Calculating the diameter of the stars

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 13, 2020, 09:30:12 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 09:17:47 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

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.

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'.

I am sorry to inform you, but that was form paper you linked, not Hatch

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.

Do you deliberately take comments completely out of context?  There are two issues here.  You have claimed that you can measure the diameter of stars by measuring the diameter of lunar craters.  That is absolute rubbish because lunar craters have nothing to do with stars in the real world.  Only in your world. 

All I have agreed with is that you posted a photo of the Moon.  That's all. The other point, and indeed the main main point is something you are just brushing aside.  I have linked you to a description of how the diameter of stars is actually calculated but I don't expect you to accept any of that for a second. 

#Solarwind you are scientist? Can you come to debate with sandokhan?

No thanks.  Sandokhans version of science and mine could not be more different.  I am a realist not a fantasist!

 I have guided you to a link which explains how we can measure the diameter of stars.

And by "WE" you mean other people.
Because you are absolutely clueless.

No by 'we' I mean the astronomy community. A community which I am proud to describe myself a part of.  What makes you think I am 'clueless'?  If you have any questions about the link (perhaps something you don't understand fully) I'll be happy to answer them for you.

For example you probably know that the luminosity (energy emitted per unit time) of a star can be calculated from the following:  L=4 x pi x r2 x P x T4 where r is the radius of the star, P is the Stefan Boltzmann constant and T is its temperature.  So the luminosity of a star is a function of both its radius and its surface (photospheric) temperature.

We can use the colour index (difference in apparent magnitude at two distinct wavelengths e.g. B-V) to work out the temperature of a star and we can use the apparent magnitude and the distance to work out the luminosity.  Certain types of stars have a very specific 'standard' luminosity and are used as 'standard candles'.  We can use the distance modulus equation to work out their luminosity from the apparent magnitude.  From there we can rearrange the original equation to calculate the luminosity and hence the radius. 

Simple really.  If understanding that meets with your definition of being 'absolutely clueless' then I am guilty as charged.

Quote from: JJA on July 13, 2020, 10:43:08 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 13, 2020, 09:30:12 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 09:17:47 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

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.

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'.

I am sorry to inform you, but that was form paper you linked, not Hatch

I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. I linked a lot of papers, you need to be more specific.

Regardless, the only paper Sandokhan has on his side is the one by Hatch, who is not an expert in relativity. Everyone else agrees GPS uses relativity, and I supplied a dozen references at least that verify it.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 10, 2020, 04:50:22 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.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 10, 2020, 04:50:22 AM

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.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 10, 2020, 04:50:22 AM

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.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 10, 2020, 04:50:22 AM

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.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 10, 2020, 04:50:22 AM

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.

Congratulations, Wise, this is the most preposterous unexpurgated refutable nonsense on the internet today.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 12:51:07 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 13, 2020, 10:43:08 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 13, 2020, 09:30:12 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 09:17:47 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

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.

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'.

I am sorry to inform you, but that was form paper you linked, not Hatch

I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. I linked a lot of papers, you need to be more specific.

Regardless, the only paper Sandokhan has on his side is the one by Hatch, who is not an expert in relativity. Everyone else agrees GPS uses relativity, and I supplied a dozen references at least that verify it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120205022334/tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf (page 11)

"But it's the absence of any explicit acknowledgment of special relativistic effects due to the speed of light being the same whenever measured by an observer, leading to the relativity of simultaneity and the associated Lorentz transformation physics - there's nothing of that at all modeled in the current system."

So, if Niel Ashby or whathewer tries to claim GPS uses lorentz transformations, he is wrong. So, why do his papers "contain" lorentz transformations?


Ashby was using galilean transformations, not lorentz. But if he used them(galilean), it isn't longer relativity, and his paper fails

https://web.archive.org/web/20120205022334/tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf (page 11)
"But it's the absence of any explicit acknowledgment of special relativistic effects due to the speed of light being the same whenever measured by an observer, leading to the relativity of simultaneity and the associated Lorentz transformation physics - there's nothing of that at all modeled in the current system."

Now care to provide the full quote, with context.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with Ashby. It is from Fliegel and DiEsposti.

The section you are appealing to is not part of the main paper. Instead it is in a later section called "Questions and Answers"
And the quote you are using isn't from any of them and instead is from yet another person,  Carroll Alley.
This is just a person stating what they believe is a mix up, and is focusing on differential GPS.

Instead the paper quite clearly indicates that there is no missing relativity terms:

As we have shown, introducing the y factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short, there are no "missing relativity terms." They cancel out.

Notice how an honest reading of the paper shows the complete opposite of Sandokhan's lies?

and it was a star that I specifically identified a star that was clearly there

Exactly how did you specificially identify whatever it was that you saw as a star?

https://web.archive.org/web/20120205022334/tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf (page 11)

"But it's the absence of any explicit acknowledgment of special relativistic effects due to the speed of light being the same whenever measured by an observer, leading to the relativity of simultaneity and the associated Lorentz transformation physics - there's nothing of that at all modeled in the current system."

So, if Niel Ashby or whathewer tries to claim GPS uses lorentz transformations, he is wrong. So, why do his papers "contain" lorentz transformations?


Ashby was using galilean transformations, not lorentz. But if he used them(galilean), it isn't longer relativity, and his paper fails

Again, I have gone over this before.

The first paper is discussing "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS)" and not the entire system.

It's a paper suggesting that ONE PART of the GPS system does not use relativistic calculations, and if it did, accuracy would be improved.  There is nothing controversial here, of course if you use more complex calculations you get better answers. As computers get faster, we can upgrade systems to use formulae that in the past were too slow and required using approximations.

The quote you have is from comments on the paper, and is describing "I would like to make another point. When one looks at differential GPS".  Differential GPS is a ground based addition to GPS to give extra accuracy, so she is talking about yet another, even smaller part of the GPS system. Differential GPS is very rarely used and requires specialized equipment.

So again, let me make this clear.  That paper is saying only ONE SMALL PART of the GPS system doesn't use those calculations.

Neil Ashby is discussing the system as a whole, and there are parts that do indeed require relaitivity. I showed actual calculations for the 10MHz frequency offset in other threads that prove this.

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.

Because the stars explode ... and they are clearly larger than meteorites