It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Sun Is Much Smaller And A Lot Closer Than We Are Misled To Believe

page: 13
33
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by old_god
 


My stepdad use to say the definition of an expert is ex = has been and spurt = drip


Please do not think that you know everything because if you think that you know everything already what is there to learn? There have been many times where experts have been wrong...

Not saying the OP is right but I hate your kind of attitude...


I have no attitude here, mate. Let me define what an expert is, someone who know what they are doing.

You take a car to get it repaired, where do you take it, to McDonalds or a garage? And do you trust the person in the garage working on your car? You have to, as most of us folks here don't have the "expertise" to work on a car.

Being an expert, in my book, is someone who has acquired knowledge, sometimes through academic studies, but mostly from real life experiences, which eventually becomes real life practical knowledge.

What makes an expert and expert is "Chain of Tradition" of how that knowledge was passed onto him/her. So lets take our mechanic friend, he will no doubt have learn't countless things on the job from his senior colleagues, tricks of the trade as people call them, that he will not have been able to acquire anywhere else.

Do you get it now? So those people who learn a particular science and then develop their expertise usually have a chain of tradition and study that goes a long way back in history, reinforcing what they have learn't is valid, but nothing is infallible.

"Some Theories become Facts and equally some Facts become Theories, but occasionally you have both"
edit on 1-7-2012 by old_god because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 



Really? You honestly believe you have the where with all to explain the Big Bang?


Why shouldn't I? Science understands the process very well actually.


My points about the Big Bang theory is that it is just another nonsensical CREATIONIST THEORY invented by Scientists


I must disagree. The Big Bang is not creationism. It is cosmic evolution. I am disappointed to see that you do not understand anything about the Big Bang. You still believe it was a magical explosion, which made everything as it currently is. You're just as uneducated as Blocula.

I see now I was wasting my time, hoping you'd have something worthwhile to say.

Also, paganism is not Hedonism. And Electromagnetism is responsible for subatomic particle interaction and attraction. Gravity is responsible for physical object attraction. They are different things. I see I should have listened to other ATS posters earlier, when they pointed out your clear lack of actually knowing what you're talking about.

Just another wind bag emptying their insides into the aether, hoping to make a sound in the empty vacuum of space.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by golemina

I was talking about the hedonistic version of 'pagan' worship.

Well mrs right your wrong as we are not talking about pagan worship
The thread is about

"The sun is much smaller and a lot closer than we are lead to believe"

Put that in your pipe and smoke it since you keep going on about pipes.


Cherry picking are we?

If you are going to quote me...

Could you at least get it right?

There was a WHOLE lot of on topic stuff, that you kind of seemed to have missed.



BTW, that exchange was apparently obviously over your head.

It was the distinction between pagan worship (polytheistic religion) and pagan worship (someone mired in hedonistic tendencies).

Thought you could use the help...

The world being 'round' and all.




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Hey blocula,

All the way back on page 3 I asked you a very SIMPLE question ... which I will repeat now:


Ok, you state the sun is much smaller and a lot closer.
Let's for the sake of discussion assume that you're correct in your belief ... then I'm sure you will be able to specify EXACTLY the size of the sun and it's EXACT distance from earth. Also name your sources.

If you're going to make up these sort of threads, then at least have the "cahunas" to back up your claims with hard data.

Edit: Just occurred to me that using your "logic", we could just as readily state that the sun is much BIGGER and much FURTHER away.


So how about finally answering it now that I've had to ask it twice !



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Oh I wasn't talking about the flat earth theory i was talking about science in general but now you mention this one I have to challenge that a bit..

It is not very scientific to be honest, you would need the ground the be perfectly flat or rather rounded with the curvature of the earth, but this would be a catch 22 would it not? If you made it flat then you are skewing the results towards flat earth theory, if you made it perfectly rounded with the curvature of the earth you would be skewing it towards a round earth and you would also have to guess the curvature of the earth or believe what someone else had told you that did more precise experiments.

The ground is pretty uneven mostly.. Basically it wouldn't make for a good experiment and would prove very little ... Or am I missing something here?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by burning_need Heck a few thousand years ago a couple of pretty smart people not only figured out the size of the earth with a couple of sticks placed in the sand, but they also knew how far away the sun was. MATH IS AWESOME IN THE CORRECT HANDS.


Correct: Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by old_god
 


I was having a bit of fun with you but you went on to prove my point even more!


you certainly do have a no it all attitude and a very patronizing one at that... I mean come on now! Im 31 not 12 mate, couldn't even be bothered to read past the 4th or 5th line!



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 


After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
Hey blocula,

All the way back on page 3 I asked you a very SIMPLE question ... which I will repeat now:


Ok, you state the sun is much smaller and a lot closer.
Let's for the sake of discussion assume that you're correct in your belief ... then I'm sure you will be able to specify EXACTLY the size of the sun and it's EXACT distance from earth. Also name your sources.

If you're going to make up these sort of threads, then at least have the "cahunas" to back up your claims with hard data.

Edit: Just occurred to me that using your "logic", we could just as readily state that the sun is much BIGGER and much FURTHER away.


So how about finally answering it now that I've had to ask it twice !


It is just as likely or even more likely that we live in a simulation vs. not living in one.

The simulation argument was set forth in a paper published in 2003. A draft of that paper had previously been circulated for a couple of years.

The argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

The argument has attracted a considerable amount of attention, among scientists and philosophers as well as in the media.

References:

N. Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255. URL: www.simulation-argument.com...

N. Bostrom & M. Kulczycki, “A Patch for the Simulation Argument” Analysis, 2011, Vol. 71, No.1, pp. 54-61. URL: www.simulation-argument.com...

Personally I think the fact that we see things like the Dual Slit experiment shows may speak to the truth of the matter.

edit on 1-7-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 




Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.

Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 
No matter how we look at them,we are never able to see anywhere near the many billions of stars that supposedly are out there all around us all the time and so stars must have their own selective light shining capabilities and the stars decide amongst themselves which ones light reaches us and which ones light doesnt...




HAHA you cracked me up, this is the one for the night for me, gonna have good laff about this and get to sleep.

So I am gonna bite then, do they all kinda get together and have chat something like:



"Ello Steve"...."Ello Dave"...."Hey how are the kids?"......"Yeah not bad Steve, how are yours?"...."Yeah good Dave, thanks for asking"....."Er so whose go is it tonight pal, I thought it was my turn last week to 'selectively shine my light across the universe into the eye socket of 'teh Blocks' "......"Oh right, must be my go then, well ere goes then...oops that was the curry from last night"



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by mee30
 




Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.

Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:



How big a ruler would you need to measure the circumference of the Earth? Did you know that you can do it with a yardstick?

Eratosthenes knew from his reading that in Syene (a city almost due south of Alexandria) the sun was directly overhead at noon on a particular day of the year. On that day at noon, vertical objects cast no shadow, and the reflection of the sun could be seen in the bottom of a well. He reasoned that the sun was far enough away from the earth so that rays of light from the sun, for all practical purposes, are parallel to each other when they reach earth. If he measured the angle of a shadow in Alexandria at noon on the same day when the sun was directly overhead in Syene, the angle of the shadow would be the same as the central angle of the "wedge" of the earth between Alexandria and Syene.

www.sciencebuddies.org...
edit on 1-7-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by InLightTend
 
Thanx for posting that beautiful image and how many stars are seen within it? 2,000? 5,000? maybe 10,000? well then where are the remaining billions of stars? which would and should be illuminating the night sky like day,that is,if they're really out there...



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 




Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.

I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.

That's it i need a coffee.. Hope it answers your doubts peace.Ill be back.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by golemina
 



Really? You honestly believe you have the where with all to explain the Big Bang?


Why shouldn't I? Science understands the process very well actually.


My points about the Big Bang theory is that it is just another nonsensical CREATIONIST THEORY invented by Scientists


I must disagree. The Big Bang is not creationism. It is cosmic evolution. I am disappointed to see that you do not understand anything about the Big Bang. You still believe it was a magical explosion, which made everything as it currently is. You're just as uneducated as Blocula.

I see now I was wasting my time, hoping you'd have something worthwhile to say.

Also, paganism is not Hedonism. And Electromagnetism is responsible for subatomic particle interaction and attraction. Gravity is responsible for physical object attraction. They are different things. I see I should have listened to other ATS posters earlier, when they pointed out your clear lack of actually knowing what you're talking about.

Just another wind bag emptying their insides into the aether, hoping to make a sound in the empty vacuum of space.

~ Wandering Scribe


Tsk. Tsk.

"Science understands the process very well actually."

Please... You THINK you understand it, but that is just so much bombastic posturing.

Read: You're just spouting DOGMA.

If you REALLY believe that the Big Bang theory is true...

AND that ('Science understands the process very well...')...

Duplicate it!

You know... One of the BASIC tenets of Science.

You simply can't.

"Cosmic evolution"? That's a little laughable (actually a WHOLE lot laughable)... but I'm feeling kind.

So... You're saying the Big Bang was NOT an explosion?



Speaking of NOT getting anything right...

Pagan, 2nd defintion, something along the lines of: One who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods (ie? hedonistic).

So much for paganism is NOT hedonism.

I feel your pain!






You're just as uneducated as Blocula.



High praise indeed! Thank you.



Your 'understanding' of gravity is seriously humorous.

The next time you walk under several tons of clouds merrily floating over your head...

It might dawn on you...



Nah! It's a 98/2 world... and there is little doubt which side of the '/' you are.



PS. Missed the following gem...




Just another wind bag emptying their insides into the aether, hoping to make a sound in the empty vacuum of space.



Thank you kind sir! Might I have another?

The Ether? I find it incredibly bizarre that a 'Scientist' is quoting anything about eh Aether (Ether!). Deliciously self-contradictory!

You just keep on giving. Thanks! (I'm pretty sure I hurt myself laughing.
).
edit on 1-7-2012 by golemina because: Missed the insult quote.




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


I mentioned it a page ago but thanx for posting.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

Originally posted by tauristercus
Hey blocula,

All the way back on page 3 I asked you a very SIMPLE question ... which I will repeat now:


Ok, you state the sun is much smaller and a lot closer.
Let's for the sake of discussion assume that you're correct in your belief ... then I'm sure you will be able to specify EXACTLY the size of the sun and it's EXACT distance from earth. Also name your sources.

If you're going to make up these sort of threads, then at least have the "cahunas" to back up your claims with hard data.

Edit: Just occurred to me that using your "logic", we could just as readily state that the sun is much BIGGER and much FURTHER away.


So how about finally answering it now that I've had to ask it twice !


It is just as likely or even more likely that we live in a simulation vs. not living in one.

The simulation argument was set forth in a paper published in 2003. A draft of that paper had previously been circulated for a couple of years.

The argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

The argument has attracted a considerable amount of attention, among scientists and philosophers as well as in the media.

References:

N. Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255. URL: www.simulation-argument.com...

N. Bostrom & M. Kulczycki, “A Patch for the Simulation Argument” Analysis, 2011, Vol. 71, No.1, pp. 54-61. URL: www.simulation-argument.com...

Personally I think the fact that we see things like the Dual Slit experiment shows may speak to the truth of the matter.


Errrrrrr ..... what ????

What does your answer have to do with my question ?
Nothing as far as I can tell.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Its says what do you really know? NOTHING! An expert in these matters is not unlike a priest. It is a matter of faith and yours is no more right or wrong than anyone elses.

Also how does your mind wrap around things like this?

edit on 1-7-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Enough attacking mentioning things like pipes, that is a bit bellow the belt
Man woman child whoever you are..



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 
I wish we could fast forward a few hundred years and into another strictly enforced set of belief structures, that would most likely be explaining how the ancient big bang theory was so ridiculous and seen and thought about like the way the vast majority thinks about the earth being flat now...



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join