.....

Scepti, the stuff that gets schooled to us allows engineers to build bridges and skyscrapers that stay up, airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, computers, touch-screens, photography, and many other things.  This is because it works. Astronomy, physics and geology are not "special."  They are approached the same way - objectively through observation, and not by just reading books as you ignorantly claim, but by going out, measuring things and testing things, and using logic to make sense of the world around us.  This has lead to a sun 150 million kilometers away, a moon about 400,000 kilometers away, a globular earth nearly 13000 kilometers wide, which goes around the sun once a year, and numerous other planets orbiting that same sun.

You can't dismiss a concept just because you don't understand it.  This is a hugely ignorant and arrogant thing to do, and makes you look like a fool.

I'm not dismissing Earth based mathematics. I'm dismissing what we are told about space by the usage of Earth based mathematics to back up what they tell us.
I can go out and measure my garden and order my lawn based on my square metre calculations.
I can calculate many things on Earth.

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

I'm not dismissing Earth based mathematics. I'm dismissing what we are told about space by the usage of Earth based mathematics to back up what they tell us.
I can go out and measure my garden and order my lawn based on my square metre calculations.
I can calculate many things on Earth.

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

I guess the best way to answer this is to say that we have no reason to think that the math changes once you reach space. If there's one thing math is, it's consistent. If I can come up with an equation to describe a quantity, the rate of change of that quantity is going to be the derivative of that equation. It works every time.

As far as the size and the mass of the moon go, right now I can't remember off the top of my head. I think you're being sincere about this discussion though, so I'll look into it later today and report back. In the meantime, try Googling it and see if you can find anything.

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

There really is no guessing involved.  All the math is firmly based on some observation.  It's true you can't calculate the size of the moon by just looking at it, as it could be 4 feet wide and a thousand feet away, or 4 miles wide and a thousand miles away.  To get the diameter, you need the distance.  To get the distance, you measure the moon's position in the sky from two locations on earth, then you can use a tried and true form of math, called triangulation to find the distance.  When you know the distance, you can calculate the diameter.

The mass of the moon can be determined by it's gravitational effects on earth, such as tides and the wobbling of the earth in it's orbit around the Sun.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 03:55:41 PM

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

There really is no guessing involved.  All the math is firmly based on some observation.  It's true you can't calculate the size of the moon by just looking at it, as it could be 4 feet wide and a thousand feet away, or 4 miles wide and a thousand miles away.  To get the diameter, you need the distance.  To get the distance, you measure the moon's position in the sky from two locations on earth, then you can use a tried and true form of math, called triangulation to find the distance.  When you know the distance, you can calculate the diameter.

The mass of the moon can be determined by it's gravitational effects on earth, such as tides and the wobbling of the earth in it's orbit around the Sun.

Now this is where the problem lies. You have to measure it from you points on Earth.
The major problem here is, the Earth is supposed to be spinning as we are told, so how can they measure from two points on a 1040mph rotating Earth to get a accurate reading?

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 04, 2013, 07:17:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 03:55:41 PM

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

There really is no guessing involved.  All the math is firmly based on some observation.  It's true you can't calculate the size of the moon by just looking at it, as it could be 4 feet wide and a thousand feet away, or 4 miles wide and a thousand miles away.  To get the diameter, you need the distance.  To get the distance, you measure the moon's position in the sky from two locations on earth, then you can use a tried and true form of math, called triangulation to find the distance.  When you know the distance, you can calculate the diameter.

The mass of the moon can be determined by it's gravitational effects on earth, such as tides and the wobbling of the earth in it's orbit around the Sun.

Now this is where the problem lies. You have to measure it from you points on Earth.
The major problem here is, the Earth is supposed to be spinning as we are told, so how can they measure from two points on a 1040mph rotating Earth to get a accurate reading?

Measured by two different people at the same time.

earth math good
space math bad
 

.....

Yes...on a supposed 1040 mph Earth, so tell me the system they used to accurately measure the moon and at what points where they both at ?

Keep in mind that motion is relative, and the Moon is moving pretty fast too, and that it's far away. If you're somewhere where the Moon passes directly overhead, it still takes it 12 hours to cross the sky (give or take, depending on the speed of the Moon's orbit). So, from an *angular* velocity standpoint the Moon isn't going all that fast relative to Earth. At least, not so fast that you can't get a decent measurement.

And as far as the locations, it doesn't matter so much where the points are, as long as you know the distance between them.

The speed of the surface of the earth has no effect on the measurement if they are taken at the same time.

This experiment was performed in 1751 by french astronomers Jerome Lalande and Nicolas Louis de Lacaille.  Jerome took measurements from Berlin, and Nicolas took measurements in Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.  The distance between was about 6000 miles along the surface of the earth, or about 5440 miles, if measured straight through the earth.  I couldn't find any details, however, about what time they took the measurements, or what the measurements were.

There's math, there's logical math  for logical Earth based dilemmas and there's logical math to explain illogical things like space and stuff.

No, there's just mathematics.

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

I'l tell you what, you could do something radical and daring: You could find out how these things were calculated for yourself (books are wonderful things). And then you could pick the flaws in the methods. And these flaws would be chosen from a position of knowledge and not one of ignorance.

.....

But aren't I just reading shoe horned maths to fit the model they portray?
The one I don't accept.

Um, kinda? My understanding is that it's an iterative or cyclical process, the model feeds the math, then the math feeds further development of the model. Comparing the model to observation is part of the process that leads to continued refinement of the model, and then you go back and check your math again.

Of course, you can develop all sorts of models this way, the model that's considered best is the one that makes the best predictions of observations.

Quote from: mathsman on February 05, 2013, 12:29:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 09:08:10 AM

There's math, there's logical math  for logical Earth based dilemmas and there's logical math to explain illogical things like space and stuff.

No, there's just mathematics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 03:55:41 PM

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

I'l tell you what, you could do something radical and daring: You could find out how these things were calculated for yourself (books are wonderful things). And then you could pick the flaws in the methods. And these flaws would be chosen from a position of knowledge and not one of ignorance.

But aren't I just reading shoe horned maths to fit the model they portray?
The one I don't accept.

The math isn't shoehorned to fit the model, the model is modified to fit the math, which is based on the observations.

.....

.....

I agree, that's what they do. It doesn't make it right though.

They even gave the Earth a wobble to cater for their model as everything didn't quite fit and then a bulge to further fit their theory.
Do you see how silly it gets. It's simply fitting stuff in to cover up errors in their thinking, until eventually everything adds up.

Maybe it's just a difference in how you and I think. I don't have a philosophical problem with Earth having a wobble or a bulge, it doesn't seem silly to me.

If someone is clever enough to pull them up again, they will change it to fit.

Well, yes, basically. All we have to go by to understand the world are our observations, and when the observations contradict the model, you have to refine or change the model. It's Survival of the Fittest, but in a world of models and hypotheses instead of dinosaurs and mammals. I don't have a philosophical problem with this either, it's how we continue to increase and improve our knowledge of the world and the universe. If the model doesn't work, you have to fix it or throw it away. That's science.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 05, 2013, 10:36:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 09:38:51 AM

Quote from: mathsman on February 05, 2013, 12:29:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 09:08:10 AM

There's math, there's logical math  for logical Earth based dilemmas and there's logical math to explain illogical things like space and stuff.

No, there's just mathematics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 03:55:41 PM

Nobody can calculate the sizes of anything in space, it's all simply a guess and nothing more than a guess.
Tell me how they calculated the diameter of the moon and then it's mass. Just explain this to me in simple terms.

I'l tell you what, you could do something radical and daring: You could find out how these things were calculated for yourself (books are wonderful things). And then you could pick the flaws in the methods. And these flaws would be chosen from a position of knowledge and not one of ignorance.

But aren't I just reading shoe horned maths to fit the model they portray?
The one I don't accept.

The math isn't shoehorned to fit the model, the model is modified to fit the math, which is based on the observations.

It's based on observations that required them to keep tweaking figures due to flawed observations. They even had to have the moon rotating at 10 mph so their math fit and also have the moon whizzing around Earth at over 2.000 mph etc etc etc and it just went on and on until someone pulled them up, then they would add whatever to that and bingo.

If someone is clever enough to pull them up again, they will change it to fit.

That's the whole point of science.  If new observations are in conflict with the existing model, that model needs to be changed.  There's no such thing as 100% precision in a measurement.  As more precise instruments and techniques become available, the more a model can be refined.  We say the moon rotates because that's what observations point to.  If you make an observation that says otherwise, then its your right to suggest changes based on your own observation.  If enough other scientists are able to make similar observations, and can confirm your conclusion, then your scientific work becomes mainstream science.  This is how the shape of the earth, distance to the moon, and other scientific theories, like evolution, or the material sciences become accepted.  It isn't just one or two scientists saying one thing, and everyone believing them.  If scientific observations and math support a moon spinning at 10 mph, and orbiting at 2000 mph, so be it, unless you can prove otherwise.

.....

.....

 

If there isn't a sceptical bone in your body, you won't get anything I have to say.

Make your argument.  Don't hide behind excuses based on personal judgement.

I understand that you and many others can argue against what I think and bamboozle me with all kinds of equations and what not, yet sometimes logic can go out of the window where science learning is concerned, in terms of acceptance of the thoughts of someone who you believe is expert enough to make you want to sit up and take notice.

I didn't become a sceptic by just sitting there and deciding I wanted to be. I done it because I see far too much fantasy being given out as nailed on legitimate.

Well I don't think I'm trying to bamboozle you with confusing equations, just trying to give an explanation of how the process works. It doesn't make it true, but I just want you to understand that while it may seem like they just pull these things out of their butts, the theory has to stand up to observation and criticism before it can in fact be called theory.

And don't get me wrong, skepticism can be a healthy thing. I'd suggest that good scientists *are* skeptical in a lot of ways. What I'm saying is don't let the skepticism deter you from at least trying to understand the concepts. Good analysis of the ideas is an important tool we have in the eternal quest to separate the good from the bulls***.

.....

.....

I realize that you legitimately are skeptical.  That's why I've stuck to you, trying to explain things.  I was once infuriated by the way people could figure stuff out with computers and math, because I couldn't understand it, but once you actually learn it, it opens so many doors for you, and things really do make sense and are logical.  I apologizing for letting our arguments get so heated.  It's easy to take things personal while arguing with an opposing opinion.  You are right to be skeptical.  I just wanted to help you see the logic.

.....

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 05, 2013, 01:05:31 PM

I realize that you legitimately are skeptical.  That's why I've stuck to you, trying to explain things.  I was once infuriated by the way people could figure stuff out with computers and math, because I couldn't understand it, but once you actually learn it, it opens so many doors for you, and things really do make sense and are logical.  I apologizing for letting our arguments get so heated.  It's easy to take things personal while arguing with an opposing opinion.  You are right to be skeptical.  I just wanted to help you see the logic.

That's fine, It's obvious we won't see eye to eye and things will go from one extreme to the other at times because these things rarely produce a valid right or wrong, yet can give food for though either way with certain things, which even I take on board. I don't just dismiss anything, which is the reason I started to post on here, as I didn't entertain a notion at one time of a flat Earth but I can see a strong argument with some of their stuff and it makes more sense to me with some of what they say, against what we have been led to believe.

Its a shame our education systems teach in such a strict manner, or you'd see that the scientific community which produces the stuff taught in school, is just as skeptical as you.  As someone who feels confident in my ability to connect math to observation,  I feel as strongly skeptical to the flat earth idea, as you do for standard science, not because the idea of a flat earth is illogical - I honestly don't think the idea of a flat earth is absurd, I just also don't think the evidence exists.  I think they really do shoehorn math to fit their model, sometimes to the point of ignoring math completely.

If I think something appears quite feasible and makes a lot of sense, I will look more seriously at it.
I'm far from correct in anything I say or even believe, yet If someone schooled in official science tells me that the Sun is a big Nuclear fusion reactor and someone wearing an old overcoat who is shabbily dressed and unkempt tells me that it's most probably some kind of electrical charged mass that isn't 93 million miles away, I would go with which was more logical, so the unkempt man gets my attention.

It's pretty natural to gravitate to the simpler ideas. And since I'm an electrical engineer I sorta find the idea of an "electric sun" kind of attractive.

But, if it helps, I do think the sun as a fusion reactor idea can be expressed in simple terms:

-Hydrogen is the simplest element, so we think there was a bunch of it floating around at the beginning of the universe.
-I drop my pen and it falls, so we think mass attracts mass. (There are other reasons we think this, but that's the most directly observable.)
-Mass attracts mass, so hydrogen in the early universe starts to pull together.
-After a *really* long time, a bunch of hydrogen has pulled together. (And we don't really have any reason to think that it didn't have a really long time to do this, not much else would have been going on)
-More mass equals more gravity, so even more hydrogen gets pulled in.
-Eventually gravity gets big enough that hydrogen atoms start getting squashed together.

Viola! Big ol' ball of fusion reactor.

Of course, it's still up to you to decide what you believe about the world, but some of this stuff may not be as complicated as you think.

.....

I don;t have any math or equations to back this up, I just have my own logic, which could be so badly flawed that it's rendered useless, yet it will never be proved, or shall I say, I doubt it will ever be really proved just what the Sun is in it's make up.

Or they are being proved, but not in a way you recognise.  They're just not being proven to you.  But they're being proven enough that engineers an businesses can exploit the theories and make technologies that seem magical to the rest of us.