Angular diameter

Scientists don't just throw out an experiment because something may be affecting the results, they first determine if the results are being meaningfully affected, then they quantify that effect and correct for it. So, How many degrees larger or smaller would the sun appear because of this distortion? And please provide the equations you used to determine this number.

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

Quote from: General Disarray on June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

Who said anything about GPS? I asked a question and you haven't answered it.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

That doesn't answer his (or any other for that matter) question. Just because GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry doesn't mean it doesn't work. GPS is therefor rather irrelevant. Besides that GPS assumes satelites are in orbit, in which case the FET is a lie and this discussion is pointless.

You are beating around the bushes, have left every question and challenge towards any of your arguments unaswered and are basically grasping for straws, throwing one "fact" after the other at us. You have for instance still not explained why you think large errors should occur due to spacetime curvature, although you have repeatedly claimed so. Instead you ignore that and go on to throw this rather pointless comment out in the open.

Furthermore you seem to be contradicting yourself, you use NASA, spacetime curvature and GPS to try and prove the initial post wrong. The initial post is trying to show the RET is correct. What does this mean? You are using arguments which assume a RE to dislodge a post trying to prove the RET. Either stop trolling or explain yourself in something more substantial than one single line.

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 15, 2010, 11:25:21 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

Who said anything about GPS? I asked a question and you haven't answered it.

I am the first to have mentioned GPS, it is an example that proves that my statements are well founded..

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 15, 2010, 11:25:21 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

That doesn't answer his (or any other for that matter) question. Just because GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry doesn't mean it doesn't work. GPS is therefor rather irrelevant. Besides that GPS assumes satelites are in orbit, in which case the FET is a lie and this discussion is pointless.

You are beating around the bushes, have left every question and challenge towards any of your arguments unaswered and are basically grasping for straws, throwing one "fact" after the other at us. You have for instance still not explained why you think large errors should occur due to spacetime curvature, although you have repeatedly claimed so. Instead you ignore that and go on to throw this rather pointless comment out in the open.

Furthermore you seem to be contradicting yourself, you use NASA, spacetime curvature and GPS to try and prove the initial post wrong. The initial post is trying to show the RET is correct. What does this mean? You are using arguments which assume a RE to dislodge a post trying to prove the RET. Either stop trolling or explain yourself in something more substantial than one single line.

WHY are you both teaming up against me what the hell have I done?

I'm just adding my view to the comments you don't need to attack me like I am a villian.

I answered everything you have asked so what the heck are you beligiring me for???

chill out guys I feel like everyone is making me out the bad guy and I have just tried to be good 

How many degrees larger or smaller would the sun appear because of this distortion? And please provide the equations you used to determine this number.

We are ganging up on you because you are coming on this thread and trashing the experiment for no reason I can discern, telling us our facts are wrong with nothing to back you up, and just being an ass for no reason.

We are treating you as the villain because that is the part you appear to be playing here, if you don't like it, stop posting here, or back up your positions with some facts.

I am the first to have mentioned GPS, it is an example that proves that my statements are well founded..

No it is not, for the reason I mentioned in the post before this. You can't just blurt out "GPS!" and say it is an example which "proves that (your) statements are well founded..". You didn't explain why.

WHY are you both teaming up against me what the hell have I done?

"you both" being? When I speak in plural I either say "us" or "you", "us" being RE'ers in general and "you" being FE'ers in general.

I'm just adding my view to the comments you don't need to attack me like I am a villian.

We are not attacking you, do not exaggerate. We are pointing out that you are continuosly disturbing the flow of a proper discussion by repeating the same argument over and over again, without once explaining why we should consider it valid.

I answered everything you have asked so what the heck are you beligiring me for???

Please tell me where (pictures and opinions are not answers).

chill out guys I feel like everyone is making me out the bad guy and I have just tried to be good 

This is a forum for debate, when you are wrong about something we will point that out, nothing to do about being "good" or "bad". If you don't like reactions to your posts, don't post. In this same way I can say that all FE'ers should "chill-out" because they go against my RET and I don't like it. Well QQing isn't going to get me anywhere for sure...

Quote

I am the first to have mentioned GPS, it is an example that proves that my statements are well founded..

No it is not, for the reason I mentioned in the post before this. You can't just blurt out "GPS!" and say it is an example which "proves that (your) statements are well founded..". You didn't explain why.

yes I did

yes I did

No you didn't, you said the following

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong.

There is no explanation present, an explanation would be the answer to: "Why can't/doesn't GPS use plain trigonometry" along with appropriate evidence. Besides the fact that you haven't done this it still remains that GPS remains irrelevant. According to your logic I can do the following:

Even President Obama doesn't believe in a FET... FET is wrong.

Which is flawed in every possible way.

Quote

yes I did

No you didn't, you said the following

Quote

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong.

There is no explanation present, an explanation would be the answer to: "Why can't/doesn't GPS use plain trigonometry" along with appropriate evidence. Besides the fact that you haven't done this it still remains that GPS remains irrelevant. According to your logic I can do the following:

Even President Obama doesn't believe in a FET... FET is wrong.

Which is flawed in every possible way.

don't bdrin Obama into this... 

There is a lack of response from FE'ers on this topic imo. Furthermore I am going to ignore claims of spacecurvature making this impossible (and all other claims for that matter) unless they are backed up by a proper explanation and evidence.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 09:59:28 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: Raver 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 ) 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)

Uhm why would I be mad. you showed me a picture of the stars I presume.
A) universal curvature, a concept of GR, assumes gravity
B)gravity leads to round planets
C)There is no mass Between the sun and earth that would bend light to the extent that our data is void
no what exactly don't you understand about this concept? the part where you assumed a concept that is based on the existence of gravity and planets, or the part where space isn't bent that much in the area under consideration

Quote from: General Disarray on June 15, 2010, 11:36:01 AM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 15, 2010, 11:25:21 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

Who said anything about GPS? I asked a question and you haven't answered it.

I am the first to have mentioned GPS, it is an example that proves that my statements are well founded..

Quote from: Raver on June 15, 2010, 11:43:12 AM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 15, 2010, 11:25:21 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 14, 2010, 03:14:48 PM

HOW WOULD YOU FORMULAICALLY DESCRIBE THE ERROR I SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR?

even GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry... your facts are wrong. 

That doesn't answer his (or any other for that matter) question. Just because GPS doesn't use plain trigonometry doesn't mean it doesn't work. GPS is therefor rather irrelevant. Besides that GPS assumes satelites are in orbit, in which case the FET is a lie and this discussion is pointless.

You are beating around the bushes, have left every question and challenge towards any of your arguments unaswered and are basically grasping for straws, throwing one "fact" after the other at us. You have for instance still not explained why you think large errors should occur due to spacetime curvature, although you have repeatedly claimed so. Instead you ignore that and go on to throw this rather pointless comment out in the open.

Furthermore you seem to be contradicting yourself, you use NASA, spacetime curvature and GPS to try and prove the initial post wrong. The initial post is trying to show the RET is correct. What does this mean? You are using arguments which assume a RE to dislodge a post trying to prove the RET. Either stop trolling or explain yourself in something more substantial than one single line.

WHY are you both teaming up against me what the hell have I done?

I'm just adding my view to the comments you don't need to attack me like I am a villian.

I answered everything you have asked so what the heck are you beligiring me for???

chill out guys I feel like everyone is making me out the bad guy and I have just tried to be good 

Its just because you came to this thread using phenomena of RET to disprove RET.
obviously that doesn't work, because if you are successful, then the initial arguments you used would be void.
Also, you are bringing up phenomena that has no bearing to the discussion.

A) universal curvature, a concept of GR, assumes gravity
B)gravity leads to round planets
C)There is no mass Between the sun and earth that would bend light to the extent that our data is void
no what exactly don't you understand about this concept? the part where you assumed a concept that is based on the existence of gravity and planets, or the part where space isn't bent that much in the area under consideration

Don't worry about him, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Besides he hid the article that is associated with that picture. The picture doesn't actually help his argument. 

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 12:40:50 PM

A) universal curvature, a concept of GR, assumes gravity
B)gravity leads to round planets
C)There is no mass Between the sun and earth that would bend light to the extent that our data is void
no what exactly don't you understand about this concept? the part where you assumed a concept that is based on the existence of gravity and planets, or the part where space isn't bent that much in the area under consideration

Don't worry about him, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Besides he hid the article that is associated with that picture. The picture doesn't actually help his argument. 

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 04:46:28 AM

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning

I hate uninformed trolls. I just graduated from high-school a couple of weeks ago, and I know about this stuff

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:35:17 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 12:40:50 PM

A) universal curvature, a concept of GR, assumes gravity
B)gravity leads to round planets
C)There is no mass Between the sun and earth that would bend light to the extent that our data is void
no what exactly don't you understand about this concept? the part where you assumed a concept that is based on the existence of gravity and planets, or the part where space isn't bent that much in the area under consideration

Don't worry about him, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Besides he hid the article that is associated with that picture. The picture doesn't actually help his argument. 

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 04:46:28 AM

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning

I hate uninformed trolls. I just graduated from high-school a couple of weeks ago, and I know about this stuff

And I have a B.S. in Physics, I know quite a lot about this stuff. He has no idea what he's talking about.