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

According to the wiki and elsewhere, FET states that the Sun and Moon are approximately 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter.

Why is it that the distances and diameters of the planets have not been calculated at all, let alone with such precision, by FET?

Jury's still out on those Sun/moon figures too (Just finished reading up on a model which states they're 10km up and 618m across). There's a lot more to it when it comes to FET; it's not so easy to calculate. There are a couple of individual models which do make claims, but you have to account for things like EAT which posits an accelerator that distorts light, and analogous principles in non-accelerator models and... yep.

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...

Jury's still out on those Sun/moon figures too (Just finished reading up on a model which states they're 10km up and 618m across). There's a lot more to it when it comes to FET; it's not so easy to calculate. There are a couple of individual models which do make claims, but you have to account for things like EAT which posits an accelerator that distorts light, and analogous principles in non-accelerator models and... yep.

That’s quite the Jury - "10km up and 618m across”, I guess my plane trips literally fly over the moon.

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier. (And I'll get back to you on that, EAT's been on my list to dive into for a while).
It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

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

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier.

Yes, I'm very interested in the measurement difficulties.

Thanks Jane.

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

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier. (And I'll get back to you on that, EAT's been on my list to dive into for a while).
It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

What's so tricky about the measurements ?
It took a bit of ingenuity in the equipment and methods , but once they did it, the ham radio operators didn't have any trouble in estimating the distance from the earth to the moon and the diameter of the moon in their "Moon Bounce" operations.

Quote from: Jane on August 24, 2018, 05:42:53 PM

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

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier. (And I'll get back to you on that, EAT's been on my list to dive into for a while).
It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

What's so tricky about the measurements ?
It took a bit of ingenuity in the equipment and methods , but once they did it, the ham radio operators didn't have any trouble in estimating the distance from the earth to the moon and the diameter of the moon in their "Moon Bounce" operations.

Only if you assume you know all of the factors governing that behaviour.

According to the wiki and elsewhere, FET states that the Sun and Moon are approximately 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter.

Why is it that the distances and diameters of the planets have not been calculated at all, let alone with such precision, by FET?

Who cares? This seems to be the attitude of many flat earthers:

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

Little did Marciano realise, but those "lights in the sky", especially if we include the sun and moon make things very uncomfortable for flat-earthers.

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

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier. (And I'll get back to you on that, EAT's been on my list to dive into for a while).
It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

If you have any persons in the FES who are knowlegeable  with astronomical subjects, I  am sure you could you get some help from them.
 If there is an astronomical observatory or even an astronomical society or club , or maybe one in a near by school, college or university, I am sure they would be glad to help you.
It's a moot point they have already been measured anyway. All you have to is look it up.

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 24, 2018, 07:35:10 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 24, 2018, 05:42:53 PM

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

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier. (And I'll get back to you on that, EAT's been on my list to dive into for a while).
It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

What's so tricky about the measurements ?
It took a bit of ingenuity in the equipment and methods , but once they did it, the ham radio operators didn't have any trouble in estimating the distance from the earth to the moon and the diameter of the moon in their "Moon Bounce" operations.

Only if you assume you know all of the factors governing that behaviour.

If you are interested in "Moon Bounce" , contact any amateur radio organization, such as the American Radio Relay League in Newington,  Connecticut , U.S.A  (ARRL) or the Radio Society Of Great Britain (RSGB) or any other country. "Moon Bounce" is an operation enjoyed by hams all over the world. They would be happy to explain it to you. There may be even some in your neighborhood.

Only if you assume you know all of the factors governing that behaviour.

Some FEers (eg jroa and Sandokhan) postulate that aether or some such thing slows electromagnetic radiation sufficient to explain these things.
But:

• light or radio signals take about 2.5 secs to return from the moon about 5000 km high and
• a radar return takes over 5 minutes from Venus, supposedly about the same distance.

Don't just raise difficulties explain that.

So, Jane, instead of forever bleating all the time that we cannot know these things, what about being constructive.
If we follow your logic there could be nothing known and the earth could be shaped like a pretzel with a green cheese moon.
After all, why not? If Tom Bishop (and Zetetes, Albert Smith) can get away with all sorts of bendy light, why not twisty light.

You might learn a bit of real science from: PLANETARY RADAR, Steven J. Ostro, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.

Why is it unmeasurable?
Jane talks of science and math and logic and advanced calculus all such bs to make herself look smart.
But when you have an object of known distance with scalable diameter its unmeasurable?
Pffff come on.
And if she wants to play semantics - "Known" = best guess with compareable measurements scaled to levels of error.

It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

I guess my concerns are twofold (neither of which are pointed at you Jane, they are pointed at The Society):

1) I find it bizarre that one of the more fundamental elements of the observed world around us, the core metrics of which, distance and size of celestial bodies, are a mystery to FET. I can't imagine it’s that difficult or complex and at this point consensus should have long ago been reached.   

2) Then, throughout thread after thread FE arguments are made using these ‘nonconsensual' data elements when they aid but then are quickly cast away when they don’t; mostly referred to at that point as, “unknown”, “a work in progress”, “it’s a young theory”, etc.

I mean seriously, the ‘Society’ can’t take a stand and answer the questions: How far away are the moon, sun and planets? And how big are they?

I'm thinking the society might want to spend less time on replacing gravity and more time on the basics.

Don't just raise difficulties explain that.

...I did mention the problem was not knowing all the factors that govern necessay behaviour, and namedropped EAT as an example. Sorry I didn't meet your exacting standards of going over multiple models when it wasn't really relevant-
Wait, sorry, I thought you didn't like telling people how they should and shouldn't post?

1) I find it bizarre that one of the more fundamental elements of the observed world around us, the core metrics of which, distance and size of celestial bodies, are a mystery to FET. I can't imagine it’s that difficult or complex and at this point consensus should have long ago been reached.   

2) Then, throughout thread after thread FE arguments are made using these ‘nonconsensual' data elements when they aid but then are quickly cast away when they don’t; mostly referred to at that point as, “unknown”, “a work in progress”, “it’s a young theory”, etc.

These figures don't really get used by too many people beyond REers, like the azimuthal map. Most FEers typically seem well aware they're just placeholders. It is pretty trick to determine the details of, say, alternate behaviour of light in the vertical direction when performing vertical experiments with a sufficient degree of sensitivity is borderline impossible with the level of technology laypeople typicall have access to.

I mean seriously, the ‘Society’ can’t take a stand and answer the questions: How far away are the moon, sun and planets? And how big are they?

I'm thinking the society might want to spend less time on replacing gravity and more time on the basics.

How are those results more important? They're cute bits of trivia at best, working on what keeps us on the Earth's surface gives a major factor that could help determine those distances. You can't calculate anything without knowing the context underlying it.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 24, 2018, 08:10:55 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 24, 2018, 07:38:27 PM

Only if you assume you know all of the factors governing that behaviour.

Some FEers (eg jroa and Sandokhan) postulate that aether or some such thing slows electromagnetic radiation sufficient to explain these things.
But:

• light or radio signals take about 2.5 secs to return from the moon about 5000 km high and
• a radar return takes over 5 minutes from Venus, supposedly about the same distance.

Don't just raise difficulties explain that.

...I did mention the problem was not knowing all the factors that govern necessay behaviour, and namedropped EAT as an example.

All you ever do is raise the "problem" but when I, or anyone else, presents a specific you simply ignore what I ask.

Don't you realise how ridiculous it would be for EM radiation to take about 2.5 secs to return from the moon about 5000 km high and
over 5 minutes from Venus, supposedly about the same distance above the earth.

The problem seems to be that you are an excellent theoretical mathematician by have virtually no idea about physics.

Having EM radiation travelling at 4000 km/s to/from the moon is bad enough but
accepting that 33 km/s to/from Venus supposedly about the same distance from earth is totally beyond the pale!
So I asked you to explain that but it seems that you are unable to explain it.

And what is very significant to me and I hope to you is that around 189 BCE. (or maybe 190; sources disagree) Hipparchus measured the distance to the moon.
And before you jump up and down and claim that it depended on his assumption that the earth was a Globe, no it did not!
While his result was not very accurate it was quite similar to the currently accepted distance and measurements over the last few centuries have simply "homed in" on the modern precisely know distsnce.

Yet "the Wiki" can blitheky claim

The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the

Yet neither "the Wiki" nor anyone else seems justify that and I've never heard a word of criticism from you about how the FEers fail justify that claim.

Why do you let flat earthers make all these outrageous claims without any evidence to back their claims?

Yet you prop up flat-earthers that promote these fanciful 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

over 5 minutes from Venus

Where did you receive your BS degree?

I don't have a BullSxxx degree. I have a BE(Hons) degree.

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

No I'm not!

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

Rubbish!

Added next morning and still rubbish:
I have quickly looked through those references and can find nothing that supports your claims of a flat earth with a sun 10-12 km above.

Though I have not yet looked in detail, most references raise questions that seem quite answerable when the vastly different atmosphere of Venus is considered.
All of those papers except Heliocentric problem no. 5 - Schröter's Effect are based on either the heliocentric solar system and Dr. Neville Thomas Jones is certainly no believer in you flat earth an sun that aircraft could collide with!

And he does make some quite erroneous claims, one of which is:

Case 1: Heliocentric

• The Sun is located at the centre of the cosmos.
• The Moon goes around the World in a W to E direction (anticlockwise, when viewed from above the northern hemisphere).
• The World rotates on an axis in a W to E direction.
• The World/Moon subsystem goes around the Sun in an anticlockwise direction, taking one year to complete one revolution.

[/li][/list]
His first claim that "The Sun is located at the centre of the cosmos" is totally false. The sun is the "centre" (not quite but close enough) of just the solar system not the cosmos.

A claim as fundamental as that makes one lose any confidence in the rest of the paper.

But, Mr Sandokhan, please present some evidence that fits with your own model with its flat earth and 10-12 km high sun and I'll read it in more detail.
I will not waste my time on papers that simply present things that are as yet unexplained and appear anomalous to you.

Of course there are still unknows about the Universe!

The problem seems to be that you are an excellent theoretical mathematician by have virtually no idea about physics.

Or alternatively, and this may be a complicated point, but physics might be different under FET.
Exponential variation, properties of the object itself, all pretty basic opportunities for variation.

Why do you let flat earthers make all these outrageous claims without any evidence to back their claims?

Because having the same debate for the hundredth time is pretty tedious and frankly pretty pointless. You know as well as I where the figure comes from, ok there are issues but what would be the point in asking a question you already know the answer to?
Oh, silly me, almost forgot, you don't give a damn about answers, you just care about going on an ego trip and claiming victory.

Quote from: Stash on August 24, 2018, 10:18:32 PM

1) I find it bizarre that one of the more fundamental elements of the observed world around us, the core metrics of which, distance and size of celestial bodies, are a mystery to FET. I can't imagine it’s that difficult or complex and at this point consensus should have long ago been reached.   

2) Then, throughout thread after thread FE arguments are made using these ‘nonconsensual' data elements when they aid but then are quickly cast away when they don’t; mostly referred to at that point as, “unknown”, “a work in progress”, “it’s a young theory”, etc.

It is pretty trick to determine the details of, say, alternate behaviour of light in the vertical direction when performing vertical experiments with a sufficient degree of sensitivity is borderline impossible with the level of technology laypeople typicall have access to.

Right, isn’t this where a Zeteticist might toss about Occam’s Razor. If it’s so bloody cumbersome and complex with bendy light and all and thus requiring beyond layperson observations/capabilities, then just maybe, FE isn’t the correct model. I mean Cassini got pretty close to today's distance calculations and that was 350 years ago. What sensitive tech did he have?

Quote from: Stash on August 24, 2018, 10:18:32 PM

I mean seriously, the ‘Society’ can’t take a stand and answer the questions: How far away are the moon, sun and planets? And how big are they?

I'm thinking the society might want to spend less time on replacing gravity and more time on the basics.

How are those results more important? They're cute bits of trivia at best, working on what keeps us on the Earth's surface gives a major factor that could help determine those distances.

Vastly more important, from a straight up credibility standpoint. The most basic elements and seemingly the easiest to determine and even that can’t be calculated in FET. It may seem cute to you, but to the average layperson, for an FE or RE leaner, this is way more important than gravity. Gravity explanations are quite complex to the layperson, distances and size are not. If FET can’t get the basics, then the theory is woefully inadequate and renders itself a mere notion, a thought experiment, nothing more. It makes every argument beyond the basics a parlor trick at best.

And from the wiki, FE alt gravity solved already: "or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism (gravity) does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?"

You can't calculate anything without knowing the context underlying it.

Yes you can. The context is a flat earth. At least according to FET.

Right, isn’t this where a Zeteticist might toss about Occam’s Razor. If it’s so bloody cumbersome and complex with bendy light and all and thus requiring beyond layperson observations/capabilities, then just maybe, FE isn’t the correct model. I mean Cassini got pretty close to today's distance calculations and that was 350 years ago. What sensitive tech did he have?

Occam's razor applies to assumptions, not how complicated or cumbersome something is; if they have evidence of it, it's not the same as an unsupported guess.
You're working under the assumption Cassini's values were accurate; if anything an FEer could use that as an argument against RET. Most other theories get refined by now.

And from the wiki, FE alt gravity solved already: "or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism (gravity) does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?"

UA is pretty controversial even among FEers.

Yes you can. The context is a flat earth. At least according to FET.

That's not much of a context.
Take, say, weather prediction. How do you think that is done? They don't just assume everything'll stay the same, they use measured data. They know pressure systems tend to flow from high to low, they know about the Coriolis effect, the effect of moisture and temperature and passing over mountain ranges... And taking that existing data, all of that together, they are able to make what are basically measurements, gauges of how the weather patterns will progress.
Any measurement is the same, predictive or otherwise. You need to understand the underlying theory of a topic before you can state firm conclusions about it, and that goes well beyond 'the Earth is flat.' If they believe in aether layers, for example, you'd need to account for that refraction. If they believe space varies in density, you'd have to account for that incongruity. If they believe in space expanding, you'd need to account for what is basically redshift.

What's ideal always takes a backseat to what's practical; plus this hardly limits discussion. There's plenty to be said on the various topics, understanding them enough to be able to make predictions etc. Just don't be a Rabinoz, ask questions only if you care about the answers.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 11:39:42 AM

Right, isn’t this where a Zeteticist might toss about Occam’s Razor. If it’s so bloody cumbersome and complex with bendy light and all and thus requiring beyond layperson observations/capabilities, then just maybe, FE isn’t the correct model. I mean Cassini got pretty close to today's distance calculations and that was 350 years ago. What sensitive tech did he have?

Occam's razor applies to assumptions, not how complicated or cumbersome something is; if they have evidence of it, it's not the same as an unsupported guess.
You're working under the assumption Cassini's values were accurate; if anything an FEer could use that as an argument against RET. Most other theories get refined by now.

One could argue that a multitude of assumptions breeds complexity. But, alas, semantics.

Cassini was off about 10m km according to todays calculations. Seems like a lot. But the best FE has, 350 years later, is off by about 145m km.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 11:39:42 AM

And from the wiki, FE alt gravity solved already: "or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism (gravity) does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?"

UA is pretty controversial even among FEers.

Apparently, the distance/size of the moon, for example, is just as controversial.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 11:39:42 AM

Yes you can. The context is a flat earth. At least according to FET.

That's not much of a context.
Take, say, weather prediction. How do you think that is done? They don't just assume everything'll stay the same, they use measured data. They know pressure systems tend to flow from high to low, they know about the Coriolis effect, the effect of moisture and temperature and passing over mountain ranges... And taking that existing data, all of that together, they are able to make what are basically measurements, gauges of how the weather patterns will progress.
Any measurement is the same, predictive or otherwise. You need to understand the underlying theory of a topic before you can state firm conclusions about it, and that goes well beyond 'the Earth is flat.' If they believe in aether layers, for example, you'd need to account for that refraction. If they believe space varies in density, you'd have to account for that incongruity. If they believe in space expanding, you'd need to account for what is basically redshift.

Understood. But the point is, a flat earth, one where the most rudimentary observations can’t be explained nearly as well, if at all, as with a round earth renders FET a frivolous dalliance into pseudoscience at best. It seems like nothing on a flat earth really explains reality so there are a bunch of intra-FET competing theories scrambling around to try and fit. FET seems so far away from understanding its own underlying contextual self.

What's ideal always takes a backseat to what's practical; plus this hardly limits discussion. There's plenty to be said on the various topics, understanding them enough to be able to make predictions etc. Just don't be a Rabinoz, ask questions only if you care about the answers.

I do care about the answers, that’s why I asked the question to begin with. And it appears the answer is, FET is not mature enough to determine the size/distance of celestial bodies therefore any observable phenomenon that requires such input is not known nor can be explained by FET.

I do care about the answers, that’s why I asked the question to begin with. And it appears the answer is, FET is not mature enough to determine the size/distance of celestial bodies therefore any observable phenomenon that requires such input is not known nor can be explained by FET.

Seriously, where do these priorities come from?
There was a lot of theory underlying, say, Cassini's measurements. Sure, FET is held by an extreme minority of people, as such with extremely limited resources, and an extreme minority of even those can dedicate themselves to it full time. None of that's a secret.
It's hardly logical or fair to judge FET based on things that would be the case whether or not it was true.

And there's plenty of phenomenon that FET offers explanations for. Take a trip back to RET, you can give explanations of orbits, eclipses etc, basically everything without needing to give the precise figures. Sure, the numbers are helpful, especially for scientists, but as far as the principles and mechanisms go...

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 12:52:36 PM

I do care about the answers, that’s why I asked the question to begin with. And it appears the answer is, FET is not mature enough to determine the size/distance of celestial bodies therefore any observable phenomenon that requires such input is not known nor can be explained by FET.

Seriously, where do these priorities come from?
There was a lot of theory underlying, say, Cassini's measurements. Sure, FET is held by an extreme minority of people, as such with extremely limited resources, and an extreme minority of even those can dedicate themselves to it full time. None of that's a secret.
It's hardly logical or fair to judge FET based on things that would be the case whether or not it was true.

I think it’s entirely logical and fair to judge FET regardless of their resource constraints. 

And there's plenty of phenomenon that FET offers explanations for. Take a trip back to RET, you can give explanations of orbits, eclipses etc, basically everything without needing to give the precise figures. Sure, the numbers are helpful, especially for scientists, but as far as the principles and mechanisms go...

There are plenty of seemingly ‘precise' figures thrown around on both sides.

The bottomline is that shape, size and distance of the moon, sun and planets are unknown to FET.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 25, 2018, 04:26:56 AM

The problem seems to be that you are an excellent theoretical mathematician by have virtually no idea about physics.

Or alternatively, and this may be a complicated point, but physics might be different under FET.

Care to define what the Flat Earth physics might be because such definition there can be no basis for discussion?

Exponential variation, properties of the object itself, all pretty basic opportunities for variation.

"Exponential variation" is not a matter of physics. It is a purely mathematical concept which cannot be changed arbitrarily.
The properties of objects again cannot be changed arbitrarily just because flat earthers might want then changed.

Whether you flat earth supporters want them different or not they are the subject of measurements.
These measure done through the ages were simply done by interested people (philosophers, chemists or scientists - call them what you will) and they are not specifically flat earth properties
If you flat-earthers have done these measurements, and have found the accepted data incorrect, fine show us the results. Don't just say "it might be different"!

Of course, they and you claim that "celestial matter" might somehow differ from "terrestrial matter" yet it shows exactly the same spectral lines and space missions have returned and/or tested lunar and planetary matter and found the same elements.
The "excuses" given here, of course, are that "spectral lines" mean nothing and space missions are all fake.
Meteorites are not fake but then FEers postulate that they are bits fallen from the "Dome" which many flat-earthers deny anyway.

In other words:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth.

Yet you support the propagation of this stuff.

Quote

Why do you let flat earthers make all these outrageous claims without any evidence to back their claims?

Because having the same debate for the hundredth time is pretty tedious and frankly pretty pointless. You know as well as I where the figure comes from, ok there are issues but what would be the point in asking a question you already know the answer to?

Yes, the same questions have been asked "for the hundredth time" and for "for the hundredth time" have not been answered.
And unless you can come up with a better reason that failure to answer is simply because from what I can see, there is no answer.

If you think differently about these basic questions please supply the answers to these questions:
In this thread, those would include: "Why is the distance/diameter of the Planets unknown?

As one case in point:
I have made a number of threads pointing out that measuring the height of the sun using exactly the method used by Rowbotham, Voliva, jroa etc gives extremely inconsistent answers when repeated at different points on the flat earth.

These answers vary from 0 to over 3890 miles depending on the spacing of the observation points and that is not using "round earth data" but data contained in "The Flat Earth Society Wiki".

Oh, silly me, almost forgot, you don't give a damn about answers, you just care about going on an ego trip and claiming victory.

That is total unwarranted garbage.

I and other non-flat Earthers are extremely interested in the answers but we want answers not based on purely ad hoc hypotheses invented solely to answer that one question.
As examples of sun "ad hoc hypotheses" is the "bendy light" postulated by Tom Bishop to explain away the above great discrepancy and Albert Smith (Zetetes) to explain away the totally incorrect sunrise and sunset directions given by his bi-polar model.

Another is the massive discrepancy I've pointed to in earlier posts in that the round trip time of light or radar signals from the moon and Venus - your simply refuse to address the issue!

Yes, I'm very interested in answers and the only person that supplies some of these is Sandokhan, whose model not other flat-earthers want a bar of.
This might be because he also claims to prove the sun's height is 10-12 km (or 15-20 km or something) and

New Radical Chronology of History

• History is just some 365 years old.
• Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and
• The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier,
• after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

Read more enlightening information in: Sandokhan, Advanced Flat Earth Theory « on: July 14, 2009, 11:59:41 PM »

But, in your rush to support flat-earthers, you simply brush these aside.

I am not on any ego trip and I'll gladly admit that you are smarter and better educated than I but I see the flat earth movement as dangerous. If you don't, tough!

Now please refrain from personal attacks like "the myriad outright lies in your posts (as have already been pointed out)" for not including all of the myriad of FE models in every post I make!
Whether you accept it or not most flat-earthers seem to insist on:
     the "UN flag" model, NASA guards around the ice-wall,
     either UA or some "density/buoyancy" explanation of gravity and
     the sun. moon and stars circling about 3000 miles above the earth.
And there is no way that in every short post I can address the different points that might be answered by the numerous models and variations that abound.

Now, butt out!

Just don't be a Rabinoz, ask questions only if you care about the answers.

Don't you dare try to ascribe motives to me Jane!

I care a lot about the answers and I do not get feasible answers, especially from the likes of YOU!

You excuse the poor flat-earthers because they don't have the resources.
Have you read EnaG and seen the some of the "evidence" that their Patron Saint Samuel Birley Rowbotham based his "theories" on?
Quite a bit of it is totally incorrect totally incorrect and based on his appalling ignorance of surveying, astronomy and physics.
In some cases, he simply runs away when his errors are pointed out and still claims that the "scientists" were wrong.

If you want a debate on the "feet of clay" that is the basis of this whole sorry saga, bring it on!

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 24, 2018, 07:35:10 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 24, 2018, 05:42:53 PM

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

Seems like such a basic and core thing, and kinda makes debating anything to do with celestial bodies moot and…yep.

Not really, there's still plenty to discuss, such as the reasons why measurement is trickier. (And I'll get back to you on that, EAT's been on my list to dive into for a while).
It is a bit pointless to ask for things there's no feasible way to measure.

What's so tricky about the measurements ?
It took a bit of ingenuity in the equipment and methods , but once they did it, the ham radio operators didn't have any trouble in estimating the distance from the earth to the moon and the diameter of the moon in their "Moon Bounce" operations.

Only if you assume you know all of the factors governing that behaviour.

All the information is available from the ARRL and other organizations as has been mentioned. As for the manner of computing the estimates ..... A simple matter of arithmetic.  d = v t

I think it’s entirely logical and fair to judge FET regardless of their resource constraints. 

How? Just how?
That's like an FEer refusing to accept space travel because you can't build them a rocket in your backyard.

Care to define what the Flat Earth physics might be because such definition there can be no basis for discussion?

Take your pick, you know full well there are a whole host of models, I don't exactly feel like going through them all for someone that keeps ignoring every little response, and has been here long enough to know plenty of them.

"Exponential variation" is not a matter of physics. It is a purely mathematical concept which cannot be changed arbitrarily.
The properties of objects again cannot be changed arbitrarily just because flat earthers might want then changed.

Great. Then if you'd take the time to actually prove all the relevant properties are in fact what you say, and that there is no room for the alternative interpretations FEers have of those existing interpretations, then you'd have a point. As it is you're just bluster.
This should not be something I keep needing to repeat.

Yet you support the propagation of this stuff.

And you don't? Again, look at what you are doing. You're not going to dissuade anyone by acting like it's your first day on the forum constantly. You've seen the answers, you know the responses, you managed to even quote Sandokhan, so why do you pretend to be ignorant?
If you can find the time on your holy crusade, one thing you might find handy is actually coming across as a remotely credible source rather than a blustering pest. Genuinely, you aren't convincing anyone. No one expects you to go through every FE model in every post you make, but by the same token that means you can't go ahead and declare all FET dead and buried precisely because you haven't gone through every model. You can't claim an argument doesn't work, but not give any evidence or reason to say why it doesn't. You can't just assert the superiority of RET, especially with how many posts you've got under your belt.
If you actually care about dissuading people from the anti-science viewpoint of FET, something I absolutely agree with, then you need to sound like more than a common troll without even a shallow understanding of what it is he wants to refute.

Of course, they and you claim that "celestial matter" might somehow differ from "terrestrial matter" yet it shows exactly the same spectral lines and space missions have returned and/or tested lunar and planetary matter and found the same elements.
The "excuses" given here, of course, are that "spectral lines" mean nothing and space missions are all fake.

And if you can prove those missions were genuine, you would have a separate argument against FET so quite why you're bothering with this is beyond me.
As for spectral lines, that is one property that, uh, doesn't show distance. Best case it might show redshifting, but, well, yeah, whether or not that's a reliable gauge is this whole topic of conversation.

If you think differently about these basic questions please supply the answers to these questions:
In this thread, those would include: "Why is the distance/diameter of the Planets unknown?

And I have literally already done that multiple times. The problem is not that FEers have not provided answers to those questions, it's that you're too bloody-minded to listen to them, or you have a memory span of five seconds, and honestly at this stage I'm not sure which is most likely.
FEers have given answers. That doesn't make those answers right, that doesn't make those answers perfect, but it does mean you *gasp* actually need to acknowledge them rather than going on this ego trip constantly.

I and other non-flat Earthers are extremely interested in the answers but we want answers not based on purely ad hoc hypotheses invented solely to answer that one question.
As examples of sun "ad hoc hypotheses" is the "bendy light" postulated by Tom Bishop to explain away the above great discrepancy and Albert Smith (Zetetes) to explain away the totally incorrect sunrise and sunset directions given by his bi-polar model.

Actions speak louder than words Rabby. You want answers, but just not answers like that!
Funny thing is, pretty much every model I've seen that gives answers like that then has them have knock-on effects to other areas. For example, EAT; bendy light isn't postulated solely to deal with thsoe discrepancies, but rather it's a property of the accelerator, ie: it deals with gravity too. However, when they are answering the one question, they do so by... answering that one question without spending ages talking about the various knock-on effects.
Even if it was postulated to answer 'that one question,' that doesn't mean it can't answer others.

Now please refrain from personal attacks like "the myriad outright lies in your posts (as have already been pointed out)" for not including all of the myriad of FE models in every post I make!

When you stop making claims about them, sure. If you are only interested in talking about North-Pole centred, UA/density-law FET then don't make sweeping claims about FET in general that are just going to make you seem desperate to the countless FEers who do accept different models, just talk about that one model. And, uh, that's not relevant here because the variable properties of light are easily at home.

As for the manner of computing the estimates ..... A simple matter of arithmetic.  d = v t

Unless you ascribe to a different model where, for example, light travelling vertically, or through certain areas of space above us etc etc does not make it so simple.
What do you think you achieve by ignoring FEers?

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2018, 03:25:16 PM

I think it’s entirely logical and fair to judge FET regardless of their resource constraints. 

How? Just how?
That's like an FEer refusing to accept space travel because you can't build them a rocket in your backyard.

That's pretty much the argument FErs use.

And we are not talking about building rockets.

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.

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?