Reopening the case against Galileo

[ananda]

^ NASA's budget is only a piddly $18 billion. I'm sure they're just being frugal by maintaining and using their grainy film cameras from the 1950s.

 

[Astrophile]

the solar system is alleged to spin around the galactic center at 514,000mph,

Just for your amusement, at that speed the solar system would take nearly 33 million years to travel from its present position to the centre of the Galaxy. This may give you a better understanding of the size of the Galaxy relative to that of the solar system.

 

[JacksBratt]

Just for your amusement, at that speed the solar system would take nearly 33 million years to travel from its present position to the centre of the Galaxy. This may give you a better understanding of the size of the Galaxy relative to that of the solar system.

Speaking of size and distance, I found this riddle. Mauritius and Reunion Island are about 230 km apart on the ocean. With a little math you can calculate that the curvature of the earth would put one more than a mile below the horizon from the other's point of view. This is based on the fact that at 100 miles it would be 6666 feet below the horizon which is 1.26 miles. So if 230km is about 142.9 statute miles you should not be able to see one from the other.
Yet, there it is. It is even in their tourist books.

Can someone explain this riddle?

 

[Simmeh]

Just for your amusement, at that speed the solar system would take nearly 33 million years to travel from its present position to the centre of the Galaxy. This may give you a better understanding of the size of the Galaxy relative to that of the solar system.

Another funny thing about speeds and geocentrism:

If everything in the universe is orbiting earth with a period of one day, the speed an object needs to complete its orbit increases exponentially as a function of its distance from earth. At roughly 4.2 billion kilometres, the object will have to be going faster than the speed of light. You want know what's about 4.3 billion kilometres from Earth? Neptune at its closest approach.

So in such a universe, everything (including distant stars and galaxies) are either far closer than we're told, or geocentrists need to come up with some brand new physics to explain faster-than-light travel.

EDIT: Fixed my grammar failures

 

[pgp_protector]

Speaking of size and distance, I found this riddle. Mauritius and Reunion Island are about 230 km apart on the ocean. With a little math you can calculate that the curvature of the earth would put one more than a mile below the horizon from the other's point of view. This is based on the fact that at 100 miles it would be 6666 feet below the horizon which is 1.26 miles. So if 230km is about 142.9 statute miles you should not be able to see one from the other.
Yet, there it is. It is even in their tourist books.

Can someone explain this riddle?

From where were the pictures taken?
If from Neiges highest point at 10,070 feet, you've got over 20 miles to play with to see the sea level on the other island (that has a height of over 2000 feet at it's highest point)

Now looking at that small image, it appears to have to mountain ranges(what you're seeing) to that's probably a photo of Neiges taken maybe from Maurtius. Entirely possible from an elevation of 2000 feet

 

[ananda]

Another funny thing about speeds and geocentrism:

If everything in the universe is orbiting earth with a period of one day, the speed an object needs to complete its orbit increases exponentially as a function of its distance from earth. At roughly 4.2 billion kilometres, the object will have to be going faster than the speed of light.. You want know what's about 4.3 billion kilometres from Earth? Neptune at its closest approach.

This assumption is based on the idea that these objects are billions of kilometers away from the Earth.

So in such a geocentrist universe, everything (including distant stars and galaxies) are far closer than we're told, or they'll need to come up with some brand new physics to explain faster-than-light travel.

Yes, geocentrically, everything is far closer than conventionally thought.

 

[Gracchus]

This assumption is based on the idea that these objects are billions of kilometers away from the Earth.

The distance to Neptune has been measured. It was measured by triangulation. It wasn't assumed.

Yes, geocentrically, everything is far closer than conventionally thought.

... !

 

[Astrophile]

This assumption is based on the idea that these objects are billions of kilometers away from the Earth.

Yes, geocentrically, everything is far closer than conventionally thought.

How close do you think the stars and the galaxies are? How big are the stars, and how do you think they generate the energy they need to go on shining?

 

[dad]

The distance to Neptune has been measured. It was measured by triangulation. It wasn't assumed.

Neptune's in our yard.

 

[The Cadet]

This assumption

It's not an assumption. Why would you assume that it's an assumption?

 

[ananda]

How close do you think the stars and the galaxies are? How big are the stars, and how do you think they generate the energy they need to go on shining?

My personal belief is that the objects in the celestial sphere (such as stars or galaxies) are actually the physical manifestations (bodies) of celestial intelligences, and their physical distances are undefinable because they exist in realms where the fabric of time and space (and thus physical distances) becomes more irrelevant (e.g. the more advanced they happen to be).

 

[ananda]

It's not an assumption. Why would you assume that it's an assumption?

Because nobody, to my knowledge, has traveled those alleged billions of kilometers to verify things with firsthand knowledge.

 

[JacksBratt]

From where were the pictures taken?
If from Neiges highest point at 10,070 feet, you've got over 20 miles to play with to see the sea level on the other island (that has a height of over 2000 feet at it's highest point)

Now looking at that small image, it appears to have to mountain ranges(what you're seeing) to that's probably a photo of Neiges taken maybe from Maurtius. Entirely possible from an elevation of 2000 feet

Actually, I don't know where the picture was taken. However, it still doesn't work.

Please check my math:

Your line of sight is going to be tangent to the globe. The point where your line of sight is zero altitude will be equidistant between the two points.
Therefore, you would have to be 1 mile up to see an object 1 mile below the horizon or curve of the earth.

The highest point on Reunion Island is 10,000 feet.
At 140 miles away the base of Mauritius would be 13000 feet below the horizon.
So even if you were at the top of the highest point you wouldn't be able to take this picture.

In fact the highest point on Mauritius is 2717 feet. Therefore you couldn't see the top of Mauritius from Reunion Island even if you were at the very summit of Reunion Island. You would be about 300 feet to low.

Please let me know if my math is wrong.

 

[The Cadet]

Because nobody, to my knowledge, has traveled those alleged billions of kilometers to verify things with firsthand knowledge.

We don't need to. Modern mathematics and the existence of parallax provides a very good way of accurately measuring distance.

 

[dad]

We don't need to. Modern mathematics and the existence of parallax provides a very good way of accurately measuring distance.

False. It is wrong.

 

[ananda]

We don't need to. Modern mathematics and the existence of parallax provides a very good way of accurately measuring distance.

Untrue. Modern astronomical distances based on parallax is in turn based on an assumption that the Earth is rotating around the Sun, etc. If the earth is stationary, those parallax measurements are false.

Distances to the stars have never been witnessed first-hand.

 

[Gracchus]

Untrue. Modern astronomical distances based on parallax is in turn based on an assumption that the Earth is rotating around the Sun, etc. If the earth is stationary, those parallax measurements are false.

Just for informational purposes then, what are the correct distances to the sun, the moon, and the various planets? What are the correct distances to stars? How were those correct distances determined?

Distances to the stars have never been witnessed first-hand.

And yet, in spite of all that incorrect mathematics and physics, Voyager got to Pluto right on time!
And it did this after whipping round the sky every day for years!

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, in spite of all that incorrect mathematics and physics, Voyager got to Pluto right on time! And it did this after whipping round the sky every day for years!

Can't they accelerate/decelerate by telemetry?

 

[Gracchus]

Can't they accelerate/decelerate by telemetry?

Simply put, acceleration is the application of force to a mass. Telemetry is simply remote reporting of measurement. So if the Earth is at the center, with all the universe rotating around it, then all of physics is wrong, all the mathematics is wrong, and yet somehow or other voyager got to Pluto. There can be only one explanation: Pluto is on Thalidomide compounded in a different state past!

 

[Kylie]

Yes, I believe experiments like the quantum double-slit and delayed choice eraser shows that thoughts and consciousness do create reality.

Which is why people need to be trained before they start sciencing.

In my reality, the Earth does not orbit the sun. Perhaps it does in your reality.

No, not your reality. Your incorrect interpretation of reality.