FE Model of a Nuclear Sun is false.

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

Have you personally held a star in your hand, or is this another outlandish claim for which you have no evidence?

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:13:31 AM

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

No, the size of things only appears to change with distance. Do you seriously think that things literally get smaller the further they are away from you?

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 09:27:28 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:13:31 AM

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

No, the size of things only appears to change with distance. Do you seriously think that things literally get smaller the further they are away from you?

Actually, I can make a concrete case that the size of things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer. As a proctor at an international competition, I wrote a protocol for such lab used in the contest. It was accepted and used. I bet I could write a better theory for this and handle all challenges in a month than FES has in over a hundred years.

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 09:27:28 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:13:31 AM

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

No, the size of things only appears to change with distance. Do you seriously think that things literally get smaller the further they are away from you?

Why do you then say that some stars are so tiny that you could probably hold them in your hand? Or do you not speak of stars what we see in the sky at night?

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 09:27:28 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:13:31 AM

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

No, the size of things only appears to change with distance. Do you seriously think that things literally get smaller the further they are away from you?

Why do you then say that some stars are so tiny that you could probably hold them in your hand? Or do you not speak of stars what we see in the sky at night?

I mean exactly what I say.

If I may, a win/win situation could be at hand.  If James says that some stars can fit in his hand and CT says there is scientific proof that things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer then it stands to reason that some stars will be very small at a given distance.   A compromise in physics achieved.

If I may, a win/win situation could be at hand.  If James says that some stars can fit in his hand and CT says there is scientific proof that things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer then it stands to reason that some stars will be very small at a given distance.   A compromise in physics achieved.

No. Did you read what you wrote? Having something in your hand means that it is NOT far away.

By the way, I never said that there is scientific proof.

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 11:15:17 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 09:27:28 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:13:31 AM

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

No, the size of things only appears to change with distance. Do you seriously think that things literally get smaller the further they are away from you?

  Why do you then say that some stars are so tiny that you could probably hold them in your hand? Or do you not speak of stars what we see in the sky at night?

I mean exactly what I say.

So, that means you don't mean the stars that you actually can see in the sky. Some man made stars from glossy paper can really fit in your hand.  I can agree with that.

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 11:53:34 AM

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 11:15:17 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 09:27:28 AM

Quote from: James on November 14, 2010, 09:13:31 AM

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

All things are tiny when they are far-far away. What is your point?

No, the size of things only appears to change with distance. Do you seriously think that things literally get smaller the further they are away from you?

  Why do you then say that some stars are so tiny that you could probably hold them in your hand? Or do you not speak of stars what we see in the sky at night?

I mean exactly what I say.

So, that means you don't mean the stars that you actually can see in the sky. Some man made stars from glossy paper can really fit in your hand.  I can agree with that.

James, can't you do better please? Debate the issues with us. How big are stars in FET? How high are they above the FE?

If I may, a win/win situation could be at hand.  If James says that some stars can fit in his hand and CT says there is scientific proof that things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer then it stands to reason that some stars will be very small at a given distance.   A compromise in physics achieved.

But unless you had very long arms, you would not be able to hold a very far away star in your hand.

Quote from: gotham on November 14, 2010, 11:58:24 AM

If I may, a win/win situation could be at hand.  If James says that some stars can fit in his hand and CT says there is scientific proof that things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer then it stands to reason that some stars will be very small at a given distance.   A compromise in physics achieved.

But unless you had very long arms, you would not be able to hold a very far away star in your hand.

So then your claim is without foundation. Noted and expected.

Quote from: gotham on November 14, 2010, 11:58:24 AM

If I may, a win/win situation could be at hand.  If James says that some stars can fit in his hand and CT says there is scientific proof that things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer then it stands to reason that some stars will be very small at a given distance.   A compromise in physics achieved.

But unless you had very long arms, you would not be able to hold a very far away star in your hand.

I have only one question, why can't you answers that? Did you meant that the stars which we see in the sky are so tiny that you can hold them in your hand? If not then you certainly talked about some little stars made from glossy paper.

Quote from: gotham on November 14, 2010, 11:58:24 AM

If I may, a win/win situation could be at hand.  If James says that some stars can fit in his hand and CT says there is scientific proof that things do get smaller as they move farther away from the observer then it stands to reason that some stars will be very small at a given distance.   A compromise in physics achieved.

But unless you had very long arms, you would not be able to hold a very far away star in your hand.

True. I thought perhaps there was half a chance the RET believers would allow a theoretical arm-stretch to grasp the star, but I miscalculated. 

REers can't grasp anything!

I'm starting to think all James' "theories" are just elaborate set-ups for his bad puns.

 I just grasped something. But as you failed to get answer to one simple question then its clear that you held some tiny stars in your hand which were made from paper or some other material. Glad we cleared that up.

Everything in the universe is made from "paper or some other material". So that half of your deduction is sound.

 I add then that you certainly held in your hand the man made star. Not the one we see in the sky. I am again glad that we cleared that more clearly up.

Some stars are tiny, you could probably hold them in your hand they're so small.

care to back up this claim with evidence?......there is no evidence for this, I am confident in that!!!

REers can't grasp anything!

James I know some trolls that sound less sarcastic than you.....
What haven't we grasped that you FErs have? What evidence have you provided that we haven't to justify our claims?

REers can't grasp anything!

Try grasping the fairly conclusive calculations in this thread concerning the FE sun's size and distance.