Nasa admits Sun and Moon are Same Size

From Nasa.gov website:

The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size.

source: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html



Now let me just make one thing clear.... that the odds of the Sun and Moon appearing the same size in the heliocentric model are absolutely astronomical. And the fact that earth supports life should really make the "Sun/Moon coincidence" a deciding factor in the search for extra-terrestrial life on other planets.

The fact is, the Sun and Moon are the same size and same distance away from earth. And not near as far away as you think.

This photograph below is evidence that the Sun is not 150,000,000 km away otherwise the width of the photograph would be greater than 150,000,000 km:



Pythagorean theorem FTW!

From Nasa.gov website:

Quote

The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size.

source: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html



Now let me just make one thing clear.... that the odds of the Sun and Moon appearing the same size in the heliocentric model are absolutely astronomical. And the fact that earth supports life should really make the "Sun/Moon coincidence" a deciding factor in the search for extra-terrestrial life on other planets.

The fact is, the Sun and Moon are the same size and same distance away from earth. And not near as far away as you think.

This photograph below is evidence that the Sun is not 150,000,000 km away otherwise the width of the photograph would be greater than 150,000,000 km:



Pythagorean theorem FTW!

You should read Who Built the Moon? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/190585711X. Copies are available via a web search on "who built the moon epub" (not that I would do that, of course).

From Nasa.gov website:

Quote

The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size.

They clearly say one is larger than the other. Wouldn't it be more honest if your topic heading were "Nasa admits Sun and Moon appear to be Same Size"

But who needs honesty here, and what would be the news? Everyone who actually looks at the sky already knows they appear about the same size and don't need NASA to tell them. Come to think of it, some here seem to be afraid of the Moon, so this might be news to them.

Now let me just make one thing clear.... that the odds of the Sun and Moon appearing the same size in the heliocentric model are absolutely astronomical. And the fact that earth supports life should really make the "Sun/Moon coincidence" a deciding factor in the search for extra-terrestrial life on other planets.

The odds are certainly finite. An example of such an occurrence will be on display in a couple of weeks!

It's still highly speculative whether it has anything to do with it or not, but the only example of life we know of occurs on a "double planet", so it's something to consider (and significantly improves the odds that the satellite of a life-harboring planet will closely match its sun in apparent size if truly a factor).

The fact is, the Sun and Moon are the same size and same distance away from earth. And not near as far away as you think.

Any actual evidence to back this bold assertion up?

This photograph below is evidence that the Sun is not 150,000,000 km away otherwise the width of the photograph would be greater than 150,000,000 km:



Pythagorean theorem FTW!

Those rays are actually parallel; perspective makes it look like they converge at...  get ready for it...  where the sun would appear in the sky if you could see it through the clouds! The bright spots on the surface are the same distance apart as the holes in the clouds the Sun is shining through. See Crepuscular Rays.

Just out of curiosity, when you made your calculation of the height of the sun using that photo, given the credit to Pythagoras, you must have assumed the rays were straight. Is this right?

I was thinking about photos like this and how this was a similar effect when replying to your thread about the mountain shadows. Sure enough, the article above refers to Anticrepuscular Rays. "Anticrepuscular rays are near-parallel, but appear to converge at the antisolar point because of linear perspective." Bingo!  Thanks for the nudge.

Perspective, again!

Quick test before we continue, I want to make sure we see things the same.

Do you see these two lines as parallel -->   |/

If not, maybe perspective is causing them to look crooked? Or maybe... you need new glasses.

Quick test before we continue, I want to make sure we see things the same.

Do you see these two lines as parallel -->   |/

If not, maybe perspective is causing them to look crooked? Or maybe... you need new glasses.

Are railroad tracks parallel or do you need new glasses?

Now how long are those railroad tracks do you estimate? 150,000,000 km? 

Thanks for proving my point.

If the sun were 150,000,000 km away then the rays would appear even MORE parallel than those railroad tracks. And the rays would cover a much wider distance than the area in the photograph. Try again.

Quote from: iWitness on October 07, 2014, 08:25:33 PM

Quick test before we continue, I want to make sure we see things the same.

Do you see these two lines as parallel -->   |/

If not, maybe perspective is causing them to look crooked? Or maybe... you need new glasses.

Are railroad tracks parallel or do you need new glasses?

If the sun were 150,000,000 km then they would appear even MORE parallel than those railroad tracks.

Does the word "foreshortening" mean anything to you?

Look, if the Sun were bigger than earth and 150,000,000 km away... a single Ray would likely cover the entire area visible to the horizon with the naked eye.

If the sun were 150,000,000 km away then the rays would appear even MORE parallel than those railroad tracks. And the rays would cover a much wider distance than the area in the photograph. Try again.

No.  Learn how perspective works.  Try again.

Look, if the Sun were bigger than earth and 150,000,000 km away... a single Ray would likely cover the entire area visible to the horizon with the naked eye.

Something like this ?

So, wait a minute. If the sun and the moon are the same distance apart, and the same size then solar eclipses should result in a catastrophic collision. Right?

It should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to think about it; the sun and the moon are the same thing - just reflection.

It should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to think about it; the sun and the moon are the same thing - just reflection.

Yes, of course.

It's like a tragically hilarious soap opera.

It should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to think about it; the sun and the moon are the same thing - just reflection.

What happened last night? The moon faded to a dim red. Did The Conspirator of the Exchequer forget to pay the reflectivity bill?

So, wait a minute. If the sun and the moon are the same distance apart, and the same size then solar eclipses should result in a catastrophic collision. Right?

For someone that's as active as you on these forums, trolling and mocking the idea of Flat Earth, you'd think you would have at least read the Flat Earth Information Repository:

It is said the diameter of the moon is about 2,160 miles,
and that of the earth about 8,000. It is also stated that
the moon’s motion round the earth works out at about thirty-
seven miles per minute, while in its journey round the sun
the earth travels along at about 1,080 miles per minute. Now
supposing the shadow cast by the earth on the moon is equal
to half its (the earth’s) diameter—4,000 miles is an outside
estimate, as the shadow would tend to converge. And if
these figures, given by astronomers of the earth’s and moon’s
motion are correct, readers will see it is impossible for an
eclipse to last in the moon for more than seven minutes,
although eclipses have been known to last for over
four hours, so that this shows the eclipse.- cannot possibly be caused by
the shadow of the earth’s rotation.

The above quote was taken from the Pamphlet "Does the Earth Rotate - No by William Westfield" which you can read at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Does%20the%20Earth%20Rotate%20-%20No%20(William%20Westfield).pdf

The sun and moon are not'' physical objects,,,   


Could it be a' reflections of electromagnetic radiation.....

Here is an amazing photograph taken from a Weather Balloon at 100,000 feet. Notice the horizon is flat and the weather balloon appears to be 1/4 of the way to the Sun! If the Weather Balloon is only 20~ miles up, it would seem reasonable to assume, based on the angles of the Sun's rays, that the Sun is only 100-200 miles up.

For someone that's as active as you on these forums, trolling and mocking the idea of Flat Earth, you'd think you would have at least read the Flat Earth Information Repository:

I have read it. There's also some sticky threads that say the moon is harmful to your health, which is something I've been testing for the past month or so (hint, nothing happens)

I was just arguing in a manner in which flatties are accustomed to. Stating my belief without actual substance or refutation. Then blaming it on some unsubstantiated conspiracy.
When all you people do is stomp your feet and assert something is as you think it is without anything to back up, your beliefs deserve to be mocked.

In your defense, iWitness, you've posted more of what can even remotely be considered proof.. even though it doesn't really prove your points.  I think Antonio's post illustrates that reasonably well.

Quote

For someone that's as active as you on these forums, trolling and mocking the idea of Flat Earth, you'd think you would have at least read the Flat Earth Information Repository:

I have read it. There's also some sticky threads that say the moon is harmful to your health, which is something I've been testing for the past month or so (hint, nothing happens)

I was just arguing in a manner in which flatties are accustomed to. Stating my belief without actual substance or refutation. Then blaming it on some unsubstantiated conspiracy.
When all you people do is stomp your feet and assert something is as you think it is without anything to back up, your beliefs deserve to be mocked.

In your defense, iWitness, you've posted more of what can even remotely be considered proof.. even though it doesn't really prove your points.  I think Antonio's post illustrates that reasonably well.

But in the end you're wrong,,, funny isn't it,,,,

I don't know, you people don't exactly have a good track record.
iWitness and his inability to understand how perspective works. The assertion that the moon causes health problems. As I mentioned, I've been testing that on my own for weeks. The only health issue I've had in that time was a quick flu. Which is accounted for since everyone at work has the same issue. Other than that.. I haven't been burned. I'm not a werewolf.. so now what.
Then we have people like Scepti who just asserts, but doesn't actually come back with proof. Versus all the roundies on here throwing actual data, only to be shot down because it goes against your pre-decided belief.
Then the conversation devolves into a school yard pushing match.

I'll say it again, if you have -any- credible proof, I'm still willing to believe. I came here asking the same and was horribly disappointed. Nothing would please me more than to find out the bulk of humanity was wrong about some fundamental subject, but the proof on this side of the fence is laughable at the very least.

I don't know, you people don't exactly have a good track record.
iWitness and his inability to understand how perspective works. The assertion that the moon causes health problems. As I mentioned, I've been testing that on my own for weeks. The only health issue I've had in that time was a quick flu. Which is accounted for since everyone at work has the same issue. Other than that.. I haven't been burned. I'm not a werewolf.. so now what.
Then we have people like Scepti who just asserts, but doesn't actually come back with proof. Versus all the roundies on here throwing actual data, only to be shot down because it goes against your pre-decided belief.
Then the conversation devolves into a school yard pushing match.

I'll say it again, if you have -any- credible proof, I'm still willing to believe. I came here asking the same and was horribly disappointed. Nothing would please me more than to find out the bulk of humanity was wrong about some fundamental subject, but the proof on this side of the fence is laughable at the very least.

How about not relying on others and use what you were born with, which was a free mind. It can be freed again but you have to want to use it.
It doesn't mean you have to stick rigidly to any model, it means that you can seriously look at all of the info and then start by questioning the logic behind a lot of the scientific reasons for why Earth rotates on itself and then hurtles around a sun in a vacuum and all the rest of the bunkum.

Here is an amazing photograph taken from a Weather Balloon at 100,000 feet. Notice the horizon is flat and the weather balloon appears to be 1/4 of the way to the Sun!

iTroll

Quote from: Arith on October 08, 2014, 03:39:11 AM

So, wait a minute. If the sun and the moon are the same distance apart, and the same size then solar eclipses should result in a catastrophic collision. Right?

For someone that's as active as you on these forums, trolling and mocking the idea of Flat Earth, you'd think you would have at least read the Flat Earth Information Repository:

Quote

It is said the diameter of the moon is about 2,160 miles,
and that of the earth about 8,000. It is also stated that
the moon’s motion round the earth works out at about thirty-
seven miles per minute, while in its journey round the sun
the earth travels along at about 1,080 miles per minute. Now
supposing the shadow cast by the earth on the moon is equal
to half its (the earth’s) diameter—4,000 miles is an outside
estimate, as the shadow would tend to converge. And if
these figures, given by astronomers of the earth’s and moon’s
motion are correct, readers will see it is impossible for an
eclipse to last in the moon for more than seven minutes,
although eclipses have been known to last for over
four hours, so that this shows the eclipse.- cannot possibly be caused by
the shadow of the earth’s rotation.

Y'know, iWitness, it might be a good idea to do a sanity check on calculations you post in support of an argument you make. Are you qualified to do so? (Sorry; couldn't resist...  )

Even assuming all the other info in that quote is correct, I get just shy of 50 minutes for the total phase of an eclipse (presuming the 4000 mi refers to only the Earth's Umbra, which it sounds like from the description).

(4000 mi - 2160 mi) / (37 mi/min) = (1840 mi) / (37 mi / min) = 49.7 min

But where did that 4,000 miles come from, anyway? The quoted text says it's half the Earth's diameter, an "outside estimate", which sounds like code for "wild-ass guess". 

It's easy enough to calculate.

Sun: 864,000 mi diameter, 93 million miles distant from earth
Earth: 8,000 mi diameter
Moon: 2,160 mi diameter, 240,000 mi distant from earth.

The Umbra is a cone extending beyond earth defined by lines that are tangent to both the Sun and earth.

So you have a long, skinny cone that is 860 864 kmi (thousand miles) wide at one end, and is 8 kmi wide at a point 93 Mmi (million miles) away. The total length of this cone is the 93 Mmi plus the additional part beyond the Earth (Earth's Umbra).


Total length = 93 Mmi + x.   x is, of course, the length of the Umbra itself

Since the 'x' part of the cone is exactly the same shape as the whole thing, then it's proportional length to the whole thing is:

(93 Mmi + x) / (864 kmi) = x / (8 kmi)

Solving for x (here's why you shouldn't have slept through Algebra even though it was Booooooring!):

744 Mmi / 856 = x   (the kmi units divide out)

So

x = 0.87 Mmi

So the Earth's Umbra is 0.87 million miles, or 870,000 miles long. The Moon's orbit is about 240,000 miles in radius, so the width of the Umbra at that distance is:

(1 - (240 / 870))(8,000 mi) = (1 - 0.28)(8,000 mi)  (rounded to two places)
 = (0.72)(8,000 mi)
 = 5,760 miles

Significantly larger than the 4,000-mi WAG.

Corrected length for totality:

(5,760 mi - 2,160 mi) / (37 mi/min) = (3,600 mi) / (37 mi / min)
 = 97 min (rounded down)

The partial phases will add the time it takes for the moon's diameter to traverse into and out of the Umbra; at least (2,160 mi) / (37 mi/min) = 58 min on each side.  We're up to more than 3.5 hours now, before even considering the penumbral phases.

The Earth's Penumbra is outside the Umbra, so the entire eclipse will be longer than the umbral phases alone. Determining the width of the Penumbra is left as an exercise for the reader. Why should I have all the fun?

Math FTW!

BTW, in last night's eclipse, totality lasted just under an hour (it didn't pass through the center of the Umbra), and the whole umbral eclipse totaled right at 3h 20m. Right in line with the calcs above.

Can you see why we mock many of the FE ideas here? Any argument that comes along that purports to disprove the mainstream is too often simply accepted without question. Lunar Eclipses can only last 7 min. This easily disproves "RET"! The Shuttle has to accelerate at 5 mi/sec/sec; they can't possibly be real!

This also illustrates the value of Peer Review. Similar mistakes are sometimes made in mainstream science, but those are usually found before publication when the paper is reviewed by a competent audience.

[Edit] Oops... said 860 instead of 864 in description; calcs OK

bunkum.

Right. Simply discard everything we've learned for centuries as unworthy of consideration. Now, there's a way to "seek the truth."

How about not relying on others and use what you were born with, which was a free mind. It can be freed again but you have to want to use it.
It doesn't mean you have to stick rigidly to any model, it means that you can seriously look at all of the info and then start by questioning the logic behind a lot of the scientific reasons for why Earth rotates on itself and then hurtles around a sun in a vacuum and all the rest of the bunkum.

Who says I don't have a free mind? I came here WANTING to be wrong. I've made up my mind based on what I've seen here so far, and yes. What I've been taught in school.  I have seriously looked at the data. I took an easily testable assertion (again with my moon thing) and found it to be utterly false.

Then you have people like Alpha here. Who shows his work. Think it's malarkey? Then fire up the Googles, and look up "how do I calculate the duration of an eclipse". Find one that looks promising and read it over. If it jives, then its a scorepoint to Alpha for credibility. I can even go back and look at other articles. Avoiding NASA based ones because, conspiracy, apparently.

Then you have these refutations:

But in the end you're wrong,,, funny isn't it,,,,

Which I can honestly say has been the response of 98% of all flatties here to any point made.

I'm no mathmagician or scientist, I'll grant that. However, I have ways of gathering as much merit from an argument as a reasonable person can. Given the lacklustre 'evidence' given by flatties, I don't see how any reasonable person can think any of the flat earth doctrine has any merit whatsoever.

Hows that Antarctica trip coming along anyway?
Thought so.

Quote from: iWitness on October 08, 2014, 08:47:41 AM

Quote from: Arith on October 08, 2014, 03:39:11 AM

So, wait a minute. If the sun and the moon are the same distance apart, and the same size then solar eclipses should result in a catastrophic collision. Right?

For someone that's as active as you on these forums, trolling and mocking the idea of Flat Earth, you'd think you would have at least read the Flat Earth Information Repository:

Quote

It is said the diameter of the moon is about 2,160 miles,
and that of the earth about 8,000. It is also stated that
the moon’s motion round the earth works out at about thirty-
seven miles per minute, while in its journey round the sun
the earth travels along at about 1,080 miles per minute. Now
supposing the shadow cast by the earth on the moon is equal
to half its (the earth’s) diameter—4,000 miles is an outside
estimate, as the shadow would tend to converge. And if
these figures, given by astronomers of the earth’s and moon’s
motion are correct, readers will see it is impossible for an
eclipse to last in the moon for more than seven minutes,
although eclipses have been known to last for over
four hours, so that this shows the eclipse.- cannot possibly be caused by
the shadow of the earth’s rotation.

Y'know, iWitness, it might be a good idea to do a sanity check on calculations you post in support of an argument you make. Are you qualified to do so? (Sorry; couldn't resist...  )

Even assuming all the other info in that quote is correct, I get just shy of 50 minutes for the total phase of an eclipse (presuming the 4000 mi refers to only the Earth's Umbra, which it sounds like from the description).

(4000 mi - 2160 mi) / (37 mi/min) = (1840 mi) / (37 mi / min) = 49.7 min

But where did that 4,000 miles come from, anyway? The quoted text says it's half the Earth's diameter, an "outside estimate", which sounds like code for "wild-ass guess". 

It's easy enough to calculate.

Sun: 864,000 mi diameter, 93 million miles distant from earth
Earth: 8,000 mi diameter
Moon: 2,160 mi diameter, 240,000 mi distant from earth.

The Umbra is a cone extending beyond earth defined by lines that are tangent to both the Sun and earth.

So you have a long, skinny cone that is 860 864 kmi (thousand miles) wide at one end, and is 8 kmi wide at a point 93 Mmi (million miles) away. The total length of this cone is the 93 Mmi plus the additional part beyond the Earth (Earth's Umbra).


Total length = 93 Mmi + x.   x is, of course, the length of the Umbra itself

Since the 'x' part of the cone is exactly the same shape as the whole thing, then it's proportional length to the whole thing is:

(93 Mmi + x) / (864 kmi) = x / (8 kmi)

Solving for x (here's why you shouldn't have slept through Algebra even though it was Booooooring!):

744 Mmi / 856 = x   (the kmi units divide out)

So

x = 0.87 Mmi

So the Earth's Umbra is 0.87 million miles, or 870,000 miles long. The Moon's orbit is about 240,000 miles in radius, so the width of the Umbra at that distance is:

(1 - (240 / 870))(8,000 mi) = (1 - 0.28)(8,000 mi)  (rounded to two places)
 = (0.72)(8,000 mi)
 = 5,760 miles

Significantly larger than the 4,000-mi WAG.

Corrected length for totality:

(5,760 mi - 2,160 mi) / (37 mi/min) = (3,600 mi) / (37 mi / min)
 = 97 min (rounded down)

The partial phases will add the time it takes for the moon's diameter to traverse into and out of the Umbra; at least (2,160 mi) / (37 mi/min) = 58 min on each side.  We're up to more than 3.5 hours now, before even considering the penumbral phases.

The Earth's Penumbra is outside the Umbra, so the entire eclipse will be longer than the umbral phases alone. Determining the width of the Penumbra is left as an exercise for the reader. Why should I have all the fun?

Math FTW!

BTW, in last night's eclipse, totality lasted just under an hour (it didn't pass through the center of the Umbra), and the whole umbral eclipse totaled right at 3h 20m. Right in line with the calcs above.

Can you see why we mock many of the FE ideas here? Any argument that comes along that purports to disprove the mainstream is too often simply accepted without question. Lunar Eclipses can only last 7 min. This easily disproves "RET"! The Shuttle has to accelerate at 5 mi/sec/sec; they can't possibly be real!

This also illustrates the value of Peer Review. Similar mistakes are sometimes made in mainstream science, but those are usually found before publication when the paper is reviewed by a competent audience.

[Edit] Oops... said 860 instead of 864 in description; calcs OK

Just for the record read the topic on how some amateur radio operators determined the distance from the earth to the moon is approximately 250,000 miles and the diameter of the moon is approximately 2,150 miles.

There was another article which stated that on a certain night that the Moon and Mars will appear to be the same size (on one page of the article) but when you turn the page and finish the sentence it says "when Mars is viewed with a telescope." LOL.

The fact is, the Sun and Moon are the same size and same distance away from earth. And not near as far away as you think.

Can you please cite your references to support this claim?  Or is this just another typical flat earther's unevidenced factoid?