Aether model of QM.

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Царь Славян now admits he believes that the sun is in fact not 700 miles from Earth but 1 AU. He did not reply to my post thus admitting that he is wrong.

He has you on ignore as well. Someone else has to quote you (probably a moderator), because Czar has almost everyone else on ignore...

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Царь Славян now admits he believes that the sun is in fact not 700 miles from Earth but 1 AU. He did not reply to my post thus admitting that he is wrong.

He has you on ignore as well. Someone else has to quote you (probably a moderator), because Czar has almost everyone else on ignore...

If he has me on ignore, then I have already won. He did not meet my challenge so he admits that he does not believe that the sun is as close to Earth as he claims. He chose to ignore me so it is his problem not mine.

 

[beefpatty]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

You are comparing distances given by two methods. One uses Venus, the other Mars. Are you claiming a discrepancy of less than 2% means using radar is useless in space? It is certainly not in the range of 700 miles, which would almost be a 100% discrepancy. In fact, the result from the Mars observation has an error of plus or minus 9.0 million miles, which well covers the Venus measurement. And you still have the problem of the Mars parallax giving a value of 94.2 million miles, nowhere near 700 miles. Also, if you look at the other measurements earlier astronomers made using Venus, they all agree very well with the radar method, even though they do not use radar.

Please look at teh picture on the original site. The measurements vary greatly. What was takes is the mean value of all measurements.

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/parallax.html

And the Halley/Delisle method has, quoted from the article you supplied,

Halley provided for an explanatory though inaccurate geometric construct to arrive at the transit's duration from an assumed value of the solar parallax.

Here is a list of some more sources of errors/inaccuracies.

You also have to understand that the Method Rowbotham used is,a s you say clearly incompatible with this one. But let me ask you then, which one should we trust? Which one gives better approximation? Maybe they are both untrustworthy?

Perhaps, but that's why we have science. So we have two models to explain a phenomenon but these two models give very different results that are completely incompatible. So what do we do? We test our hypotheses. Whichever model has the best evidence is the model that fits. And guess what we find? We find that the Sun is indeed not 700 miles away but about 90 million miles away.

Radar uses lasers? Even though radar and lasers are electromagnetic radiation they behave very differently. How do you make the jump that "radars do not work in space (which they do) therefor lasers do not work in space" ? And again, we're not talking about error bars that include anything from 700 to 90 million miles, it's a discrepancy of less than 2%.

Radar is a wave, light is a wave.

Yet their frequencies/wavelengths are completely different which gives them different properties. Gamma rays are lethal but light waves are virtually harmless. Radio waves can travel through walls while light is blocked. You have yet to demonstrate that radio waves do not work in space. If our radar was telling us that we were about 1,000 miles or even 100,000 miles from the Sun then yes, I would concede your point that either radar doesn't work in space or the Sun really is that close. But it doesn't. It agrees with other observations that the sun is about 90 million miles from Earth. Radio waves do work in space, as evidenced by the GPS, telemetry from satellites in geosynchronous orbits, and our communication with astronauts in space.

At most light from the Sun is bent by 34 arcminutes when it is close to the horizon. So if you are at that tangent point where the Sun's ray touches the Earth, you can just see the Sun when it in reality has already set, but further east or west (and in this model both north and south) and you get nothing. And if it did somehow manage to defy physics and bend all the way to where we would expect to see it if the Sun were indeed 90 million miles away, you would only see a squished Sun. And it wouldn't just be light, it would be very red light since that light has to go through all that atmosphere and only the longest wavelengths do not get absorbed i.e. red. This is the same affect you see when the sky gets a reddish color at dusk/dawn.

That, and we also have gravitational lensing. Which would also mean that gravity would bend light towards Earth.

Even if the Earth had a strong enough gravitational field to bend the light of the Sun to the rest of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, why would the light not continue to bend around the Earth so people on the other side could see the Sun? Would gravity just stop working at the poles to allow the light to keep going into space? And you would still have the problem of only seeing a red Sun on the horizon.

Except, if you admit the generalization is relevant on our solar system, I can (and have) shown you that the Sun is about 90 million miles away.

Yeah, let's use the generalization for the Solar system. How does that show that sun is 90 million miles fromt he Earth?

Going back to satellites in the Lagrangian point, which I know you'll disagree that they are 23 million miles out from Earth, since the gravity from both the Sun and the Earth is equal, we can equate their gravity equations and find the necessary distance for the Sun in order to keep these satellites in the Lagrangian point.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Царь Славян now admits he believes that the sun is in fact not 700 miles from Earth but 1 AU. He did not reply to my post thus admitting that he is wrong.

He has you on ignore as well. Someone else has to quote you (probably a moderator), because Czar has almost everyone else on ignore...

Also I did quote him.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.


Hello Царь Славян, or should I say "Smooth Operator"? Because that's your other username. You've been having this exact same discussion at least three times before:
on talkrational, on storm front and on evcforum.
Also, you've been discussing evolution on timesdaily (nice avatar... "can't hit me"? Interesting). And of course you were on ratskep.

The thread of evcforum is amazing: 633 posts (kudos to the members of evcforum for their patience), and it reads exactly like this thread: from MM to the Sagnac effect to aberration and parallax right upto the WFPC2 camera. I guess then they finally had enough of you.

So what have you been posting in the past? A few examples:

Is the distance to the sun more than 90 million miles?</COLOR>

YES http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=517590

Anyway, it's no as easy as that. The Sun, no only goes further away, but also orbits in a spiraling fashion. Here you go, everything is explained here.

http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/suns-path-diagram-complex

(another crackpot site of course, but at least it got the distance right)

Are you a flat earther? Let's see:

NO http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=529596

I told you! Because the approximations on smale scales are fine! Just like saying that Earth is flat. Yes it is, on a small enough scale. But the idea of the whole Earth being flat is just plain wrong. The idea of a flat Earth is a good approximation for smale scales.

YES http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=895203#post895203

1.) All observations we make in teh world can be explained by a Flat Earth model.

2.) The only reason you claim that FE model is false is because you claim that my model does not fit the RE model's equations. Which is a non sequitur. Since math does not prove anything true in physical world.

Are you a biblical YEC?

YES http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4771054867/m/8351035?r=4961036#4961036

That is because you worship the creation. Bill and I worship the creator. All the ills you speak of are caused by man (the creation) not God (the creator). When genocide takes place in the name of religion, you blame God (the one Bill and I worship), yet fail to see the true culprit in man (the one you worship). The genocide would have taken place with or without religion to blame, yet you hate the very one who teaches us to not do these things, and then you blame Him when we do. Your answer is that man will eventually solve these problems on his own (he's doing a real good job right now isn't he?) I will put my trust in God the Most High - Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son. You put your trust in Deep Fat.

YES http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4771054867/m/4031022198?r=7761078298#7761078298

Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.

It doesn't matter what I've got. If I say it's blue, you'll say it's black. The truth means nothing to an atheist, because an atheist believes only in himself. I am sad for you, but I am also angry because you try to lead others down your same miserable path. You mislead people as to what Christianity is about, and you deceive others about the truths of the Bible. Atheism is nothing new. It's been tried many times before, and it always leads to death and destruction. If you want to see "advanced" atheistic societies, look at China and Russia. As for me, I'll take "One Nation Under God."

YES http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=530786

If that was true, why did not Earth, Moon, and all the other planets spiral into the Sun, so many millions of years ago? Obviously, the forces are in balance in either case. They cancel each other out. Even if they do not, in only 6000 years or so, no major changes would have occured. Actually it is your model that has a problem. In my model, all the spiraling into something could not have occured yet, simply becasue there was not enough time. Yet in your model, there was about 15 billion years. Which is enough time for the Mercury to spiral into the Sun, being so close to it.

<COLOR color="#FFFFBF">
So you go to every rational forum you can find, at least since 2008, to repeat the same nonsense over and over, never to listen to anything that anyone says, and to contradict yourself over and over. Why are you doing this? Do you just like pissing off people? Are you on some sort of mission to irritate rational people? What a sad creature you are.


To everyone else: stop wasting your time, he's not worth it.

 

[televator]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Wow....gnug was right, and it looks like I did good to ignore this as it's now evident that this guy isn't up to anything new -- despite the contradictions and holes in his arguments. I just hate it when people perpetually "dance around" in a discussion as though they continue to hold the upper hand even when it's flat out demonstrated the they don't.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

As I said earlier: Tortucan.

He's so stuck in his "shell", he is unwilling to give up his beliefs.

So unwilling, that he even deludes himself about what his beliefs/positions are.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Since posting the following...

Eratosthenes (~240 BC) - calculated the size of the Earth = ~12,500 km (1.5% error!)
Aristarchos - calculated the distance to the Moon = ~380,000 km
- calculated the distance to the Sun = ~150,000,000 km
- Sun and Moon subtend same angle in sky at full eclipse
- concludes that, as the Sun is more distant than the Moon (386:1), it must be larger.

...and given Царь Славян's questioning the calculation of the Earth-Moon distance based on the Earth's shadow - having accepted Eratosthenes calculation of the size of the Earth (I'll leave others to deal with the implications of this as regards its mass and gravity being insufficient for a geocentric universe!) - I've been looking for a site which would take the reader, step-by-step, through the process - from the Earth's size to that of the Solar System.

From Stargazers' to Starships.

Particularly, 8c, for the Earth-Moon distance, and 10a, for the size of the Solar System.

It's well worth perusing more of these, as it also deals with Kepler's and Newton's Laws (scroll down).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Just in case Царь Славян has Pulsar on ignore (an all too real possibilty):

Hello Царь Славян, or should I say "Smooth Operator"? Because that's your other username. You've been having this exact same discussion at least three times before:
on talkrational, on storm front and on evcforum.
Also, you've been discussing evolution on timesdaily (nice avatar... "can't hit me"? Interesting). And of course you were on ratskep.

The thread of evcforum is amazing: 633 posts (kudos to the members of evcforum for their patience), and it reads exactly like this thread: from MM to the Sagnac effect to aberration and parallax right upto the WFPC2 camera. I guess then they finally had enough of you.

So what have you been posting in the past? A few examples:

Is the distance to the sun more than 90 million miles?</COLOR>

YES http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=517590

Anyway, it's no as easy as that. The Sun, no only goes further away, but also orbits in a spiraling fashion. Here you go, everything is explained here.

http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/suns-path-diagram-complex

(another crackpot site of course, but at least it got the distance right)

Are you a flat earther? Let's see:

NO http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=529596

I told you! Because the approximations on smale scales are fine! Just like saying that Earth is flat. Yes it is, on a small enough scale. But the idea of the whole Earth being flat is just plain wrong. The idea of a flat Earth is a good approximation for smale scales.

YES http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=895203#post895203

1.) All observations we make in teh world can be explained by a Flat Earth model.

2.) The only reason you claim that FE model is false is because you claim that my model does not fit the RE model's equations. Which is a non sequitur. Since math does not prove anything true in physical world.

Are you a biblical YEC?

YES http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4771054867/m/8351035?r=4961036#4961036

That is because you worship the creation. Bill and I worship the creator. All the ills you speak of are caused by man (the creation) not God (the creator). When genocide takes place in the name of religion, you blame God (the one Bill and I worship), yet fail to see the true culprit in man (the one you worship). The genocide would have taken place with or without religion to blame, yet you hate the very one who teaches us to not do these things, and then you blame Him when we do. Your answer is that man will eventually solve these problems on his own (he's doing a real good job right now isn't he?) I will put my trust in God the Most High - Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son. You put your trust in Deep Fat.

YES http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4771054867/m/4031022198?r=7761078298#7761078298

Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.

It doesn't matter what I've got. If I say it's blue, you'll say it's black. The truth means nothing to an atheist, because an atheist believes only in himself. I am sad for you, but I am also angry because you try to lead others down your same miserable path. You mislead people as to what Christianity is about, and you deceive others about the truths of the Bible. Atheism is nothing new. It's been tried many times before, and it always leads to death and destruction. If you want to see "advanced" atheistic societies, look at China and Russia. As for me, I'll take "One Nation Under God."

YES http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=530786

If that was true, why did not Earth, Moon, and all the other planets spiral into the Sun, so many millions of years ago? Obviously, the forces are in balance in either case. They cancel each other out. Even if they do not, in only 6000 years or so, no major changes would have occured. Actually it is your model that has a problem. In my model, all the spiraling into something could not have occured yet, simply becasue there was not enough time. Yet in your model, there was about 15 billion years. Which is enough time for the Mercury to spiral into the Sun, being so close to it.

<COLOR color="#FFFFBF">
So you go to every rational forum you can find, at least since 2008, to repeat the same nonsense over and over, never to listen to anything that anyone says, and to contradict yourself over and over. Why are you doing this? Do you just like pissing off people? Are you on some sort of mission to irritate rational people? What a sad creature you are.


To everyone else: stop wasting your time, he's not worth it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Here's Phil Plait's take on it at Bad Astronomy...

Geocentrism? Seriously?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

As I said earlier: Tortucan.

He's so stuck in his "shell", he is unwilling to give up his beliefs.

So unwilling, that he even deludes himself about what his beliefs/positions are.

Kindest regards,

James

Indeed. I've finally had the time to look into the term, and watched those videos by Jim Downard. Excellent stuff, btw. (In fact, if you don't mind, I think I'll make a new thread, embedding them for everyone to see.)

It's pretty much spot on, really.

Jim doesn't deal at any length with the emotional motivators behind it all, which I think are very important. The fact that he doesn't is understandable, since it's difficult to say anything truly substantial about those motivating factors, but I think they are fairly obvious in some cases.

Like in the case of Царь Славян. He's admitted to being a troll, which of course costs him all credibility right away.
In addition to that, he's revealed many other emotional clues for his motivation, such as his "evolution is shit" tirade, and all the other instances around the place where he's taken jabs at evolution and Darwin (and thinking that insulting Darwin hurts "us" somehow); and his many emotional stabs at atheists, revealing a deep-seated hatred for a non-uniform group of people, whose only common trait is a lack of belief in his particular Judeo-Christian creator God.

Constructive, open, proper, intellectually honest discourse? Never.

In the process, he's managed to make himself and theists look really bad.
A particular kind of theist, though.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I recommend everyone reads the RatSkep thread Darkchilde linked to in the OP. His descent into emotional instability is rather entertaining and says more about his thought process than his ill informed 'arguments' on the subjects of evolution and relativity ever will.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Agreed, Gnug15.

Hate is a extreme form of fear.

As I posted before, he appears to suffer from "Man's need for certainty in a uncertain world".

He appears to crave certainty, yet evinces no particular position - the "I'm just saying...!" type of answer - in that way, by not claiming any position, he can't "lose", and thus, face the psychological consequences of having his position shown to be untenable.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

You gave what you thought was a explanation based on a number of unproven assumptions.

Such as.

Parallax and the Coriolis Effect - according to the scientific community all over the world - are the simplest means of providing evidence for the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

And they and you are wrong. Since I have explained them in the Geocentric model too.

They're not wrong! I agree with their explanation!

Have a look at this article:
Fresnel, Fizeau, Hoek, Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale and Sagnac in Aetherless Galilean Space

Their experiments were done based on the assumption that the aether existed - but, at the end of the day, there was no need for an aether!

That's like saying that all the observations that are based on the assumption that air exists, and show that it exists are correct, but in the end there is no need for an air.

You clearly implied that the air was not the best explanation - that the aether was.

And to compare denying that gas is the best explanation - given the evidence for it through experiments - to denying the aether is the best explanation - given the lack of evidence - is clearly a false comparison.

FOR WHAT?
The air is not the best explanation for light's movement. Just like the aether is not the best explanation for wind. Its the other way around.

As I've said, has a external reality - as against subjective (possibly only in our heads).

Like St. Thomas faced with "Jesus" - he didn't trust his eyes (he could have been seeing things), so, he stuck his fingers in the wounds - it was the only way he could prove to himself that the apparent person in front of him had a physical presence.

Did you ever come in contact with teh objective reality?

"All of you"?

When did I say it was?

One of us - Pulsar - mentioned it in calculating the Moon's distance, you then quoted from this Rowbotham's manuscript about his use of it to calculate the Sun's distance, and since then, ALL of us have been demonstrating to you that Rowbotham was wrong.

I don't care who exactly said it, the point is that you people said that the method of triangulation worked. I have shown you the results.

Show me why not.

If something doesn't shince as bright, then it doesn't shine as bright. Hello?

Because you can't.

Can you show me that there is no pink invisible unicorn?

Truth is a perfectly valid word to use - as long as you use it in the same way that the rest of the world uses it: relatively.

Relatively what?

As I keep having to repeat to you - no-one expects ultimate truth, just a better truth than before.

Okay, then the scientific method would work. But not for ultimate truth.

Yet, at some point, one has to give up paranoia to live life.

What paranoia?

Your inability to accept that space-flight proves that the heliocentric model is a accurate description of the solar system does not invalidate it.

Non, sequitur. Just because space-flight is done using the heliocentric system does not make it correct, nor does that invalidate the Tychonic system.

We only need something which works to allow us to live our lives.

Our senses have evolved to help us do this - due to the fact that they sometimes fool us necessitates the Scientific Method as a safety-net. As long as we have that, we can move forward.

Again, that's fine. Just don't expect ultimate truth from that.

That difference alone means that they're not "identical"!!

What difference?

Read that article to find out why!

I'm not going to read any more crap you find online.

If you're on the other side of the galaxy, tell me why you wouldn't get lost?

Who said you would get on the other side!?

But Helios doesn't. It revolves over/under the Sun and - in between times - it's viewing the Sun-Earth from other angles.

What is this supposed to mean?

We've already provided it - the fact that you can't/won't accept it doesn't change the fact.

No, you provided few links and said that you proved all your assertions correct. That is all you did.

It's as good as it's going to get, as a method - the only weakness is if people fail to follow it.

Which says nothing about my previous argument. I specifically said that just because you can't improve something, doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Precisely - so, why did you keep asking what's my point in mentioning it?

Probably because I didn't get you. So I wanted you to elaborate.

It gets us a better truth than before - which is something else I keep having to repeat.

We obviously have a different definition of truth.

The peer-review process is not - it's the people who don't apply it assiduously who are failing.

Then the PR process is nto a safety net as you claimed. Because if the people fail to use it properly, then mistakes are possible.

This shows the peer-review process working!!

[And this only applies to medical research - given America's highly profitable healthcare sector and "pill-popping culture", it is not particularly surprising.]

You obviously:
a) haven't read the article;
b) don't understand what the article is actually saying;
c) dismissed the fact that the process worked - but thought to post if anyway.

There is a major problem with the article, though.

It doesn't indicate out of what total number the several hundred papers were withdrawn/etc.

How the hell can this mean that the system is working if people said that they submitted faked results and they passed through?

The use of the term "truth" - as I keep having to explain to you - refers to "relative", not "absolute" truth: in other words, it's generally accepted that it's going to change when further progress is made.

Strange as it may seem to you, there are some absolutes in Science..

Okay, I'm just saying, that I used truth, as absolute truth. And please do tell me, what are the absolutes in science.

As long as you don't mind dying from running out of fuel, air, water, etc.

There is nothing to indicate that this would happen. Show me why you think that.

With better ones. But we still need Science to do that.

It's better to have models which are a truer reflection of reality than not.

Absolute truth - but we can live with relative truth, as long as we can verify it and improve on it.

Okay, we had a different definition of the word truth. So you can drop this now.

You might not know the root of a number, but you can work towards it using Newton-Raphson...

No because you actually in this case know the limits. In reality you don't know the limits.

As I said, as long as you're willing to pay the ultimate price - death - you can go ahead and use any old method, appropriate or not...

Again, an assertion.

In the heliocentric model, the Earth - and Moon - and all the other planets go round the Sun.

In the geocentric model, the Earth - and Moon - don't go round the Sun. Correct??

Therefore, they don't!

But all the others do. And do you know what that means? It means that the only real difference between the heliocentric and Tychonic model is the REFERENCE POINT. It only differs in the way you look at it. That is all.

As I pointed out earlier, most of us have been pointing out the errors in this. You were the one who trotted out Rowbotham's inappropriate use of this method.

He used it correctly. He only used a flat instead of a spherical Earth. Which I took care of. So the final calculation is the correct one. According to all of you it should be...

Probability.

Probability of what?

Not if you wish to remain consistent with Rowbotham's measured distance, you can't.

Either all the criteria are consistent or they are not - you can't "pick'n'mix" to suit your argument.

If the scenario doesn't work with all criteria matching, then, the whole scenario is false.

Yes you can. He never measured any other planet except the Sun.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

If there were no differences in arrival time of the different paths then relativity would be incorrect; I think if there were no differences then newton would be right (because you expect the angular momentum of the system to "push" one "beam" of light faster, and impede the other, but I'm not sure if that cancels out the change in distance or not).

Why would relativity be incorrect then?

Ok... So what? Do you submit that saying the earth is flat is just as wrong as saying that the earth is an oblate spheroid?

Scientifically or philosophically?

Err... I don't know what you mean by absolute reference frame (see below). But an inertial reference frame is defined as one that does not have an acceleration, and there are experiments that we can do that will have different results in the presence of acceleration (the sagnac experiment is one of those) allowing us to tell if a reference frame is inertial or not (within the sensitivity of our experiment/measurements).

And how do you know that the other frame is not the non-inertial one?

Please define "absolute reference frame".

A frame of reference that according to which you can measure your velocity absolutely.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Why don't you tell me? You are the one trying to say that 30 satellites orbiting an oblate spheroid with a diameter of 24,000km at an altitude of under 1000km can simultaneously give at least 4, mostly 7 line of sight signals to every point on the surface of the globe. Tell me how that works, hon

I never said how high they actually are, now did I?

Largest /= most massive. However, the sun is both the largest and the most massive body in the solar system.

And you know that because?

You can't say that the accuracy of measurement indicates that the pioneer anomaly is, indeed, an anomaly while at the same time questioning that same accuracy. One stance contraindicates the other.

I said that its an anomaly according to your model, not mine!

By a margin of a few thousand km, over millions of km. That is a discrepancy of roughly 0.2 percent, which is not sufficient to substantiate your claims.

Oh, I see, so its called an anomaly for fun, right?

If you have no idea, how can you tell me that I don't know? Do you see the problem here? You claim you have no idea, but you still claim enough knowledge to take a contrary stance, even though you claim to know anything.

Please explain how far away from an oblate spheroid of 12,000km one MUST be to take a photograph that comprises said spheroid in just a few arc minutes.

I don't know, I never said I did. Please you tell me if you know.

Digital photography /= CGI. If you don't realize this, then you should just shut off your computer and hold your breath until you pass out.

NO U!

Yes, to calibrate the WFPC2, so that they knew what degree and sort of noise to remove from real exposures. You fail at reading comprehension.

No, the probes take pictures in a non-visible light range. And then, transform pictures too look like what it should look like if they were in the visible light range.

you fail physics forever. Your fail is so great that it violates causality; if you were to ever take a physics course, you would fail before you signed up.

OK, then there is no more need for us to have a discussion anymore. So why don't you just stop respondng to me?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Here is a list of some more sources of errors/inaccuracies.

Yes, I know, tehre are problems. I know that. That is precisely my point. So what I'm asking you is teh following. Which method is the correct one?

Perhaps, but that's why we have science. So we have two models to explain a phenomenon but these two models give very different results that are completely incompatible. So what do we do? We test our hypotheses. Whichever model has the best evidence is the model that fits. And guess what we find? We find that the Sun is indeed not 700 miles away but about 90 million miles away.

And we found that out how!?

Yet their frequencies/wavelengths are completely different which gives them different properties. Gamma rays are lethal but light waves are virtually harmless. Radio waves can travel through walls while light is blocked. You have yet to demonstrate that radio waves do not work in space. If our radar was telling us that we were about 1,000 miles or even 100,000 miles from the Sun then yes, I would concede your point that either radar doesn't work in space or the Sun really is that close. But it doesn't. It agrees with other observations that the sun is about 90 million miles from Earth. Radio waves do work in space, as evidenced by the GPS, telemetry from satellites in geosynchronous orbits, and our communication with astronauts in space.

I have shown you above that radars give different values when compared to other methods.

Even if the Earth had a strong enough gravitational field to bend the light of the Sun to the rest of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, why would the light not continue to bend around the Earth so people on the other side could see the Sun? Would gravity just stop working at the poles to allow the light to keep going into space?

No, only the most closest rays of light would be bent enough to shine the light on the hemispheres. The pthers would not.

And you would still have the problem of only seeing a red Sun on the horizon.

Why?

Going back to satellites in the Lagrangian point, which I know you'll disagree that they are 23 million miles out from Earth, since the gravity from both the Sun and the Earth is equal, we can equate their gravity equations and find the necessary distance for the Sun in order to keep these satellites in the Lagrangian point.

Of course I won't agree because it first assumes the 93 million mile distance.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Hello ???? ??????, or should I say "Smooth Operator"? Because that's your other username. You've been having this exact same discussion at least three times before:
on talkrational, on storm front and on evcforum.
Also, you've been discussing evolution on timesdaily (nice avatar... "can't hit me"? Interesting). And of course you were on ratskep.

The thread of evcforum is amazing: 633 posts (kudos to the members of evcforum for their patience), and it reads exactly like this thread: from MM to the Sagnac effect to aberration and parallax right upto the WFPC2 camera. I guess then they finally had enough of you.

So what have you been posting in the past? A few examples:

Is the distance to the sun more than 90 million miles?

That guy accepts geocentrism, I don't. I'm saying that we can't say which model is true. Sorry, just because I have similar arguments like some other people, doesn't mean I am those people. There is more than one person who argues for geocentrism you know. I have a lot of arguments from other people on the web, and other people will use my arguments too, so some arguments are bound to be the same.

Besides that guy accepts flood geology, I certainly don't. You can't accept New Chronology, and Biblical Chronology at the same time. And I know all those sites you mentioned except Times Daily. Haven't seen it once in my life. So yeah...

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Agreed, Gnug15.

Hate is a extreme form of fear.

As I posted before, he appears to suffer from "Man's need for certainty in a uncertain world".

He appears to crave certainty, yet evinces no particular position - the "I'm just saying...!" type of answer - in that way, by not claiming any position, he can't "lose", and thus, face the psychological consequences of having his position shown to be untenable.

Kindest regards,

James

Or he could just be doing it for the lulz.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

No, the probes take pictures in a non-visible light range. And then, transform pictures too look like what it should look like if they were in the visible light range.

Hubble does this when looking at nebulae. Cassini is not looking at nebulae, so it has no reason to do this. This is not a false-color image. You are wrong.

That is, unless you can find me any source which says that Cassini is using the same type of image manipulation tools as Hubble... but you won't because they don't exist. I checked.