Eclipse proportions refute RET

  • 130 Replies
  • 7327 Views
*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #90 on: January 26, 2018, 06:46:28 AM »
Thus p=1, thus they are the same distance.
Hence, your claims require them to be the same distance and size.

No! The distance between the Sun and Moon not being constant does not explain it!

A Sun and Moon of identical size can produce a total eclipse, but the umbra must always be the same size as the moon (or sun).
BUT a Sun and Moon of identical size cannot produce an annular eclipse - whatever the distances from Earth to the Sun and moon.


Again, you are dealing with conventional physics.

If we only use VECTOR FIELDS, then you might have a point.

However, vector fields are caused by POTENTIALS.

And the potential has a hidden substructure.

That is why calculating the Earth-Moon distance using ham radio measurements are erroneous: they fail to take into account the density of ether/aether which modifies the speed of light accordingly.


R. Feynman:

E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect changed everything.

“A new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with a remarkable and elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory."

"Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”





Even in the absence of force fields (conventional physics), the electron will experience a phase shift caused by the potential.


Here is the Aharonov-Bohm effect applied on a grand, global scale:



Curved paths of the ball lightning spheres, where there should be none at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026


That is why even though p = 1, there can still exist an infinitesimal distance between the Sun and Black Sun, and at the same time have the occurrence of an annular eclipse.

YOU WILL HAVE CURVED PATHS OF LIGHT WHERE THERE SHOULD BE NONE.


The field of mathematics dealing with this kind of situation (nonlinear spherical geometry) is still in its infancy: that is, the mathematical tools needed to describe the phenomenon have not been invented yet.


Both of you are using conventional physics.

But the solar eclipse, as evidenced by the Allais effect, deals only with NONCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS, the physics of the POTENTIAL, and its hidden substructure.


Are you referring to the "black sun disk" that was poorly photoshopped in?

You tried that line of attack before: it won't work now, as it did not at that time.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Fred Bruenjes, a world-renowned photographer, has explained clearly the photograph.

The distances and the diameters WERE NOT CHANGED AT ALL.

This photograph proves, once and for all, that the "Moon" is not 384,000km away from the Earth.



The following photographs, taken by another world-renowned photographer, Thierry Legault, prove the same thing:



THE ISS AND THE "MOON": SAME DISTANCE FROM THE SUN, NO 384,000 KM DISTANCE FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON.



TRANSIT OF MERCURY ACROSS THE SUN




TRANSIT OF ATLANTIS ACROSS THE SUN


We are told that the Earth-Atlantis distance is some 400 km, while the distance between Earth and Mercury is some 77 million km and the Mercury-Sun distance is some 50 million km.

Yet the photographs show the very same distance.




Again, MERCURY TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN




ISS/ATLANTIS TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN: NO 150,000,000 KM DISTANCE AT ALL


These are the real dimensions of our solar system. A much smaller sun, and a much smaller Earth-Sun distance.



The OP of this thread is totally correct.

Either using an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), the final formula ( k - c = k/p ) shows that the official data on the solar eclipse is totally false.


And deal with the OP's faillings.

Your friends' alts won't help you.

YOU FAILED TO PROPERLY READ THE OP.

You used the diagonal distance (the hypothenuse), instead of the direct distance (the side of the right triangle).

The calculations are correct.

With an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), you will get a final formula of k - c = k/p. If p = 1.3 (or 1.11), with the conventional 150,000,000 distance to the Sun, you will get the WRONG Earth-Moon distance.

The only way out is to see that p = 1, and apply the physics of the Aharonov-Bohm effect to properly describe the entire situation.

Wow! I never realized the space shuttle was so huge! Amazing!  :o
Nullius in Verba

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #91 on: January 26, 2018, 07:10:16 AM »
A commentary from one of the viewers on youtube:

What else is Suspicious is the fact this thing looks that big against the sun. When you look at comparative models of the earth's size against the size of the sun it is supposedly very very small yet this ISS pictures shows it being massive in size. I know the ISS is closer to earth thus would present as larger. However if its this huge why don't we see it then on a regular basis. According to size presentation here it is MASSIVE. We should see it present against the moon, we don't.


The size of entire solar system is much smaller than we have been led to believe.

For those who still have a hard time believing this, here is the proof that the shape of the Sun cannot be spherical at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765


Since this is not my cup of tea, I am going to let jrowe take care of business here in this thread.


Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #92 on: January 26, 2018, 08:09:54 AM »
This OP is ridiculous. I teach math, and the most basic lesson about proportional triangles goes something like this:

“If the triangles are proportional, then corresponding a/b = c/d. If you know a, b, and c, then you can find d.”

And then the OP claims to find 64,000,000 without knowing any of the other measurements.

The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”

Cosine requires a right triangle, but you work with an acute isosceles. Also, cosine requires knowing one angle (two, really—90 and another) as well as one side.

“Cosine of an angle I don’t know times the length of a side I don’t know...[tap tap tap on a calculator]...and then square that...and then square that again just to make it look good [tap tap tap]...and bam! 64,000,000.”

Nonsense.

"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants


Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #94 on: January 26, 2018, 08:21:04 AM »
Flatties who count on curving light beware: if curving light is a thing during an eclipse, it is a thing all the time and invalidates your ‘distance to the sun’ calculations.  Remember that math is based on the quite reasonable assumption that light travels from sun to observer in a straight line.  If it does not, you have no way to know the light’s path, you have know way to calculate the sun’s position.  It could literally be behind you, the light curving past you and back again.

As to the little-known (outside the physics community) quantum effects like Aharonov-Bohm, if that effect had macroscopic, visible effects like wrapping the sun’s light around the moon, it wouldn’t require a difficult experiment to verify, and would be cited as a factor when calculating eclipse shadow paths.  After all, every single time we have a total eclipse, the 1919 observations of gravity warping space is brought up.  Why is A-B never mentioned, ever?  Because it is irrelevant, that’s why.

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #95 on: January 26, 2018, 08:37:35 AM »
The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”
Without my glasses I first read that as "Use cocaine and put it all in a quadratic formula"....which might be closer to what actually happened....
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #96 on: January 26, 2018, 08:47:48 AM »
After all, every single time we have a total eclipse, the 1919 observations of gravity warping space is brought up.

The data for the 1919/1922 solar eclipses was faked:

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html


Why is A-B never mentioned, ever?  Because it is irrelevant, that’s why.

There is the LOCAL Aharonov-Bohm effect, the GLOBAL Aharonov-Bohm effect, and the classical equivalent of the A-B effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect.

The existence of the superpotential (hidden substructure of the potential, which in turn forms the vector fields) was proven by E.T. Whittaker:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

The original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations can explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations cannot.

Here is the BOHREN EXPERIMENT, an extraordinary proof of the existence of the Whittaker potential:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2001816#msg2001816 (two consecutive messages)


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39543
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #97 on: January 26, 2018, 09:30:29 AM »
The distances are not in the photo. There is no way to tell how far away the moon is in that photo.

The official claim is 384,000 km. However, both Armstrong and Aldrin should have used a sledge driven by reindeers to get to the Moon: the photograph features a distance of approximately 1000 km.



Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #98 on: January 26, 2018, 11:30:43 AM »
The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”
Without my glasses I first read that as "Use cocaine and put it all in a quadratic formula"....which might be closer to what actually happened....

The plot thinnens!
Nullius in Verba

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #99 on: January 26, 2018, 12:52:34 PM »
Again, I am dealing with physics based upon reality.
If you want to start a new thread on delusional physics go ahead, but this is not the place for them.

Question for the moderators: why is this manner of posting allowed here?
Because this is a thread for debate, and you seem to continually want to go off topic with irrelevant crap.

If any style of posting isn't allowed it is yours where you continually spam mountains of crap to cover up your ignorance and inability to make a rational argument.

Remember, if you want to make an appeal to authority then you lose, as the authorities all say Earth is round.
You are selectively grabbing little bits and pieces of physics to try and say the majority of physics is wrong.

The triangle representing the sun had 3 sides. One was the sun, with a length of pM, the other 2 were both k.
This is the diagonal distance.


Notice the "D", that is the distance you want k to be.
Notice how it isn't part of the isosceles triangle?
Now do you realise your failure?

The final formulas, for both sets of calculations, lead to the same result.
He magically got an extra factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
For the correct sign of c, you get the correct formula at the end.
No they don't.
Changing the sign of c doesn't magically change the formula.
The simple fact is that his formula was off by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
The sign of c has no bearing on this at all.
You ignoring it doesn't magically make it go away.

p is NOT 1.3.
If you want to try comparing it to reality, set p to ~400.

But it is approximately 1.3, that is the value obtained through direct observation.
No it isn't. Get this through your thick skull:
Observations of distant objects of "unknown" distance are unable to tell you their relative sizes, only their apparent relative sizes.

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.
Notice how it is APPEARS TO BE?

That doesn't mean it is.

The distances are not in the photo. There is no way to tell how far away the moon is in that photo.
The official claim is 384,000 km. However, both Armstrong and Aldrin should have used a sledge driven by reindeers to get to the Moon: the photograph features a distance of approximately 1000 km.
Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true.
That photo has no indication of distance to the sun or moon.

Yet, the SAME DISTANCE SEPARATES ATLANTIS FROM THE SUN AS DOES THE MERCURY-SUN DISTANCE.
Again, there is no measure of distance there.
You have an object passing in front of another object. There is no indication of how much distance is between them.

Nope. It works just fine by letting p=400.
Sorry, you can't use the 400 figure.
Not when, by direct observation during the solar eclipse, in the case of heliocentrism, the angular size of the Sun is 1.3 (or 1.1) times the angular size of the "Moon".
Again, that is the angular size, not the real size.
In his equations, the angular size is taken to be equal, as it is during a total eclipse.
p is the ratio of the size of the moon to the size of the sun.
Simple observations of the ratio of angular sizes cannot determine the ratio of real sizes.
You need to know the distance to each.

2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.

Since this is not my cup of tea, I am going to let jrowe take care of business here in this thread.
i.e. you have had your ass handed to you far too many times and have had your complete ignorance on perspective shown to everyone and now are going to run away to avoid further embarrassment?

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #100 on: January 26, 2018, 12:55:24 PM »
Cosine requires a right triangle, but you work with an acute isosceles. Also, cosine requires knowing one angle (two, really—90 and another) as well as one side.
I assume he was talking about using the cosine rule aka the law of cosines:
c^2=a^2+b^2-2*a*b*cos(C)
Which for an icoscelese triangle where a=b, this simplifies to:
c^2=a^2+a^2-2*a^2*cos(C) or c=2*a*sqrt(1-cos(C))

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #101 on: January 26, 2018, 01:29:36 PM »
2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.


Exactly.

So which one is it?

Finally, you have come to your senses.

I told you that I was going to make a flat earth believer out of you.

Here you are boasting of handing asses, yet you have left the ring on a stretcher each and every time. And it gets worse every time you have the misfortune to debate with me.

This time around you showed everyone here that you do not really care about science.

To dismiss the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "delusional" or "worthless crap" means that the authority you make an appeal to will perceive you not only as a loser, but also as a fraud.

Only a fraud derides the Aharonov-Bohm effect.


You have just stated that there are actually TWO CHOICES involved here: either the diameters of the sun and of the moon are the same, or else one is 400 times the size of the other.

No other choices are possible.

By having stated this, you admit that the formula I derived is correct, and that p = 1 is one of the options.


Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."




PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






I have just proven to you, using the official data, that the shape of the sun cannot be spherical at all.


In your version of reality, the diameter of the sun is 400 times larger than the diameter of the moon.

Of course, you need to appeal to the official timeline regarding stellar evolution.

But your version of reality collapses immediately given the faint young sun paradox.

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (a classic work)

http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu )


“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.

A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract



http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


Your false belief that the diameter of the sun is some 400 times larger than the diameter of the moon relies also upon the hypothesis that sun is a nuclear furnace.

CNO CYCLE DEFIES THE SOLAR NUCLEAR FURNACE HYPOTHESIS

An extraordinary look at the CNO cycle:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf (a must read)

This paper provides the latest proofs which show the following:

Measurements on gamma-rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops.

"But the nuclear furnace theory assumes that these nuclear events are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”."

A clear debunking of the currently accepted solar model.

"To confirm these surface events Iron Sun proponents point to the telltale signatures of the “CNO cycle” first set forth in the work of Hans Bethe. In 1939 Bethe proposed that the stable mass-12 isotope of Carbon catalyzes a series of atomic reactions in the core of the Sun, resulting in the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This nucleosynthesis, according to Bethe, occurs through a “Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle,” as helium is constructed from the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—protons—at temperatures ranging from 14 million K to 20 million K.

For some time now, solar scientists have observed the products expected from the CNO cycle, but now they see a relationship of these products’ abundances to sunspot activity. This finding is crucial because the nuclear events that standard theory envisions are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”. From this vantage point, a connection between the hidden nuclear furnace and sunspot activity is inconceivable."

Proponents of the Iron Sun, therefore, have posed an issue that could be fatal to the standard model.


http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20080509075056/http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060120solar1.htm


In his autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows,” Sir Fred Hoyle documents the abrupt, and seemingly inexplicable U-Turn in astronomy, astrophysics, solar physics immediately after “nuclear fires” ended the Second World War:

[Referring to Hoyle’s meeting with Sir Arthur Eddington one spring day in 1940]: “We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, two parts iron to one part of hydrogen, more or less. The spectrum of sunlight, chock-a-block with lines of iron, had made this belief seem natural to astronomers for more than fifty years.” . . . (page 153)


Two other recent papers confirm that the Sun’s energy spectrum varies in the manner expected from a pulsar core that is shielded by turbulent layers of ordinary atomic matter:

_ a.) Judith L. Lean and Matthew T. DeLand, “How Does the Sun’s Spectrum Vary?” Journal of Climate, 25, 2555–2560 (April 2012)


_ b.) C. Martin-Puertas, K. Matthes, A. Brauer, R. Muscheler, F. Hansen, C. Petrick, A. Aldahan, G. Possnert, B. Van Geel, “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum,” Nature Geoscience 5 , 397-401 (June 2012)


You are useless here jackblack.

Another huge victory for FE.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 01:45:43 PM by sandokhan »

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #102 on: January 26, 2018, 01:58:34 PM »
This OP is ridiculous. I teach math, and the most basic lesson about proportional triangles goes something like this:

“If the triangles are proportional, then corresponding a/b = c/d. If you know a, b, and c, then you can find d.”

And then the OP claims to find 64,000,000 without knowing any of the other measurements.

The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”

Cosine requires a right triangle, but you work with an acute isosceles. Also, cosine requires knowing one angle (two, really—90 and another) as well as one side.

“Cosine of an angle I don’t know times the length of a side I don’t know...[tap tap tap on a calculator]...and then square that...and then square that again just to make it look good [tap tap tap]...and bam! 64,000,000.”

Nonsense.

Sandokhan's doing a great job, but I just wanted to take a moment to highlight this, because it truly exemplifies the kind of arrogant thinking that sums up round earthers.
He claims to teach math, and simultaneously appears to be unfamiliar with both the cosine rule, and the concept of working with unknowns. He plainly didn't even attempt to verify the math because if he had he would have seen the angles vanish very early on. We work in the situation where they'd be the same, after all.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sokarul

  • 17483
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #103 on: January 26, 2018, 02:55:53 PM »
...

Another huge victory for FE.
Using round earth science and other science you don't believe in is a victory?
In 1924 they were figuring out the pressure at he suns surface. Check it out
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924ApJ....59..197R

Did you read how they did it? Spectroscopy. You don't believe in that. One of the pictures has "balmer lines", why don't you tell everyone what those are.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #104 on: January 26, 2018, 07:37:43 PM »
2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.

Exactly.
So which one is it?
Finally, you have come to your senses.
No, if this could get anyone to come to their sense it would be you.
This shows that you cannot use angular size to determine the relative sizes of objects.
This means you can't say that because the sun appears to be 1.3 times the size of the moon (based upon angular size) the sun is 1.3 times the size of the moon.

This means the OP's argument, which relies upon the sun being 1.3 times the size of the moon, is crap.

I told you that I was going to make a flat earth believer out of you.
And you are yet to do so.
But this does seem to be the best FEers can get, a situation where you cannot tell the difference between the 2.

Note: in this thread I haven't been attempting to prove a RE, I am merely showing that the OP's argument, claiming to refute it, is pure BS which does not refute RET at all.

Your admission that you can have 2 objects appear the same size without being the same size is effectively an admission that the OP is crap.

Here you are boasting of handing asses, yet you have left the ring on a stretcher each and every time. And it gets worse every time you have the misfortune to debate with me.
I am yet to really debate with you. That would require you to actually address what has been said rather than repeatedly and asserting the same shit again and again.
And just like all those times from before, you are the one getting your ass handed to you, not me. You are just making yourself look worse and worse.

You have just stated that there are actually TWO CHOICES involved here: either the diameters of the sun and of the moon are the same, or else one is 400 times the size of the other.
No other choices are possible.
No I haven't. I said that in general 2 objects can have the same angular size with one being 400 times larger than the other, or with the both the same size.
This was to emphasise that they don't need to be the same size to appear the same size.
But they are not the only 2 options. You can also have one be 5 times larger or 10, or a million or basically anything.
All it requires is that the ratio of distances is the same (including directionality) as the ratio of sizes.
i.e. if you have 2 objects, one with a size of M and a distance of (c+k), and the other with a size of pM, at a distance of k, which both have identical angular sizes, then the following expression holds:
k=(c+k)*p
So no, infinitely many options.

But the mere possibility of the option of p=400 shows the OP is wrong.

By having stated this, you admit that the formula I derived is correct, and that p = 1 is one of the options.
There you go with another strawman.
If you bothered reading what I wrote, other than using different variables, we had the same equation.
If the sun is p times the size of the moon, then the sun is p times the distance to the moon.
This was different to the formula derived by JRowe, which claimed it should be p/sqrt(2-p^2)

Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.
You mean go off on another irrelevant tangent to try and avoid your pathetic failings.
No, lets stay on topic.

You are useless here jackblack.
Says the one that feels a need to go off on a massive tangent to avoid failure, and who continually ignores what has been said (on topic).

Another huge victory for FE.
Nope, just another pathetic failure to add to your pathetic existence.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 03:23:46 AM by JackBlack »

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #105 on: January 26, 2018, 07:43:00 PM »
Sandokhan's doing a great job
If your aim is to make FE look like a complete joke, then yes, he is doing a great job.
If your aim is to try and rational people, then he is a complete failure.

it truly exemplifies the kind of arrogant thinking that sums up round earthers.
He claims to teach math, and simultaneously appears to be unfamiliar with both the cosine rule, and the concept of working with unknowns. He plainly didn't even attempt to verify the math because if he had he would have seen the angles vanish very early on. We work in the situation where they'd be the same, after all.
No, but your response (including ignoring what has been said) does show the arrogance and stupidity of FEers.
If you bothered trying to go through the math you would realise that it is just a simple linear equation, such as the one he provided:
a/b=c/d.
e.g size/distance=size/distance.
There is no need for any quadratic formula.
And when you actually try and do the math, it turns out your formula is off by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).

I have shown all this, as has Sandokan (although he just did a different derivation), yet you completely ignore it.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 03:16:51 AM by JackBlack »

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #106 on: January 26, 2018, 07:56:12 PM »
Let me see if I understand this from the original post.

For those interested in the theory behind this calculation, we begin by finding a proportion relating the Sun and moon. We then create, essentially, one large triangle. At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size. They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away. One is the moon, the further is the Sun. Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being a) the size of the object, b) the distance to the object.
We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.

The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.


At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size.

They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away.
One is the moon, (lets call the length of this line Lm and its distance from the observer Dm)
the further is the Sun. (lets call the length of this line Ls and its distance from the observer Ds)

Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being
a) the size of the object, from google the diameters of the objects are Lm=3,476km and Ls=1,392,000km
b) the distance to the object. again from google the distance to the sun is approximately Ds=150,000,000km

We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.
So we have Dm/Lm=Ds/Ls.
Solving for Dm we get Dm= (Ds*Lm)/Ls.
Or Dm = (150,000,000*3476)/1,392,000 or 374,569km
This is within the minimum and maximum distances found on google of 356,500 and 406,700 so I am not sure how this does not match RET


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #107 on: January 26, 2018, 09:44:31 PM »

it truly exemplifies the kind of arrogant thinking that sums up round earthers.
He claims to teach math, and simultaneously appears to be unfamiliar with both the cosine rule, and the concept of working with unknowns. He plainly didn't even attempt to verify the math because if he had he would have seen the angles vanish very early on. We work in the situation where they'd be the same, after all.


That is not my quote.

Learn how to properly quote the right person who said those words.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #108 on: January 26, 2018, 10:05:40 PM »
Because this is a thread for debate

But you are not here to debate.

Every time you have your back to the wall, when you are shown that your arguments are a total piece of crap, you refuse to let go of your cognitive dissonance.

In each and every debate, you lost each and every time.

Perhaps in your mind you are a legend, here you are a total loser.

Make no mistake about it: you lost each and every debate, in a most miserable way.


Take a look at how you dodge the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Clayton model and the chromosphere pressure data which destroys your beliefs, the faint young sun paradox, the orbital Sagnac calculations done at CalTech which show you are a bumbling fool who has no idea what he is doing.

Your presence here is truly pathetic.

In my previous message I have destroyed your entire position, your entire set of erroneous beliefs.

How do you respond?

You mean go off on another relevant tangent


You mean go off on another relevant tangent

So it is RELEVANT AFTER ALL, isn't it?

If it is RELEVANT, then why do you not accept defeat?

I have proven that the 400 figure is completely wrong: the sun's shape cannot be spherical, its age precludes it from attaining a spherical shape, and the CNO cycle proves that its source of energy is not a nuclear furnace.


Your admission that you can have 2 objects appear the same size without being the same size is effectively an admission that the OP is crap.

Do not play the fool.

You REFUSED to accept that the obvious 1.3 (or 1.11) observational figure for the angular size of the sun was valid.

So, I used a different kind of argument, based on your assertions, to demonstrate that you are wrong.


You picked the 400 figure version.

I proved that you are totally wrong.


But they are not the only 2 options. You can also have one be 5 times larger or 10, or a million or basically anything.

Not when you claim that the Earth-Sun distance is 150,000,000 km.

If you make that claim, you also claim that the 400 figure is the only option available for you.

I claim that p = 1 is the only true option.

In my previous message, which you dodged, I proved that my choice is correct.

The OP stated clearly that the angular size of the sun is 1.3 which you refused to accept: even this value (1.3 or 1.11) definitely invalidates the 400 figure.

That is why I used your quote, in my previous message, to show how wrong you are.


I am yet to really debate with you.

But we have debated, and you lost each and every time.

Your refusal to accept reality is another clear symptom of cognitive dissonance.


Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."




PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






I have just proven to you, using the official data, that the shape of the sun cannot be spherical at all.



Question for the moderators:

WHY is jackblack allowed to post in such a manner, where he dodges the arguments presented in front of him?

This happens each and every time he is confronted with reality: he refuses to accept defeat, even though the proofs are undeniable.

He claimed that the Aharonov-Bohm effect is "delusional", even though it is a totally accepted fact of modern physics.

If a user has obvious cognitive dissonance problems, why is this not included in the rules and guidelines for this section of the forum?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 12:33:21 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6024
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #109 on: January 27, 2018, 12:47:10 AM »
The forum rules are posted in announcements https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43826.0

Show me another member who link spams all over the forum without getting bammed. Show me another member who posts nsfw content without getting banned. Show me another member who shitposts all over the upper forums without getting banned. Show me another member who has done all these things, and been given as many chances, and comes back and does the same shit over and over.

Here you go:

Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2017, 04:25:46 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on May 11, 2017, 04:03:14 AM
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.


For a massless rope, it must be.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.

No two persons in the world could apply the very same force.

By definition the forces applied must be different.

I reminded him that his analysis is simply wrong, here it is:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1909690#msg1909690

I even reminded him of the nonsense concerning the "massless rope":

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1906736#msg1906736


Quote
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 01:11:28 AM
Quote from: Albert Einstein
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Got anything more than a quote?
Perhaps address the issues with aether mentioned above?


What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.


Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.
The issues I outlined above, where an aether model requires the aether to be both stationary and moving w.r.t. Earth.

As for a rebuttal, how about this:
The statement is pure bullshit.
As it was asserted without any evidence or backing it can be dismissed as such.
Done.

Pure trolling, here in the FES forum.

No punishment at all, not even a warning.


jackblack has called Einstein's statement on the aether as pure bullshit.

He has called Dr. A.G. Kelly, one of the foremost experts on the Sagnac effect, as a "charlatan".

No such behaviour would be allowed on any other forum.

Is this then not trolling?


He has dismissed the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "DELUSIONAL" and "worthless crap".

Why is this kind of trolling allowed in the upper forums?


He is shown with simple calculations that he cannot substitute the area from an interferometer which features the radii r1 and r2 for the area of an interferometer which has R1 and R2 as radii.

But this constitutes no problem for a person with cognitive dissonance.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta



This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


LISA is the largest ever space antenna/satellite in the history of NASA/ESA.

The authors of the paper clearly prove and state that the orbital Sagnac is at least 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac.


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ

"In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion."

"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!

In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."



Conclusions:

The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.

Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:




Certainly at this point in time, any reasonable debater would give up his argument and understand that it would be pointless to argue further.

But this person does no such thing.

He will continue posting drivel as if nothing happened, all the while calling the authors of the papers he is being confronted with, as charlatans.

This is what we are talking about here: a clear violation of the rules of this forum, where flaming and trolling are expressly forbidden.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11213.0

Trolling will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.

As such, our Forum Rules are designed to strike a balance between the needs of formal debate, promoting The Flat Earth Society and Flat Earth Theory, and making the forum a fun and enjoyable place.

Finally, please note that the Flat Earth Society Forum reserves the right to remove any and all illegal content, or prevent any and all illegal activity, even if that content/activity is not explicitly forbidden as per the above rules.


We have a user, jackblack, who has a very serious outbreak of cognitive dissonance.

Faced with very obvious proofs, he cannot undergo the pain of accepting reality, and he uses trolling as a basic tool to debate.

And he has employed this strategy with everybody else, please see the quotes I posted earlier right here.

He has been told, quite sensibly, where he went wrong, in whatever argument he is presenting. He cannot face reality, and dismisses any other opinion as pure bullshit.

He has committed glaring errors, these were pointed out right at the beginning of the thread, but he just cannot give up arguing ad nauseam for five, ten, twenty pages, where he dismisses anything that contradicts his version of reality, and then proceeds to impose his will on everybody else, profiting quite easily from the lack of strict moderation.

This is supposed to be a "fun and enjoyable place", right? But this user has imposed his own rules on everybody else, while refusing to accept the definite and clear proofs published by mainstream papers. He calls them "charlatans". How would you, the moderators, deal with this situation?

« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 01:46:17 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #110 on: January 27, 2018, 03:47:03 AM »
That is not my quote.

Learn how to properly quote the right person who said those words.
My bad, I didn't change which quote line to copy.

However you should really follow your own advice.
Half the time you don't bother quoting anyone at all and instead just italicise the font or the like.

Then at other times you just lie about quotes and attribute them to others.

Because this is a thread for debate
But you are not here to debate.
The only reason I'm not debating here is because it is a 2 way straight and you don't want to engage in debate as you cannot rationally defend your position.

Every time you have your back to the wall, when you are shown that your arguments are a total piece of crap, you refuse to let go of your cognitive dissonance.
In each and every debate, you lost each and every time.
Perhaps in your mind you are a legend, here you are a total loser.
Make no mistake about it: you lost each and every debate, in a most miserable way.
There you go projecting again.

Take a look at how you dodge the Aharonov-Bohm effect
Don't you mean take a look at how you repeatedly try to change the subject to try and dodge the topic at hand, as you appear to be trying to do yet again.

Are you capable of staying on topic at all?

In my previous message I have destroyed your entire position, your entire set of erroneous beliefs.
No, you did no such thing. You completely ignored my position, set up a pathetic strawman which just served to further prove my point, repeatedly the same lies which had already been refuted and tried to go off on a tangent.

So it is RELEVANT AFTER ALL, isn't it?
My bad, typo (which didn't correct the right way), I'll go fix it up for you.
That would have been clear from the context, if you were capable of understanding English.

But notice how you now go and bitch and moan about this to continue your avoidance of the OP?

I have proven that the 400 figure is completely wrong
No you haven't.
You haven't even come close. You repeat the same delusions about allegedly being able to tell how far away it is from a photo, yet you are completely unable to even explain why you think that.

You seem to lack any understanding of perspective.

(I'm skipping over the irrelevant BS)

You REFUSED to accept that the obvious 1.3 (or 1.11) observational figure for the angular size of the sun was valid.
No, I said 1.3 figure doesn't come from RET and thus an argument based upon it which shows an issue with numbers doesn't refute RET.
From observations and measurements we know that it isn't 1.3, but from simple measurements of the angular size of the 2, you cannot tell.

So, I used a different kind of argument, based on your assertions, to demonstrate that you are wrong.
No. You set up a pathetic strawman and defeated that strawman, proving me correct, accepting the OP is wrong and accepting you are wrong.
This is because you have now admitted you can get the same result with different ratio of sizes by varying the distances.

Not when you claim that the Earth-Sun distance is 150,000,000 km.
If you make that claim, you also claim that the 400 figure is the only option available for you.
Yes, when you have a distance to the sun and moon only 1 ratio fits.

I claim that p = 1 is the only true option.
And you are yet to substantiate that at all. You only seem to be capable of going off on a pointless tangent and spouting mountains of irrelevent BS.

The OP stated clearly that the angular size of the sun is 1.3 which you refused to accept: even this value (1.3 or 1.11) definitely invalidates the 400 figure.
No they didn't. They stated the sun is 1.3 times the size of the moon and can have 1.3 times the angular size.
I objected to the 1.3 claim for the angular sizes as I have never heard that from any reliable source.
I also explained quite clearly why their claim for 1.3 for the actual sizes is pure BS and doesn't come from RET and thus any conclusion they draw from this assumption doesn't magically disprove RET.

They did not invalidate the 400 figure. They just baselessly asserted a different figure.

That is why I used your quote, in my previous message, to show how wrong you are.
Except it didn't show me to be wrong.
You agreeing with it was an admission that you were wrong.

But we have debated, and you lost each and every time.
Nope. You continue spout the same refuted BS again and again, refusing to engage in any form of rational debate.
In order to have a debate with you, you would need to actually read and address what I have said in a rational manner than continually ignoring it.

Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.
So once again you try and go off on an irrelevant tangent.
Deal with the topic at hand or get lost.

WHY is jackblack allowed to post in such a manner, where he dodges the arguments presented in front of him?
This happens each and every time he is confronted with reality: he refuses to accept defeat, even though the proofs are undeniable.
There you go projecting yet again.
If people were going to be banned for continually dodging arguments presented you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.
And here you go trying to change the topic yet again.
You have already shown everyone that you don't understand simply physics.
Why did you want to bring it up again?
To remind everyone of how ignorant you seem to be of simple physics?

We have a user, jackblack, who has a very serious outbreak of cognitive dissonance.
Faced with very obvious proofs, he cannot undergo the pain of accepting reality, and he uses trolling as a basic tool to debate.
And he has employed this strategy with everybody else, please see the quotes I posted earlier right here.
He has been told, quite sensibly, where he went wrong, in whatever argument he is presenting. He cannot face reality, and dismisses any other opinion as pure bullshit.
He has committed glaring errors, these were pointed out right at the beginning of the thread, but he just cannot give up arguing ad nauseam for five, ten, twenty pages, where he dismisses anything that contradicts his version of reality, and then proceeds to impose his will on everybody else, profiting quite easily from the lack of strict moderation.
This is supposed to be a "fun and enjoyable place", right? But this user has imposed his own rules on everybody else, while refusing to accept the definite and clear proofs published by mainstream papers. He calls them "charlatans". How would you, the moderators, deal with this situation?
And there you go projecting yet again.
You are the one that has been refuted time and time again, yet you continually try and avoid it by spamming and trolling, bringing loads of irrelevant crap up rather than dealing with the topic at hand. You continually baselessly assert BS, being completely unable to back it up. You continually try and make appeals to authority when people show why you are wrong, yet you don't understand what the authority is actually saying and if it applies or not and you reject the authorities when they don't agree with you.

As you seem to want to bring up your lies yet again, how about you do what was asked?

The OP clearly indicating they are using an isosceles triangle. For the sun, 2 of the sides are k, the other is 1.3M which represents the size of the sun.
Draw a diagram to show this, clearly indicating how k is the direct distance to the sun rather than the diagonal.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong the entire time and that it wasn't my mistake.

Once you have failed to do that and admitted you were wrong, you can then move on to explaining quite clearly how that single photo magically showed the sun is only 10 000 km away, explaining in detail how you can determine it from that single photo.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that you can't tell how far away the sun is from a single photo.

After that failure you can move on to your claims of the 2 formulas being the same, even though they differ by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
Explain how sqrt(2-p^2)=1, when p=1.3.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that even you disagree with the formula provided by the OP.

Then once you have had enough of those failings you can deal with the core argument, and explain how the ratio of angular sizes magically changes to the ratio of actual sizes, especially considering you have already admitted it doesn't.

*

Macarios

  • 2027
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #111 on: January 27, 2018, 06:12:23 AM »
We can measure distance to the Moon in more than one way.
One is radio waves. At the speed of light they travel to Moon and back for about 2.6 seconds.
Could be used amateur radio at UHF (say, 432 MHz), or radar.
Another is Lunar parallax. It is described here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.msg139439#msg139439
In both cases we get distance of 385 000 km.
Considering angular diameter of Moon, we can calculate linear diameter of 3475 km.

Distance to the Sun can also be measured in more than one way.
One is to wait maximum elongation between Sun and Venus, measure angle, and use radar to measure distance to Venus (look below).
That way distance to Sun was measured as 149 million kilometers.
Considering angular diameter of Sun we measured linear diameter to be 1.39 million kilometers.

Try these measures in your equations.

Venus used to measure distance to Sun:
(from: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #112 on: January 27, 2018, 06:33:56 AM »
The forum rules are posted in announcements https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43826.0

Show me another member who link spams all over the forum without getting bammed. Show me another member who posts nsfw content without getting banned. Show me another member who shitposts all over the upper forums without getting banned. Show me another member who has done all these things, and been given as many chances, and comes back and does the same shit over and over.

Here you go:

Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2017, 04:25:46 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on May 11, 2017, 04:03:14 AM
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.


For a massless rope, it must be.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.

No two persons in the world could apply the very same force.

By definition the forces applied must be different.

I reminded him that his analysis is simply wrong, here it is:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1909690#msg1909690

I even reminded him of the nonsense concerning the "massless rope":

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1906736#msg1906736


Quote
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 01:11:28 AM
Quote from: Albert Einstein
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Got anything more than a quote?
Perhaps address the issues with aether mentioned above?


What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.


Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.
The issues I outlined above, where an aether model requires the aether to be both stationary and moving w.r.t. Earth.

As for a rebuttal, how about this:
The statement is pure bullshit.
As it was asserted without any evidence or backing it can be dismissed as such.
Done.

Pure trolling, here in the FES forum.

No punishment at all, not even a warning.


jackblack has called Einstein's statement on the aether as pure bullshit.

He has called Dr. A.G. Kelly, one of the foremost experts on the Sagnac effect, as a "charlatan".

No such behaviour would be allowed on any other forum.

Is this then not trolling?


He has dismissed the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "DELUSIONAL" and "worthless crap".

Why is this kind of trolling allowed in the upper forums?


He is shown with simple calculations that he cannot substitute the area from an interferometer which features the radii r1 and r2 for the area of an interferometer which has R1 and R2 as radii.

But this constitutes no problem for a person with cognitive dissonance.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta



This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


LISA is the largest ever space antenna/satellite in the history of NASA/ESA.

The authors of the paper clearly prove and state that the orbital Sagnac is at least 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac.


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ

"In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion."

"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!

In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."



Conclusions:

The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.

Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:




Certainly at this point in time, any reasonable debater would give up his argument and understand that it would be pointless to argue further.

But this person does no such thing.

He will continue posting drivel as if nothing happened, all the while calling the authors of the papers he is being confronted with, as charlatans.

This is what we are talking about here: a clear violation of the rules of this forum, where flaming and trolling are expressly forbidden.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11213.0

Trolling will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.

As such, our Forum Rules are designed to strike a balance between the needs of formal debate, promoting The Flat Earth Society and Flat Earth Theory, and making the forum a fun and enjoyable place.

Finally, please note that the Flat Earth Society Forum reserves the right to remove any and all illegal content, or prevent any and all illegal activity, even if that content/activity is not explicitly forbidden as per the above rules.


We have a user, jackblack, who has a very serious outbreak of cognitive dissonance.

Faced with very obvious proofs, he cannot undergo the pain of accepting reality, and he uses trolling as a basic tool to debate.

And he has employed this strategy with everybody else, please see the quotes I posted earlier right here.

He has been told, quite sensibly, where he went wrong, in whatever argument he is presenting. He cannot face reality, and dismisses any other opinion as pure bullshit.

He has committed glaring errors, these were pointed out right at the beginning of the thread, but he just cannot give up arguing ad nauseam for five, ten, twenty pages, where he dismisses anything that contradicts his version of reality, and then proceeds to impose his will on everybody else, profiting quite easily from the lack of strict moderation.

This is supposed to be a "fun and enjoyable place", right? But this user has imposed his own rules on everybody else, while refusing to accept the definite and clear proofs published by mainstream papers. He calls them "charlatans". How would you, the moderators, deal with this situation?

Sandokhan, please understand that JackBlack is an AI algorithm and stop responding to it.

It can play games with numbers, as you'd expect of a computer program, but it has no understanding of the simplest physical terms such as force, mass, momentum etc.

I once spent days trying to get it to make a simple free body diagram and it simply could not comply.

Because, as an AI construct, it can not comprehend physical reality.

It also deliberately formats its posts in a way that makes them almost impossible to respond to clearly, as an exercise in calculated time wasting.

Do not let it waste your time further.

Now, as to the sun: the elemental make up and construction of the sun has been empirically known for over 150 years...

And it is not a giant ball of gas.

The truth, however, has been buried in history.

I have no interest in those silly lights in the sky, nor the Pseudoscience of astrophysics, so will speak no further on this subject.

But I thought it may interest you.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #113 on: January 27, 2018, 06:52:39 AM »
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.
Nullius in Verba

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #114 on: January 27, 2018, 07:13:46 AM »
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.

This is exactly the kind of forced, humourless, time wasting shitpost that made all the people I showed this forum to IRL believe that it was overrun by bots.

So yes, you clearly are a bot.

Here is your purpose (1st paragraph then section 12):

http://www.drrobertduncan.com/dr-robert-duncans-neuropsychological-and-electronic-no-touch-torture-report.html

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...

But hey - not here, eh?

Not in the Kingdom of the bots...

Now AstroTurf this post with yet more random gibberish and prove me right.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #115 on: January 27, 2018, 07:31:33 AM »
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.

This is exactly the kind of forced, humourless, time wasting shitpost that made all the people I showed this forum to IRL believe that it was overrun by bots.

So yes, you clearly are a bot.

Here is your purpose (1st paragraph then section 12):

http://www.drrobertduncan.com/dr-robert-duncans-neuropsychological-and-electronic-no-touch-torture-report.html

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...

But hey - not here, eh?

Not in the Kingdom of the bots...

Now AstroTurf this post with yet more random gibberish and prove me right.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

Nullius in Verba

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #116 on: January 27, 2018, 08:59:58 AM »
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.

This is exactly the kind of forced, humourless, time wasting shitpost that made all the people I showed this forum to IRL believe that it was overrun by bots.

So yes, you clearly are a bot.

Here is your purpose (1st paragraph then section 12):

http://www.drrobertduncan.com/dr-robert-duncans-neuropsychological-and-electronic-no-touch-torture-report.html

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...

But hey - not here, eh?

Not in the Kingdom of the bots...

Now AstroTurf this post with yet more random gibberish and prove me right.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1



So that's the kind of thing you think a man with kids does in his spare time?

LOL!!!

And of course there are a tiny handful of real people who run this site behind the scenes and can step in when the bots fail...

I have the name, address and place of work of one of them, and next time I am banned will be contacting the police and his employer to report him for criminal activity:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cybercrime-legal-guidance

But the vast majority of the activity on this site is bot generated, like your first post was.

Wasn't it, Paul?

Better hurry up and DELETE EVERYTHING!!!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 09:01:58 AM by Papa Legba »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #117 on: January 27, 2018, 10:11:51 AM »
...

Another huge victory for FE.
Using round earth science and other science you don't believe in is a victory?
In 1924 they were figuring out the pressure at he suns surface. Check it out
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924ApJ....59..197R

Did you read how they did it? Spectroscopy. You don't believe in that. One of the pictures has "balmer lines", why don't you tell everyone what those are.

Balmer lines ?! I once asked him what a potential was (since he seems to like them a lot), I'm still waiting on the answer !

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #118 on: January 27, 2018, 01:00:32 PM »
It can play games with numbers, as you'd expect of a computer program, but it has no understanding of the simplest physical terms such as force, mass, momentum etc.
Strange that you say that, when quoting a post where Sandy shows complete ignorance of how force works.

I once spent days trying to get it to make a simple free body diagram and it simply could not comply.
You mean you were provided with one and then kept rejecting it without a valid reason.

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...
Yes, because they realise FE is complete garbage and get annoyed at the liars trying to pretend it is rational.

I have the name, address and place of work of one of them, and next time I am banned will be contacting the police and his employer to report him for criminal activity:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cybercrime-legal-guidance
And just what do you think is criminal activity here?
Other than your repeated defamation?

Now how about you stop the pathetic insults and lies and try to deal with the OP?

Do you think their "proof" is sound? Why or why not?

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #119 on: January 27, 2018, 01:21:37 PM »
A commentary from one of the viewers on youtube:

What else is Suspicious is the fact this thing looks that big against the sun. When you look at comparative models of the earth's size against the size of the sun it is supposedly very very small yet this ISS pictures shows it being massive in size. I know the ISS is closer to earth thus would present as larger. However if its this huge why don't we see it then on a regular basis. According to size presentation here it is MASSIVE. We should see it present against the moon, we don't.

Because both you, and the viewer on youtube, have little to no understanding of viewing objects of vastly different sizes with vastly different distances between them, through high-powered magnification.