FET: Why is the distance/diameter of the Planets unknown?

Quote from: Jane on August 25, 2018, 04:37:43 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 04:13:10 PM

That's pretty much the argument FErs use.

And we are not talking about building rockets.

It... really isn't.
No, but it's analogous. Don't ask for things where the answer would be the same whether or not the Earth was flat.

It really kinda is.

You lost me on the last bit: "Don't ask for things where the answer would be the same whether or not the Earth was flat." What was I asking for that fits this?

Then you haven't been paying attention. I don't know what else you want me to say.

You're asking for things they would not be able to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I don't know what else you want me to say.

You're asking for things they would not be able to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth.

I'm asking for the diameter/distance of celestial bodies according to FET. Now if what your saying is my question has the same answer regardless of the shape of the earth, round or flat, then ok.

I was under the perhaps false assumption FE's answer is different than RE's.

Quote from: Jane on August 25, 2018, 05:00:28 PM

Then you haven't been paying attention. I don't know what else you want me to say.

You're asking for things they would not be able to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth.

I'm asking for the diameter/distance of celestial bodies according to FET. Now if what your saying is my question has the same answer regardless of the shape of the earth, round or flat, then ok.

I was under the perhaps false assumption FE's answer is different than RE's.

Have you just forgotten the entire contents of our conversation throughout the duration of this thread?

What you are asking for cannot feasibly be determined without a hell of a lot more work. It is a cute triviality that could only be found after a lot of calculations and experimentation when it comes to the properties of light and the upper atmosphere, which are typically very different under FET. No matter what the shape of the Earth is, it is physically impossible for your average person with your average, or even above average, access to resources to figure half of that out.

If you want a fun time on this forum, and to have people look forward to talking with you, have a memory longer than a goldfish's.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 05:08:24 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 25, 2018, 05:00:28 PM

Then you haven't been paying attention. I don't know what else you want me to say.

You're asking for things they would not be able to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth.

I'm asking for the diameter/distance of celestial bodies according to FET. Now if what your saying is my question has the same answer regardless of the shape of the earth, round or flat, then ok.

I was under the perhaps false assumption FE's answer is different than RE's.

Have you just forgotten the entire contents of our conversation throughout the duration of this thread?

What you are asking for cannot feasibly be determined without a hell of a lot more work. It is a cute triviality that could only be found after a lot of calculations and experimentation when it comes to the properties of light and the upper atmosphere, which are typically very different under FET. No matter what the shape of the Earth is, it is physically impossible for your average person with your average, or even above average, access to resources to figure half of that out.

If you want a fun time on this forum, and to have people look forward to talking with you, have a memory longer than a goldfish's.

To recap (otherwise my goldfish level memory may interfere):

You infer that FET is far too complex, varied, disparate and resource constrained at this point in time to answer my cute question.

Therefore, I stand by my claim: The shape, size and distance of the moon, sun and planets are unknown to FET.

Fair enough?

To recap (otherwise my goldfish level memory may interfere):

You infer that FET is far too complex, varied, disparate and resource constrained at this point in time to answer my cute question.

Therefore, I stand by my claim: The shape, size and distance of the moon, sun and planets are unknown to FET.

Fair enough?

Yep, it's just a meaningless claim for all the reasons I've gone into. It comes across more as you trying to seem superior than it does trying to make any reasonable point.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 05:44:31 PM

To recap (otherwise my goldfish level memory may interfere):

You infer that FET is far too complex, varied, disparate and resource constrained at this point in time to answer my cute question.

Therefore, I stand by my claim: The shape, size and distance of the moon, sun and planets are unknown to FET.

Fair enough?

Yep, it's just a meaningless claim for all the reasons I've gone into. It comes across more as you trying to seem superior than it does trying to make any reasonable point.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 05:44:31 PM

To recap (otherwise my goldfish level memory may interfere):

You infer that FET is far too complex, varied, disparate and resource constrained at this point in time to answer my cute question.

Therefore, I stand by my claim: The shape, size and distance of the moon, sun and planets are unknown to FET.

Fair enough?

Yep, it's just a meaningless claim for all the reasons I've gone into. It comes across more as you trying to seem superior than it does trying to make any reasonable point.

Ouch. Hmm, wasn't my intent to make a meaningless claim or act from a position of superiority. I thought my reasonable point was that some seemingly basic data (although proved to be non-basic in FET) that is bandied about needs to be nailed in FET. 

My bad.

Fair point that there are perhaps bigger (gold)fish to fry as far as FET goes.

To be fair, science is never about throwing out speculative figures, it's about working on how to get those figures in the first place, determining what to take into account and how...

This is absolutely false.

Almost every great scientific discovery started out with "speculative" ideas.

over 5 minutes from Venus

Where did you receive your BS degree?

Once you mention the planet Venus, you are going to have to explain the Schroeter effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

I think you actually have the capability of being intelligent, but you waste your efforts on a debilitating arrogance.  You can't even admit to yourself that you are wrong.

The idea that the moon is 10km from the surface of the earth is utterly asinine.  Every single person would be able to visit the moon with very little effort if that were the case.  You can't use the "magical bullshit that we have no evidence of" argument and actually expect to be taken seriously.  You should be very concerned about anyone that does take you seriously.

Be honest, what is your draw to the absolutely ridiculous idea of a flat earth?

Quote from: Jane on August 24, 2018, 04:39:19 PM

To be fair, science is never about throwing out speculative figures, it's about working on how to get those figures in the first place, determining what to take into account and how...

This is absolutely false.

Almost every great scientific discovery started out with "speculative" ideas.

...Learn the difference between 'figures' and 'ideas.'

Quote from: Jane on August 25, 2018, 04:37:43 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 04:13:10 PM

That's pretty much the argument FErs use.

And we are not talking about building rockets.

It... really isn't.
No, but it's analogous. Don't ask for things where the answer would be the same whether or not the Earth was flat.

It really kinda is.

You lost me on the last bit: "Don't ask for things where the answer would be the same whether or not the Earth was flat." What was I asking for that fits this?

Jane isn't aware how obvious it is that (s)he just talks for the sake of talking.  Everything is a deflection, or just a big huge pile of bullshit intended on presenting a false sense of superior intelligence.  The "round earther playing devil's advocate" role... Just a ruse to protect yourself from ever having to publicly admit you are wrong..even when it is completely obvious.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"