live iss!

You know their isn't such a thing as space math right? Its all just called math and all works no mater where you are.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 12:48:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 12:34:25 PM

I don't need to use mathematics to know when something is bullshit like this. Just logic and common sense.
You are using the mathematics that you were taught to fit, that's all.

No.  I figured it out myself.  Tested it myself.  Besides, its the same damn mathematics used to build bridges, and to program 3D software.  If it didn't work, almost none of the technology you take for granted would.  You're being dangerously arrogant.  This isn't bullshit.  This is true logic.  Logic without subjective assumptions and feelings.  I have used the math I've learned to accurately aim catapults, accurately build structures, and make 100% accurate perspective drawings.  If you ignore math and stay arrogant, you will never achieve anything of the sort.  You'd be surprised at how many occupations rely on this math, and if you ignore it out of arrogance, none of them will ever work for you.  This attitude of yours can only stunt you.

Ok , I suppose I'll have to explain.

I know it's the same mathematics that build stuff. What I'm saying is, the size of planets and distances etc are all made to fit in with the mathematics.

For instance. To have the moon at the size they say it is, plus 250,000 miles out, they have to make the sun 93 million miles away and to be over 850,000 miles away so it supposedly sits behind the moon perfectly in an eclipse. Then they have the Earth at it's size blah blah blah , so it all fits in.

Once some clever dick comes along and spots an error, it will be changed to fit again. Yet they have ironed out many problems.
They are still working on the stars in pictures, as soon they will be able to map them in pictures so no one can pick up on them, then we will see amazing stars in the future in all the fake footage.

Tell us, then, what the FEers did to determine these distances. I believe they just made them up to shoehorn them into their theory so it's all bullshit but whatever.

You know their isn't such a thing as space math right? Its all just called math and all works no mater where you are.

You're right, there isn't any such thing as space math, but there is math and space  is made to fit the math .

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:02:11 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 12:48:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 12:34:25 PM

I don't need to use mathematics to know when something is bullshit like this. Just logic and common sense.
You are using the mathematics that you were taught to fit, that's all.

No.  I figured it out myself.  Tested it myself.  Besides, its the same damn mathematics used to build bridges, and to program 3D software.  If it didn't work, almost none of the technology you take for granted would.  You're being dangerously arrogant.  This isn't bullshit.  This is true logic.  Logic without subjective assumptions and feelings.  I have used the math I've learned to accurately aim catapults, accurately build structures, and make 100% accurate perspective drawings.  If you ignore math and stay arrogant, you will never achieve anything of the sort.  You'd be surprised at how many occupations rely on this math, and if you ignore it out of arrogance, none of them will ever work for you.  This attitude of yours can only stunt you.

Ok , I suppose I'll have to explain.

I know it's the same mathematics that build stuff. What I'm saying is, the size of planets and distances etc are all made to fit in with the mathematics.

For instance. To have the moon at the size they say it is, plus 250,000 miles out, they have to make the sun 93 million miles away and to be over 850,000 miles away so it supposedly sits behind the moon perfectly in an eclipse. Then they have the Earth at it's size blah blah blah , so it all fits in.

Once some clever dick comes along and spots an error, it will be changed to fit again. Yet they have ironed out many problems.
They are still working on the stars in pictures, as soon they will be able to map them in pictures so no one can pick up on them, then we will see amazing stars in the future in all the fake footage.

Tell us, then, what the FEers did to determine these distances. I believe they just made them up to shoehorn them into their theory so it's all bullshit but whatever.

You can only believe what you believe.

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

What magic tech are you referring to? Becuse everything we use in real life actual has a bases in real science and enginering.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 27, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

The sad irony is that you're using part of the magic tech right now to communicate online.
By the way pretty weak response to my post.

What magic tech are you referring to? Becuse everything we use in real life actual has a bases in real science and enginering.

I don't know what you do in real life.

Ok , I suppose I'll have to explain.

I know it's the same mathematics that build stuff. What I'm saying is, the size of planets and distances etc are all made to fit in with the mathematics.

For instance. To have the moon at the size they say it is, plus 250,000 miles out, they have to make the sun 93 million miles away and to be over 850,000 miles away so it supposedly sits behind the moon perfectly in an eclipse. Then they have the Earth at it's size blah blah blah , so it all fits in.

The size and distance of the sun was not determined from the size and distance of the moon.  There is no mathematical connection.  The fact that they have almost the same angular size - that is the fact that they look the same size is pure coincidence.  The nature of perspective actually makes it impossible to calculate the actual size and distance just from the apparent size.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 27, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

The sad irony is that you're using part of the magic tech right now to communicate online.
By the way pretty weak response to my post.

I'm using tech that is working in front of me. I can see it, so I believe it to work.
If I was trapped on an island not knowing this tech existed and I was picked up and told by a person that we use computers like this, I'd say, " oh ok, I'll believe that when I see it."

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:02:11 PM

Ok , I suppose I'll have to explain.

I know it's the same mathematics that build stuff. What I'm saying is, the size of planets and distances etc are all made to fit in with the mathematics.

For instance. To have the moon at the size they say it is, plus 250,000 miles out, they have to make the sun 93 million miles away and to be over 850,000 miles away so it supposedly sits behind the moon perfectly in an eclipse. Then they have the Earth at it's size blah blah blah , so it all fits in.

The size and distance of the sun was not determined from the size and distance of the moon.  There is no mathematical connection.  The fact that they have almost the same angular size - that is the fact that they look the same size is pure coincidence.  The nature of perspective actually makes it impossible to calculate the actual size and distance just from the apparent size.

I think it's a bit more than pure coincidence. It's called shoe horned mathematics, that's your pure coincidence.
The more likely story is that they are the same size.

Quote from: Bollybill on January 27, 2013, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 27, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

The sad irony is that you're using part of the magic tech right now to communicate online.
By the way pretty weak response to my post.

I'm using tech that is working in front of me. I can see it, so I believe it to work.
If I was trapped on an island not knowing this tech existed and I was picked up and told by a person that we use computers like this, I'd say, " oh ok, I'll believe that when I see it."

People see satellites therefor they work therefor they orbit therefor the earth is round. Ok thanks for the help.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:33:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:02:11 PM

Ok , I suppose I'll have to explain.

I know it's the same mathematics that build stuff. What I'm saying is, the size of planets and distances etc are all made to fit in with the mathematics.

For instance. To have the moon at the size they say it is, plus 250,000 miles out, they have to make the sun 93 million miles away and to be over 850,000 miles away so it supposedly sits behind the moon perfectly in an eclipse. Then they have the Earth at it's size blah blah blah , so it all fits in.

The size and distance of the sun was not determined from the size and distance of the moon.  There is no mathematical connection.  The fact that they have almost the same angular size - that is the fact that they look the same size is pure coincidence.  The nature of perspective actually makes it impossible to calculate the actual size and distance just from the apparent size.

I think it's a bit more than pure coincidence. It's called shoe horned mathematics, that's your pure coincidence.
The more likely story is that they are the same size.

How is this not a coincidence on a flat earth?
Besides, if they were the same size the moon would 100% cover the sun on eclipses so...

Quote from: Bollybill on January 27, 2013, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 27, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

The sad irony is that you're using part of the magic tech right now to communicate online.
By the way pretty weak response to my post.

I'm using tech that is working in front of me. I can see it, so I believe it to work.
If I was trapped on an island not knowing this tech existed and I was picked up and told by a person that we use computers like this, I'd say, " oh ok, I'll believe that when I see it."

So your entire premise for disbelief in stuff is that you don't understand it?

In the above example your lack of belief in computers would not change the way computers work or how they are used.

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:35:07 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on January 27, 2013, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 27, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

The sad irony is that you're using part of the magic tech right now to communicate online.
By the way pretty weak response to my post.

I'm using tech that is working in front of me. I can see it, so I believe it to work.
If I was trapped on an island not knowing this tech existed and I was picked up and told by a person that we use computers like this, I'd say, " oh ok, I'll believe that when I see it."

People see satellites therefor they work therefor they orbit therefor the earth is round. Ok thanks for the help.

Whatever people see, are not satellites orbiting a round Earth. You're welcome.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:33:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:02:11 PM

Ok , I suppose I'll have to explain.

I know it's the same mathematics that build stuff. What I'm saying is, the size of planets and distances etc are all made to fit in with the mathematics.

For instance. To have the moon at the size they say it is, plus 250,000 miles out, they have to make the sun 93 million miles away and to be over 850,000 miles away so it supposedly sits behind the moon perfectly in an eclipse. Then they have the Earth at it's size blah blah blah , so it all fits in.

The size and distance of the sun was not determined from the size and distance of the moon.  There is no mathematical connection.  The fact that they have almost the same angular size - that is the fact that they look the same size is pure coincidence.  The nature of perspective actually makes it impossible to calculate the actual size and distance just from the apparent size.

I think it's a bit more than pure coincidence. It's called shoe horned mathematics, that's your pure coincidence.
The more likely story is that they are the same size.

Mathematics wasn't used to calculate the angular sizes.  That was done through direct measurement.  You can't assume they are the same size, because you can't see the distance to them or the actual size.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:35:07 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on January 27, 2013, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 27, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

When you have to invent magic tech that dsnt exist to explain your theory ( invisible stratilites) then It starts to fall apart.

Fantastic..

Magic tech, I love it, because that's exactly what is thrown at us all every day of our lives. Magic tech. The magic behind everything that we thought was impossible is made magically possible.

The sad irony is that you're using part of the magic tech right now to communicate online.
By the way pretty weak response to my post.

I'm using tech that is working in front of me. I can see it, so I believe it to work.
If I was trapped on an island not knowing this tech existed and I was picked up and told by a person that we use computers like this, I'd say, " oh ok, I'll believe that when I see it."

So your entire premise for disbelief in stuff is that you don't understand it?

In the above example your lack of belief in computers would not change the way computers work or how they are used.

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

You keep believing that.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:43:31 PM

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

You keep believing that.

I will.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:43:31 PM

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

You keep believing that.

Yes, we keep believing that because the figures we get match up with calculations of the moon distance as measured by radar, and the sun distance as measured by observation of transits of Venus. You see, this is the big advantage of RET - while some of our measurements make assumptions, we often have several different ways to measure the same thing, each with different assumptions. And when cross checking them adds up to the same numbers every time, it tests whether those assumptions are correct, and finds that they are.
FET is utterly incapable of any such verification.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:47:33 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:43:31 PM

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

You keep believing that.

Yes, we keep believing that because the figures we get match up with calculations of the moon distance as measured by radar, and the sun distance as measured by observation of transits of Venus. You see, this is the big advantage of RET - while some of our measurements make assumptions, we often have several different ways to measure the same thing, each with different assumptions. And when cross checking them adds up to the same numbers every time, it tests whether those assumptions are correct, and finds that they are.
FET is utterly incapable of any such verification.

Moons distance measured by radar, yet they need a laser reflector on the moon. Ok.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 27, 2013, 02:08:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:47:33 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:43:31 PM

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

You keep believing that.

Yes, we keep believing that because the figures we get match up with calculations of the moon distance as measured by radar, and the sun distance as measured by observation of transits of Venus. You see, this is the big advantage of RET - while some of our measurements make assumptions, we often have several different ways to measure the same thing, each with different assumptions. And when cross checking them adds up to the same numbers every time, it tests whether those assumptions are correct, and finds that they are.
FET is utterly incapable of any such verification.

Moons distance measured by radar, yet they need a laser reflector on the moon. Ok.

There's already another thread that explains to you the differences between radar and lasers.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 27, 2013, 02:08:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2013, 01:47:33 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 27, 2013, 01:43:31 PM

During first or last quarter, we see the moon divided perfectly in half.  at this precise time, the angular distance between the moon and sun can be measured.  This lets us calculate how many times farther away and bigger the sun is from the moon.  Once we know this, we can measure how big the moon is using the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse.  With this value, the rest of the distances and sizes can be calculated.

You keep believing that.

Yes, we keep believing that because the figures we get match up with calculations of the moon distance as measured by radar, and the sun distance as measured by observation of transits of Venus. You see, this is the big advantage of RET - while some of our measurements make assumptions, we often have several different ways to measure the same thing, each with different assumptions. And when cross checking them adds up to the same numbers every time, it tests whether those assumptions are correct, and finds that they are.
FET is utterly incapable of any such verification.

Moons distance measured by radar, yet they need a laser reflector on the moon. Ok.

No, they don't NEED a laser reflector. It's simply more precise.
Seriously, if I was as dumb as you, I'd be embarrassed to keep posting.

This question is a little off topic, but it is still about ISS. People on here talk about seeing the ISS in the sky with naked eye and telescopes. Tonight the moon is full or almost full. Is it possible to see the ISS go in front of the moon?

This question is a little off topic, but it is still about ISS. People on here talk about seeing the ISS in the sky with naked eye and telescopes. Tonight the moon is full or almost full. Is it possible to see the ISS go in front of the moon?

Theoretically, yes it should be, if its path ever took it that way. But I don't know if it ever does.

Quote from: hoppy on January 27, 2013, 03:45:11 PM

This question is a little off topic, but it is still about ISS. People on here talk about seeing the ISS in the sky with naked eye and telescopes. Tonight the moon is full or almost full. Is it possible to see the ISS go in front of the moon?

Theoretically, yes it should be, if its path ever took it that way. But I don't know if it ever does.

You appear to know everything else, yet cannot recall if the ISS ever passes in front of the moon.

I imagine you as well as the moon have to be in the right location for the path of the ISS to take it in front of the moon. I haven't seen this, but I don't see why it's not possible. It would be cool to see. 

I imagine you as well as the moon have to be in the right location for the path of the ISS to take it in front of the moon. I haven't seen this, but I don't see why it's not possible. It would be cool to see.

It would be fantastic to see and it would prove to me that it's really up there and in all it's winged glory of spread out solar sails that would shine like beacons in the sky.
If I saw that, I would never question anything again. Will I see it? Will I ever see it ?

Not a chance.