explain reality.. as opposed to just giving you the answers you already wanted (which is certainly all some "scientists" want from their experiments)

I still see no reason why this experiment would not be valid, unless you would care to provide one. Again, please be specific so we can alter the experiment accordingly.

It's simple: There is a fundamental problem with extrapolation - if you don't account for it there is a possibility of error.... on the chance such an error does happen (it is also possible that your assumptions are correct and you get an accurate reading!) and you ignore it -- either you will find some problem with your results in a deeper context or derive a false conclusion which will be overturned in future by more advanced methods.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM »
HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2010, 03:19:07 PM »
I declare the entirety of FET to be wrong because they did not account for the possibility of a giant invisible duck-billed platypus in the sky with magical powers changing observations.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2010, 04:59:36 PM »
So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

Unless you can prove that your objections have merit, this experiment seems perfectly valid.

Well they only have merit if you want your measurements to explain reality.. as opposed to just giving you the answers you already wanted (which is certainly all some "scientists" want from their experiments)

I still see no reason why this experiment would not be valid, unless you would care to provide one. Again, please be specific so we can alter the experiment accordingly.

It's simple: There is a fundamental problem with extrapolation - if you don't account for it there is a possibility of error.... on the chance such an error does happen (it is also possible that your assumptions are correct and you get an accurate reading!) and you ignore it -- either you will find some problem with your results in a deeper context or derive a false conclusion which will be overturned in future by more advanced methods.

Values obtained from science will have a error assisted with them.  This does not null the values.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2010, 08:04:46 PM »
And you cannot account for things that you don't know about.

The only measurement you are taking here is the arc length taken up by the sun taken at 2 different altitudes. If this was performed when the sun was at its zenith, I don't know of anything that would distort the measurement enough to cause a bad result. If any errors were present, they would be present in both measurements, so they would have less effect anyway.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2010, 09:59:28 PM »
The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees. This can be measured from earth with the right equipment, you don't need a billion dollar budget to accomplish it. This means that the number 0.53 can be verified by basicaly anyone with some time, knowledge and ofcourse at least some ammount of money. The point being that this isn't some fictional made up number by NASA (or any other agency for that matter). The next point I would like to bring up is the formula for the angular diameter:

    angdiameter = 2 * arctan ( 1/2 d/D)

In which d and D are the diameter (visual), and distance respectively. This formula can be verified on a "earthly" scale. For example: take a football of known diameter and put it at X distance from you and measure the angular diameter. You will see that the measurements and calculations are the same (depending on your accuracy ofcourse). So again, something that was not "made up" by NASA and can be verified by anyone if they wish to do so. 

So if you know the distance to the spherical object and have measured the angular diameter, one can calculate the size of the said object. I have shown that both the formula and angular diameter can not really be tampered with and are not "fiction". Now you may point out that there is still a other variable that COULD be made up: the distance. However the distance is not that hard to determine. All you need to do is measure the angular diameter from 2 different heights (thus 2 different distances), since the distance correlates with the angular diameter one can determine the distance to the object. A little drawing to clarify (excuse my mspaint skills):



Now to get to the point, if one uses the distance and angular diameter as mentioned above one will come to the size of the sun as approx. 1.392×10^6 km (diameter). According to FE'ers however, the size of the sun is 32 miles, a slight difference.

Now, if you do find a flaw in my post (besides grammar :P) I would like to point out something that is slightly harder to fault. As said before, both the formula and the measuring of an angular diameter can be verified by anyone, therefor they can be applied in both the "universe" of FE'ers and RE'ers. I have also already stated that the angular diameter is 0.53 degrees. This holds true if one uses the RE'ers data (for lack of a better word :/ ). However if I use the data provided by FE'ers (d=32 miles and D=3000 miles) one ends up with a angular diameter of 0.61 degrees. "that is only 0.08 degrees difference" you may say, but on the scale we are talking about that is quite significant. This last might not "debunk" the FET, it shows however that the data you provide with it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy leads to believe that it is made up and at the very least takes away some credibility in regard to how much of the other data is true or false. Ofcourse you could now say that the given numbers were estimates and now give me numbers that DO fit, but one could do that with everything. Changing your facts to fit, after it has been shown where and how they didn't fit in the first place, damages the believability of the FET. It makes the FET look more like a conspiracy than the RET is according to you.

(my apologies if this is TL;DR, if you read it; discuss. If not, don't bother the rest of us with obvious and or childish remarks)

EDIT: Also, if you see any really weird sentence constructions or flaws in logic or anything else of the kind, please just point it out, readability goes above al else on a fora.

trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

obvious troll is obvious. I love it when FE'ers spout on about factors that are insignificant. if you are talking about light being bent due to the curvature of space aka gravitational lensing, that A) assumes GR, which assumes gravity and a round Earth/planets and B) there is no gigantic body between the earth and the Sun. Please don't randomly post concepts that you don't understand.
C) you mad

While science does have experimental error, something is not voided because of possible error within the set of facts and theories of science. haven't you heard of the concept that science is always changing? in science, you take what you know about and accept it tentatively. thus far there is nothing suggesting that curvature plays a significant role in the trigonometry between the Sun, Moon, and Earth when it comes to light waves
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 10:10:33 PM by Thevoiceofreason »

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2010, 11:04:47 PM »
So I ask again, can you prove that what you said is true? Can you provide a formulaic description of how universal curvature affects light and what the deviation would be on a distance scale of 3000 miles?

Unless you can prove that your objections have merit, this experiment seems perfectly valid.

Well they only have merit if you want your measurements to explain reality.. as opposed to just giving you the answers you already wanted (which is certainly all some "scientists" want from their experiments)

It is because your thinking is flawed, according to your thinking I should also keep in mind that Dumbledore might pop-up and starts yo-yoing the sun all over the place making measurements impossible if I were to attempt them. Why? Well nonone has ever used measurements over those distances so what I just said might or might not happen, nobody knows. (or are you going to tell me that you can prove that this will never ever happen? If you do tell me how...). It is a good thing however that science doesn't quite work that way, we have methods that hold true in situations and untill there is reason to believe otherwise we use them. You have no proof that "universal curvature" (and I think you mean spacetime curvature, please do use the right terminology, grammar is one thing, wrong terminology a different one entirely) occurs at a distance of 3000 miles (besides the whole fact that it doesn't "magically" occur, it is caused by gravity). In fact as RE'er I can say that we have proven that it doesn't, considering we made a succesfull trip to the moon and back which showed that the distance wasn't thwarted by Dumbledore or spacetime.

EDIT: I only just realized there was a second page and would like to agree with the poster above me. Ofcourse now we will have a FE'er come in and tell us there is an invisible large spherical body between the earth and sun which is causing the spacetime curvature of which you speak. They will call it the anti-sun.

Also, your tendency to overule facts presented by blurting out one-liners filled with difficult (and as mentioned) incorrect terminology is starting to annoy (it makes me believe that you are a troll although untill now I was trying to believe otherwise.)
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 11:15:53 PM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2010, 07:03:59 AM »
The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees. This can be measured from earth with the right equipment, you don't need a billion dollar budget to accomplish it. This means that the number 0.53 can be verified by basicaly anyone with some time, knowledge and ofcourse at least some ammount of money. The point being that this isn't some fictional made up number by NASA (or any other agency for that matter). The next point I would like to bring up is the formula for the angular diameter:

    angdiameter = 2 * arctan ( 1/2 d/D)

In which d and D are the diameter (visual), and distance respectively. This formula can be verified on a "earthly" scale. For example: take a football of known diameter and put it at X distance from you and measure the angular diameter. You will see that the measurements and calculations are the same (depending on your accuracy ofcourse). So again, something that was not "made up" by NASA and can be verified by anyone if they wish to do so. 

So if you know the distance to the spherical object and have measured the angular diameter, one can calculate the size of the said object. I have shown that both the formula and angular diameter can not really be tampered with and are not "fiction". Now you may point out that there is still a other variable that COULD be made up: the distance. However the distance is not that hard to determine. All you need to do is measure the angular diameter from 2 different heights (thus 2 different distances), since the distance correlates with the angular diameter one can determine the distance to the object. A little drawing to clarify (excuse my mspaint skills):



Now to get to the point, if one uses the distance and angular diameter as mentioned above one will come to the size of the sun as approx. 1.392×10^6 km (diameter). According to FE'ers however, the size of the sun is 32 miles, a slight difference.

Now, if you do find a flaw in my post (besides grammar :P) I would like to point out something that is slightly harder to fault. As said before, both the formula and the measuring of an angular diameter can be verified by anyone, therefor they can be applied in both the "universe" of FE'ers and RE'ers. I have also already stated that the angular diameter is 0.53 degrees. This holds true if one uses the RE'ers data (for lack of a better word :/ ). However if I use the data provided by FE'ers (d=32 miles and D=3000 miles) one ends up with a angular diameter of 0.61 degrees. "that is only 0.08 degrees difference" you may say, but on the scale we are talking about that is quite significant. This last might not "debunk" the FET, it shows however that the data you provide with it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy leads to believe that it is made up and at the very least takes away some credibility in regard to how much of the other data is true or false. Ofcourse you could now say that the given numbers were estimates and now give me numbers that DO fit, but one could do that with everything. Changing your facts to fit, after it has been shown where and how they didn't fit in the first place, damages the believability of the FET. It makes the FET look more like a conspiracy than the RET is according to you.

(my apologies if this is TL;DR, if you read it; discuss. If not, don't bother the rest of us with obvious and or childish remarks)

EDIT: Also, if you see any really weird sentence constructions or flaws in logic or anything else of the kind, please just point it out, readability goes above al else on a fora.

trigonometry doesn't work over long distances because of the possibility of universal curvature.

obvious troll is obvious. I love it when FE'ers spout on about factors that are insignificant. if you are talking about light being bent due to the curvature of space aka gravitational lensing, that A) assumes GR, which assumes gravity and a round Earth/planets and B) there is no gigantic body between the earth and the Sun. Please don't randomly post concepts that you don't understand.
C) you mad

While science does have experimental error, something is not voided because of possible error within the set of facts and theories of science. haven't you heard of the concept that science is always changing? in science, you take what you know about and accept it tentatively. thus far there is nothing suggesting that curvature plays a significant role in the trigonometry between the Sun, Moon, and Earth when it comes to light waves



Now who's mad? and who's wrong? (hint: you)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2010, 07:13:57 AM »
What you showed there are galaxies, not individual stars, and none were anywhere near as close to us as the sun is. The curvature of space would not have a noticeable effect on how wide the sun appears even at 93 million miles distant (in the RE model), much less at 3000 miles distant.

The effect you describe has been accounted for. It is simply too small to make any difference, and not really applicable to this experiment anyway.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Angular diameter
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2010, 09:00:38 AM »
Quote
Now who's mad? and who's wrong? (hint: you)

May I point out that pictures are invalid, that thing was probably shopped by NASA after all. Besides that, those are galaxies at lightyears distances, not a 32 mile sun at a mere distance of 3000 miles. Bring up a valid argument and stop bringing up the same one over and over again since it has been shown it is irrelevant. If you are however arguing for the sake of arguing continue, but it doesn't make your argument any more valid (unless you decide to back it up with a good explanation). Maybe you would like to read up a bit on how space curvature actually works.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever