Calculating the diameter of the stars

  • 40 Replies
  • 1144 Views
Calculating the diameter of the stars
« on: July 09, 2020, 01:59:41 PM »
Reading through the flat Earth repository I found this

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77969.0

In which Wise presents us with an image of the far side of the Moon (and therefore taken from space) and includes a claim that according to FE theory, the craters of the Moon have been formed as a result of falling stars.

I'm not going to reply directly to that thread as the last reply to it was in October 2018. However I would like to ask how FE theory has reached the conclusion that lunar craters are caused by falling stars rather than meteoroid collisions. Mostly during the time of the LHB.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2020, 04:21:25 AM »
Reading through the flat Earth repository I found this

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77969.0

In which Wise presents us with an image of the far side of the Moon (and therefore taken from space) and includes a claim that according to FE theory, the craters of the Moon have been formed as a result of falling stars.

I'm not going to reply directly to that thread as the last reply to it was in October 2018. However I would like to ask how FE theory has reached the conclusion that lunar craters are caused by falling stars rather than meteoroid collisions. Mostly during the time of the LHB.
It has not to be taken from space, but any telescobe. You can even take this photo by a bit strong camera.

Meteoroid collisions and falling stars are same things. It is just related with your point of view. If you accept the presence of meteorites, you can take them as meteor crash. If you don't believe in the presence of meteorites like me, what's wrong with getting them as shooting stars?


this workplace is on strike

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2020, 04:50:22 AM »
Quote
It has not to be taken from space, but any telescobe

No take it from me that image is most definitely the far side (not Earth facing) side of the Moon.  I have taken plenty of images of the Moon myself and so I am very familiar with what the nearside of the Earth looks like. The dark patch on the very edge of the Moon about the 11 o'clock position is Mare Crisium which, on a photo taken from Earth is on the opposite point about 1'oclock position.  So about 90% of the part of the surface shown in your photo (or the photo you posted) is completely invisible from Earth.

The first photos of the far side of the Moon were taken by Apollo astronauts. More recently we have spacecraft in orbit around the Moon (LRO for example) which have taken very detailed images of the whole of the Moons surface.

Compare your image to this one.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1126543/Far-moon-faced-Earth-asteroid-flipped-around.html

Quote
Meteoroid collisions and falling stars are same things. It is just related with your point of view. If you accept the presence of meteorites, you can take them as meteor crash. If you don't believe in the presence of meteorites like me, what's wrong with getting them as shooting stars?

And why don't you believe in the presence of meteorites? Do you mean the presence of meteorites on the Moon or the existence of meteorites in general? They hit the Earth as well you know.  The Barringer crater in Arizona is the perfect example of an Earth/meteorite impact.

There term 'shooting star' is just a metaphorical one.  It is not intended to be taken literally.  Shooting 'stars' are actually nothing whatsoever to do with actual stars.  I'm surprised you didn't realise that.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 05:09:20 AM by Solarwind »

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2020, 05:21:57 AM »
No take it from me that image is most definitely the far side (not Earth facing) side of the Moon. 
There is only one side of the moon and it is the front side.
I have taken plenty of images of the Moon myself and so I am very familiar with what the nearside of the Earth looks like.
There is already only one side. You think they are different things because of contrast, better quality shooting, et cetera.
The dark patch on the very edge of the Moon about the 11 o'clock position is Mare Crisium which, on a photo taken from Earth is on the opposite point about 1'oclock position.  So about 90% of the part of the surface shown in your photo (or the photo you posted) is completely invisible from Earth.
We can also use a different photo if it is important according to you whether it is front or back. I don't think the result will be very different from that.
The first photos of the far side of the Moon were taken by Apollo astronauts. More recently we have spacecraft in orbit around the Moon (LRO for example) which have taken very detailed images of the whole of the Moons surface.
These fairy tales have nothing to do with our topic. This photo shows the average craters on the lunar surface. You don't need to make Apollo propaganda. If NASA wants copyright for photos, I can change the photo if you can prove it. Otherwise, the source of the photo is not important. It is any of thousands of moon photos.
And why don't you believe in the presence of meteorites?  They hit the Earth as well you know.  The Barringer crater in Arizona is the perfect example of an Earth/meteorite impact.

There term 'shooting star' is just a metaphorical one.  It is not intended to be taken literally.  Shooting 'stars' are actually nothing whatsoever to do with actual stars.  I'm surprised you didn't realise that.
Ahahaha! How funny! They hit Arizona. How they know they are not falling stars but falling meteorids?

Surely there are not meteorids. No space, no meteor. We see the stars and some of them are falling. If you watch carefully, you can see that this way. No, it's not meteor. Star. It stands there, we see it, so look, this is a star. And then it slips. What does it have to do with meteor? In order for it to be meteor, when you take it to the video, it should suddenly appear and then slide at a point that has never existed. I've never seen that. I saw it carefully one time, and it was a star that I specifically identified a star that was clearly there, and that star that I determined slipped from there. No no, it cannot be a meteor. I have observational evidence from my point of view.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 05:24:06 AM by wise »


this workplace is on strike

*

rvlvr

  • 1857
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2020, 05:24:54 AM »
There is only one side of the moon and it is the front side.
News to me! When was this found out?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2020, 05:25:57 AM »
There is only one side of the moon and it is the front side.
News to me! When was this found out?
What else has been find out about it?


this workplace is on strike

*

rvlvr

  • 1857
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2020, 05:27:02 AM »
I always thought the Moon is one of those ball shaped things.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2020, 05:31:18 AM »
In the form of a flat shell with a very slight slope. The reason for the slight slope is that we do not feel the difference when viewed from different parts of the world and do not understand that the backside is empty.


this workplace is on strike

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2020, 05:34:47 AM »
I forgot stupidly  that we are dealing with a conspiracy theorist here.  Pointless trying to discuss anything with them as they have already made their minds up about what is true or not.

I'm sure that everyone else (apart from Wise) knows that I what I have said is perfectly true.  It's ironic really.  A flat Earther unwittingly posting a photo of the far side of the Moon.  Excellent!

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2020, 05:37:27 AM »
I forgot stupidly  that we are dealing with a conspiracy theorist here.  Pointless trying to discuss anything with them as they have already made their minds up about what is true or not.

I'm sure that everyone else (apart from Wise) knows that I what I have said is perfectly true.  It's ironic really.  A flat Earther unwittingly posting a photo of the far side of the Moon.  Excellent!
I think these things seem insulting me have no scientific value and no need to reply. But I will not report you. Because you globularists have nothing but insult option most of the times.

Have a nice day.


this workplace is on strike

*

JJA

  • 2219
  • Math is math!
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2020, 05:39:32 AM »
No take it from me that image is most definitely the far side (not Earth facing) side of the Moon. 
There is only one side of the moon and it is the front side.

So you think the pictures of the other side of the moon are fake then?

I suppose all your arguments eventually distill down to a vast, world-wide conspiracy to hide the truth, for some unknown reason.

Easy to dismiss evidence if you just claim the entire world it literally a lie.

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2020, 01:52:44 PM »
Quote
I think these things seem insulting me have no scientific value and no need to reply. But I will not report you.

Your understanding of what insulting someone means and mine are clearly very different. In fact your understanding - or should I say your assertions - of a lot of things is clearly a lot different to mine.  The real reason why you have decided not to 'report' me is because you know you have absolutely no grounds to do so.  Disagreeing with you is not a reason to report me. Even if you did you would be wasting your time. 

You should be grateful that I have not decided to report you given some of the ludicrous remarks you make on a regular basis but that's fine because I accept that's how the minds of conspiracy theorists work. I also know the type of people who typically become conspiracy theorist.  I am not trying to change your views or beliefs but while you like expressing yours, so too I enjoy expressing mine.  There is a big difference between you and me in how our beliefs are formed.

What I can tell you though with 100% certainty is that meteorites absolutely do exist and the typical 'shooting star' is actually no bigger than a grain or sand or garden pea.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 01:59:02 PM by Solarwind »

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2020, 02:02:12 PM »
If applying FE logic -

Shotting stars or falling stars do not fall.
The fly across the horizon much the same as a rocket leaving this earth turns horizontally amd doesnt keep going up.

If the moon was near and small, the bottom face is what we see, so falling stars actually have to be rocketed stars from the bottom and all craters have to be cuased by somehing coming from earth.

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2020, 03:21:25 PM »
FE 'logic' to me is based purely on a belief system. A belief system which has some sort of religious origin rather than any kind of scientific basis. So anyone who who follows this sort of 'logic' will probably interpret as an insult any comments from those who challenge the validity of that logic.  I guess that is what Wise means by 'insults' towards him.

The same principle applies to the codes of accepted conduct applying to certain religions or cultures around the world.  If I go into church or cathedral belonging to a certain culture or religion for example with my shoulders or legs exposed that would be interpreted as some kind of insult to those who follow that culture or religion. 

Applying that to the followers of certain conspiracy theories, simply disagreeing with what they belief will be interpreted as an insult towards them.  If that's the case then I will call time on any further discussion on my part and leave them to their beliefs.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19135
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2020, 04:57:24 PM »

The first photos of the far side of the Moon were taken by Apollo astronauts.


Uuhhh . . .

Quote
The far hemisphere was first photographed by the Soviet Luna 3 probe in 1959,

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2020, 08:16:14 PM »
FE 'logic' to me is based purely on a belief system. A belief system which has some sort of religious origin rather than any kind of scientific basis. So anyone who who follows this sort of 'logic' will probably interpret as an insult any comments from those who challenge the validity of that logic.  I guess that is what Wise means by 'insults' towards him.

The same principle applies to the codes of accepted conduct applying to certain religions or cultures around the world.  If I go into church or cathedral belonging to a certain culture or religion for example with my shoulders or legs exposed that would be interpreted as some kind of insult to those who follow that culture or religion. 

Applying that to the followers of certain conspiracy theories, simply disagreeing with what they belief will be interpreted as an insult towards them.  If that's the case then I will call time on any further discussion on my part and leave them to their beliefs.

Relax your face.
To discuss the FE you cant sight RE because they hand wave it away.
So instead, live in their world and apply their theory to other aspects of "reality".
If the answers appear to be ad hoc to only one issue, whcih i argue is the case, then it cant be a hollistic theory of any relevant substnace.

So
To my point.
The stars we see are not falling down feom far away but instead streaking horizontally across and then have to fly upwards into the bottom of the moon to create the craters we see.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 08:18:09 PM by Themightykabool »

*

Macarios

  • 2062
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2020, 11:05:05 PM »
No take it from me that image is most definitely the far side (not Earth facing) side of the Moon. 
There is only one side of the moon and it is the front side.

Only one side?

So, what is in the picture you are showing there?
Moon, or something else?

It obviously isn't the side of the Moon that we all see from Earth.


Here is what you show in that other thread (far side of the Moon):


And here is the side of the Moon that we all see (near side of the Moon):

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.

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2020, 01:31:45 AM »
Quote
To discuss the FE you cant sight RE because they hand wave it away.
So instead, live in their world and apply their theory to other aspects of "reality".

As a scientist I both accept and support the approach of keeping a flexible mind and exploring different theories about the Universe. When a FE person sees a flat horizon they conclude 'there you go... proof.  The Earth is flat!'  But I would say OK but is there any alternative explanation for why the horizon looks flat?  And the answer to that is yes.  In fact the presence of a sharp and clear horizon, and the fact that the horizon looks flat to me are both evidence that the Earth is not flat. Conspiracy theories are based on conformation bias. Seeing is believing. Everyone sees a flat horizon so the Earth must be flat. Science is based on logical reasoning.

Since 'zetetic' reasoning (on which flat Earth is based) regards only what we can see directly as acceptable evidence about what is true that automatically means that any other evidence that shows the Earth not to be flat must be regarded as a lie or deception. To the eye the night time stars are all just points of light so that means to a zeteticist that the stars are near and small.  So astronomers must be lying when they 'claim' that the stars are actually huge balls of gas, many of them larger than our own Sun.  A zeteticist will say since the Moon and the Sun look the same size in the sky, they must physically be the same size. 

However we have absolutely no concept of distance when we look up at the sky. Other than when we see an airliner pass across the sky but that's because we know how big that airliner actually is and so we can immediately estimate its actual distance.

Once we aim a telescope at the sky a massive amount of new data becomes accessible to us and that provides us with new evidence about the Universe. However because that new data is not directly apparent to the human eye naturally, I would guess that in the zetetic world, that new data is not acceptable as evidence.  Plus of course it places doubt on what they want to believe is true.

If Wise wants to know how we can actually measure the diameter of other stars, rather than using lunar craters then I would recommend the following link.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/diameters-of-stars/

If a star is part of a binary system and we know its diameter then combining this with spectroscopy then there is a whole host of things we can learning about the star. Including mass, luminosity, temperature and distance.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 09:03:56 AM by Solarwind »

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2020, 04:36:12 AM »
If Wise wants to know how we can actually measure the diameter of other stars, rather than using lunar craters then I would recommend the following link.
No I do not want.

So you have agree that photo belongs to moon, right? Where is the problem?


this workplace is on strike

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2020, 04:44:13 AM »
I quite agree that is a photo of the Moon yes.  Just not part of the Moons surface that we can see from Earth.   

The problem remains that you cannot use lunar craters to measure the diameter of stars. Lunar craters have nothing to do with the stars whatsoever.  So your method is meaningless.  I have guided you to a link which explains how we can measure the diameter of stars.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2020, 05:41:14 AM »
I quite agree that is a photo of the Moon yes.  Just not part of the Moons surface that we can see from Earth.   

The problem remains that you cannot use lunar craters to measure the diameter of stars. Lunar craters have nothing to do with the stars whatsoever.  So your method is meaningless.  I have guided you to a link which explains how we can measure the diameter of stars.
You do not have to agree my method, because you are a globularist categorically denying my methods. The only point here is that whether or not it belongs to moon, seemingly it is. So, no problem has remained.


this workplace is on strike

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2020, 06:04:23 AM »
I quite agree that is a photo of the Moon yes.  Just not part of the Moons surface that we can see from Earth.   

The problem remains that you cannot use lunar craters to measure the diameter of stars. Lunar craters have nothing to do with the stars whatsoever.  So your method is meaningless.  I have guided you to a link which explains how we can measure the diameter of stars.
You do not have to agree my method, because you are a globularist categorically denying my methods. The only point here is that whether or not it belongs to moon, seemingly it is. So, no problem has remained.
The problem remains that you cannot use lunar craters to measure the diameter of stars. Lunar craters have nothing to do with the stars whatsoever.  So your method is meaningless.  I have guided you to a link which explains how we can measure the diameter of stars.

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2020, 09:08:14 AM »
#Solarwind you are scientist? Can you come to debate with sandokhan?


RIP rabinoz

*

JJA

  • 2219
  • Math is math!
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2020, 09:10:25 AM »
#Solarwind you are scientist? Can you come to debate with sandokhan?

Don't do it, Solarwind!


Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2020, 09:16:28 AM »
#Solarwind you are scientist? Can you come to debate with sandokhan?

Don't do it, Solarwind!



Hehehe


But seriously, why not? I realised my post sounded not like I wanted. But heck, English isn't my 1. Language.

It was more like offer. We need someone who knows about field. We have #Sokaul for now...

And maybie he wants to debate with someone who is "higher level". Debating wise is easy.


RIP rabinoz

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2020, 09:17:47 AM »
But if I were honest, JJA loses when debating with sandokhan.


RIP rabinoz

*

JJA

  • 2219
  • Math is math!
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2020, 09:30:12 AM »
But if I were honest, JJA loses when debating with sandokhan.

If I were being honest, that's a bigger denial of reality than claiming the earth is flat.  :p

Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2020, 10:16:46 AM »
But if I were honest, JJA loses when debating with sandokhan.

If I were being honest, that's a bigger denial of reality than claiming the earth is flat.  :p

Oh, realy ;D

So, one recent debate

1. Sandokhan posts paper saying Command (part) of GPS does not use relativity.

2. JJA points it is describing part of gps

3. Sandokhan links again

4. JJA is angry and says that he responded to paper

5. Sandokhan points that paper describing entire gps system says they don't use LORENTZ relativistic transformations


That means they don't use relativity


RIP rabinoz

*

JJA

  • 2219
  • Math is math!
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2020, 10:43:08 AM »
But if I were honest, JJA loses when debating with sandokhan.

If I were being honest, that's a bigger denial of reality than claiming the earth is flat.  :p

Oh, realy ;D

So, one recent debate

1. Sandokhan posts paper saying Command (part) of GPS does not use relativity.

2. JJA points it is describing part of gps

3. Sandokhan links again

4. JJA is angry and says that he responded to paper

5. Sandokhan points that paper describing entire gps system says they don't use LORENTZ relativistic transformations

That means they don't use relativity

You missed the part where Sandokhan gets angry and starts name calling and insulting people. Constantly. :P

You also missed the part where I posted a dozen links showing GPS and all the other navigation system uses relativity.

If you want to ignore those and dozens more, and instead use the ONE paper Sandokhan uses from a guy who is NOT an expert in relativity,
go right ahead. But ignoring all of science and every agency that developed and built and operates the four GPS systems over one guy is a pretty lousy stretch to call it a 'win'.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2020, 11:27:55 AM »
But if I were honest, JJA loses when debating with sandokhan.

If I were being honest, that's a bigger denial of reality than claiming the earth is flat.  :p

Oh, realy ;D

So, one recent debate

1. Sandokhan posts paper saying Command (part) of GPS does not use relativity.

2. JJA points it is describing part of gps

3. Sandokhan links again

4. JJA is angry and says that he responded to paper

5. Sandokhan points that  paper describing entire gps system says they don't use LORENTZ relativistic transformations

That means they don't use relativity
No but Sandokhan does not accept either Newton's or Einstein's relativity at because they are incompatible with a flat Earth.