New in cosmology and fundamental physics

OK, you're a tribal witch doctor. No problem.

Unsubscribing.

Again incompetence is fundamental to your world view. You are referring to flakes who point their cameras at a star, get a fuzzy blob due to poor technique and think they have discovered a flying saucer.

They don't subtend the same angular diameter - they subtend a similar angular diameter, but both vary significantly depending on the location of the Moon and Earth in their orbits. Each lunar month, the Moon appears to grow and shrink in a cycle, as well as the phase changing. Likewise each sidereal year, the Sun appears to grow and shrink in a cycle.ou

Do you even understand that if something is at distance d and has diameter x, then its appparent size is determined by x/d?  i.e. the distance affects it just as much as the actual size (and in the opposite direction).

🤣

just lol at the fly’n saucer remark

The wonder of P900s, some nostalgic glimpses of "Mad" Mike Hughes before he succumbed to the combination of gravity and incompetence, and much more fun.

  The world's largest Hydrogen tank is being used by NASA to launch its biggest rockets. It will make launch easier.....OR....if it goes wrong, it will be one hell of an explosion.                                       https://www.yahoo.com/news/worlds-largest-hydrogen-tank-easier-205300124.html

Elroch - have you not seen the sun shrink in size from high noon to when it sets? Or are you implying it shrinks due to a cycle which happens in just a few hours? 

I suppose you really believe every single person on earth who questions NASA/gov't narratives are insane/incompetent. 

Oh, by the way, flat earthers do not believe in flying saucers from outer space 

😆 exactly 

I'm just curious, do flat earthers believe that all planets are flat?  All trillions & trillions of galaxies? Each galaxy having hundreds of billions, leading to an infinite number of potential stars & planets.  Are they all flat, or just earth?

no

How do you reconcile that statement with your earlier one that the sun and the moon look like they're the same size because they are the same size when there are times that the sun and the moon don't look like the same size?

So you believe the earth is flat but other planets are not flat?

Earth centric celestial models had a hard time explaining the observed movements of the planets, especially the retrograde motion of Mars - the heliocentric model with elliptical rather than circular orbits did so, which is why it came to prominence: that's how science works. You come up with a theory that tries to explain the evidence and make predictions that you can test. You can't force the evidence to fit your theory - that means the theory is wrong, or at least missing some important element.

The whole bit about NASA papers referencing a flat, non-rotating earth is not because NASA thinks that's the case, but because it's close enough to the truth for what they're doing in those papers that they don't need to complicate the math by tring to factor in the neglible effects of the fact that the earth is a rotating oblate spheroid. We're on the earth, we're travelling with it and don't notice how fast it's going because we're going at the same speed - it's relative velocity. It's like how a car coming towards you looks like it's going faster than it is, because you're travelling towards it: it's only when you take a bird's eye view that you can see how the two cars are actually travelling.

David - The sun/moon change in appearance size wise due to perspective/location of the observer. I do not know if the so-called planets are actually spheroids but even if they were that does not mean the earth is spherical. That logic is tantamount to claiming a pool table is spherical because all the balls used are spherical etc. So-called planets were referred to as wandering stars. The only thing heliocentric "astronomers" did was take the existing information, because everything was already mapped out and had been for 1000's of years as well as eclipses predicted accurately etc., and 'Invert' it. Hence, stars/planets needed to be millions, billions, trillions of miles/light years away etc. That was necessary to negate the obvious and observable fact that the constellations are indeed fixed. 

The earth is assumed to not only be traveling in one direction at a constant speed. According to heliocentric theory, the earth is spinning at more than 1000 varied speeds(1047mph at the equator all the way down to zero mph at the axis points as well as wobbling to and fro and speeding around the sun at some 66,000 mph, as well as 500,000 mph with the solar system, as well as 1.3 million mph with the galaxy as well as the speed of light/186,000 miles per second along with the big bang.

Do you really believe you are traveling at the speed of light? 

If the sun & moon change in appearance with perspective, why then do you say that they're the same size?

Why do you think eclipses were predicted accurately in ancient times? Part of their whole mystique was they were a surprise - there wasn't anyone predicting when they would happen. I think you might be confusing predicting them ahead of time with recording them as they happened.

We again come to the scientific method: the constellations do indeed change very little - from our perpective - so a theory that explains this is that they are far away. That's not "negating" the evidence - it's accepting the evidence and presenting a reason why that's the case.  The fact that you refuse to understand the theory is not the theory's problem - it's yours.

It's sad because that rejection of expertise - that contrarian streak about institutions like the government and the media but also about science itself - means people are following untruths that can lead to genuine harm to themselves and their lives: it's why people were taking invermectin instead of wearing masks and getting vaccinated during the worst of the pandemic, which exacerbated the number of people dying from that disease when it didn't have to be that way.

No-one says that planets travel at the speed of light btw - nothing with mass can, at least according to the scientific theories we have at the moment. It's why science fiction has to invent stuff like warp speed and hyper drives and just say that they can. I really liked Interstellar too btw - I think it's one of my favourite movies ever, in part because it genuinely attmepts to wrestle with the science that we have while also acknowledging there is still so much that we don't understand.

David - If you want to continue believing you are lost in space then that is certainly your decision. If you want to challenge your belief in heliocentrism that is also your decision. Disproving heliocentrism via the scientific method is very easy to do yet remarkably difficult to accept. 

I still enjoy science fiction movies/books. Interstellar was interesting but not my favorite sci fi movie.  Blade Runner-The Final Cut, is probably my favorite. Frank Herbert's Dune is probably my favorite sci fi novel. I love Tolkien and have read the Lord of the Rings as well as the Simarillion numerous times. When I was kid a saw Star Wars 26 times in the theater. That was back in the day when one could purchase a ticket and hang out there for every showing 

As the rotation of a rigid sphere seems a more difficult concept to you than to some people, here is an instructional video on how to make a basketball spin at "more than 1000 varied speeds" from perhaps a couple of meters per second at the equator to zero at the poles.
I am not sure if you are aware, but the Earth is quite a lot bigger than a basketball and 1047 mph is a very modest speed for its size - 468 m/s compared to a radius of 6371000 m. The consequence is that the "centrifugal force" caused by the rotation - given by v^2 / r -  is MUCH greater in the case of the basketball than the Earth! Fortunately, this means it is over 1000 times too weak to throw people off the Earth.

Centrifugal acceleration on equator of Earth = 468^2 / 6371000 = 0.034 m/s^2  (feeble!)

Centrifugal acceleration for basketball of radius 0.12m, rotating 4 times per second per second (based on examining slowed down video):

v = 4 * 2 * pi * 0.12 =  3 m/s

so centrifugal acceleration at equator of basketball = v^2 / r = 3^2 / 0.12 = 76 m/s^2 (a fly would be thrown off the equator, I think!)

Elroch - I received the same "education/indoctrination" as everyone else. I did not even question my belief in heliocentrism until about 10 years ago. If the professor in astronomy told their students that in order to pass the class they must Prove Heliocentrism via the scientific method...every single student would fail. 

On the other hand, if they asked the students to prove it via theoretical physics/formulas/mathematics on a piece of paper then they could also prove an elephant could hang by its tail from a daisy growing off a cliff.

One does not Observe a sun 100's of times larger than the moon. That Must first be Imagined...and then the theoretical formulas can be made to fit with the Imaginations ..and then they claim those to be observations. There is no other way. 

You cannot tell me you look up at the sun and observe it to be 100's of times larger than the moon nor do you observe the moon rotating etc. etc. etc.

Our astronauts have observed the spherical earth. Our probes have gone to the sun and we observe the sun weather 24/7

I would suggest doing some research/investigation with NASA's claims etc. 

Senior-Lazarus_Long.