hypothesis -> experiment/observation -> data -> interpretation/theory/law

that's my basic understanding of it

Yes

No

What’s experiment/observation mean

Why should I go to someone’s funeral if they aren’t even going to mine

Does the slash mean or

or

Who’s

Whoa

/ means "and" or "or"

In urs it means or ?

U can’t do the scientific method without experiment bro

it's an experiment if you have control over the parameters, but it's less of an experiment and just observation if you really have limited control

I mean, that's my understanding

I'm just telling you what I undesrtand about it

i'm no expert at this though

Ok

If u just have observation that’s not experiment

if you're going to measure something that is already in nature, I would call it an observation and not an experiment

U have to manipulate the iv in an experiment

U can just observe an experiment though

Can’t

and in both cases, you need to make an observation (or more accurately a measurement) in order to collect data

@jeremy yes you're right, and Riley did not

Therefore his conclusion is wrong

Ok

U brought it to him and he said what ?

I don't think anyone has ever measured the distance of stars

He flipped out and said go away

Hey haven’t lol

He couldn't reconcile being wrong

"scientists" have only calculated the distance by using the hubble law (for far distant stars) and *maybe* some triangulation (I don't really know) for nearer stars

@SunRazor stellar paralax

@RogueReflector be careful, don't start name calling

yea stellar paralax

either way, it's calculating using models

I don't think we can really measure the distance to stars

That's based on measurements

U need to know the size of something or the distance to it to find out the one measurem t u don’t have

the measurements that are made, I might not doubt their accuracy... but it's the models used that I question

@jeremy ya, that's not true

You can do it with two angles and a distance

stellar paralax? fine, I can accept that. But the hubble law is founded on assumptions

The red shift thing?

yep

Ya I gotta read about that

I think it's corraborated in another way

Like the size of the objects has certain things going on

If I cut a circle out of cardboard go@in a field and u don’t know how far away I am I can tell the size of the circle ?

Yes,

U can tell ?

Wanna know how?

I doubt u could

But go ahead

I can tell you

Go tell me

Please

I can stand in one spot and zero out my pointer , targeting the object

Ok

Then walk 45 ft to the right, and read my pointers new angle

Ur pointer ?

Yes a device that tells me the angle I'm pointing

I have a right triangle then

And angle and a side of the triangle, boom I can calc the distance

Then I can measure the angular size of the object

Then calc its actual size

This device

@RogueReflector as I mentioned before, there are two sources of redshift: The most obvious source of redshift is doppler (including time dilation due to special relativity); the less obvious source of redshift is gravitational, which depends on gravitational potential (confirmed through the Harvard Tower Experiment, and similarly repeated experiments).

Is a sextant ?

@jeremy nah a theodolite is better

Hmmm

For the Hubble Law (and the hubble constant) to be valid, gravitational redshift needs to be decoupled from doppler (redshift due to motion)

@SunRazor I see. I don't knowuch about that

Ok

So u got ur sextant or theodolite u do this with the moon and the sun

@jeremy simple geometry

U come up with some valid numbers ?

@jeremy for the sun it doesn't work bc the angles change is too small

If you could quantify how much of the redshift is due to motion (expansion of the universe) and how much redshift is due to a difference in gravitational potential, on one end of a spectrum the galaxies far away could be still and just at a lower gravitational potential than we are today, and on the other end the galaxies are at equal gravitational potential as we are today and are moving away from us. The hubble law assumes that the redshift is due entirely to the doppler effect caused by the expansion of the universe.

For the moon yes it works. We can measure it's parallax from diff places on the earth

Or it could be because we never see the actual sun we see the apparent position of the sun no ?

Dunno what that would do, no matter what we see the apparent position of every object

So ok u got ur pointer u check ur angles to the moon what number u get

That's just a give

Moons distance

Are they using math with s sphere or flat earth when they do that

The measured distance between the locations

That's what's used

The curve doesn’t come into play in the math ok

Wait a sec

The sun and moon are same apparent size

I used to watch Bill Nye every day as a teenager. Looking at him now though, sometimes I wish I never wasted my time.

We need to back this up a little rogue please

Sun and moon are same apparent size

Are they?

Because we have total solar eclipse and partial solar eclipses

@jeremy Some people would argue that the sun and moon being the same size is proof that God intelligently made the heavens and the earth. Some people would argue that it's evidence that an exceedingly more superior alien race artificially placed the earth and the moon into their orbit positions.

Seems the moon changes size a bit

Turns out it changes by 14%

Are u saying the sun and moon aren’t the same apparent size

Close to the same size

It not exactly

Within about 7%

I think that's because the moons orbit is elliptical right?

Yep

sometimes it's farther and sometimes it's closer

And inclined

So we agree the sun and moon have the same apparent size

not by a lot

?

So take the cosine of that

@jeremy they're close but not quite the same

on average, the sun and moon have the same size, no?

Ok stop

Again about 7% . If you call that the same ok, but I don't

We are gonna take our measurement of the sun and moon during a solar eclipse

Right they almost perfectly match at that point in time ?

is the moon slightly bigger in apparent size?

You can't have a total solar eclipse unless the moon's apparent size is equal or greater than the sun, right?

They are extremely close can we go with that ?

Yes

Within 7%

is that 7% area or 7% diameter?

Ok so we need to go back to where u said the angle change was too small for the sun

Well could be up to 14% diff really

@SunRazor ha I dunno, I think it's diameter?

@jeremy k

They are the same size almost

Right

How’s the angle change too small for the sun to take the measurement we do for the moon

for all practical purposes, they are the same apparent size

Be cause it's further away

Lol

We r getting the distance with the angle change I thought

The angle change is too small to measure

The angle change is giving us the distance

Ya and with a large enough distance this method is too inaccurate

It’s the same as the moon

Ya but the angle change we get when we do this on the moon is a number much large than the uncertainty in our instrument

If u did the measurement to the moon with ur angles and the sun u get the same number

No they're different

Indicating the moon is much closer

Ok let’s take this nice and slow

2 people on earth solar eclipse

Ya I think you're missing something

Hang on a sec

2 people on earth solar eclipse at totality they are gonna check the angles and come up with the same number

I don't understand what "angles" we're talking about here

@jeremy ya that makes no sense

What angle are you talking about

How would u get different numbers

Diff numbers for what

Ok let’s go nice and slow

You aren't explaining your idea properly

We are gonna. Measure the distance to the moon and sun using this angle thing during a solar eclipse

K

Unfollow sonfar

Ok

Yep

When the moon exactly covers the sun they will get the angles

K

How are the numbers different

How far apart are the two observers h

U decide

How about west coast of us and east coast

Ok

Say 2000 miles

Well then. When one is in totality the other is not, and will see the sun partially covered

Ok use them closer

K let's put them right on top of each other

The moon casts a shadow at least as big as the moon on earth right

Let’s not go down that road yet

Not the umbra

Let’s say 50 miles apart can they both be in totality then ?

Totality is about 70 miles wide

Ya for a small instant

Ok 70 miles do it

K

Then what

Do ur angles

K, they would get slightly different angles

Pretty small, so not a good separation

<:vcislit:507995456899514380>

The sun and moon are the same apparent size I don’t understand how measuring both from earth gets u different numbers to where it’s 92 million miles farther

During a total solar eclipse the moon is slightly larger than the sun, that's why totality is like 2 minutes long

Or maybe more

Ok that tiny bit bigger equals 02 million extra miles ?

92 million ?

https://tenor.com/view/neil-degrasse-tyson-micdrop-gravity-gif-4993807

@jeremy that bigger, is completely unrelated to the angles

system is flawed? just say gravity lmao

Ok why don’t u explain to me why the angle doesn’t work with the sun again u said cause the suns too far away ?

Right, when you try this method on the sun, it appears to be so far away compared to the base of any two oberver leg

But we r doing this to get the distance we don’t know it’s too far away yet

And the angles can't be measured accurately enough

We don’t know anything about the sun we are in a field with our theodolite

We try it and find that the distance is large, and we don't know it precisely, with that method

How’s it differ from the moon angles

Right, but this method can tell you it's too far for the method to give a good value

Because the angles we get when we do this on the moon are laregly different

When observers are far apart

So we measure the angles to the moon everything works fine then we do it with the sun and what ?

Sorry I’m not understanding

What goes wrong when we measure the angles to the sun

We barely see any angle change from one location to the next

I assume the "Truther" role means you are a flat earther?

Kinda like if your looking at a mountain far away, and walk 3 ft to the right, it's still in front of you

@jeremy

Why does it work with the moon then

the earth is a malteser

Okay, you are talking about the angular diameter?

if the earth is flat explain to me how trees exist

I don’t understand how this would work with the moon and not the sun as they are the same size

The earth is flat

just look at the evidence

Sure

Lemme build myself a rocket

if the earth is flat how come we never hear about them pilots who fell off the map

And check mywelf

**several ppl are typing*

When a full moon is out, measure the angular diameter of the moon while you're standing at the equator. Then go to CANADA or some place far north and measure the angular diameter of the full moon. Compare the two?

the earth isnt flat bro

myers

this isnt minecraft

pilots have gone missing

thats the falling off

@SunRazor that would work but it'd be really small

you trying tell me star wars didnt happen in a glaxy far far away a long time ago????/

sounds like trolling (Myers)

you make me sick

ik myers is trolling

you ruined my childhood

If I walk to the edge of the planet there is a void

That's what you tryna tell me?

Just explain why it works with the moon and not the sun. The reason u have before was the suns too far but we don’t know how far it is we are using this angle thing to find out

Well you wouldn;'t be able to walk to it because of the gov

we've been to the moon god damn it!

you won't go past the ice walls

let me guess, you think 9/11 was a inside job too

And we plan to go back to the moon soon

it was though

facepalm

there is a lot of evidence

and scientific too

I'll come back when the trolling stops 😩

Lmao so of the ice caps melt, all the water on our planet will fall into space?

okay show me the evidence

university of alaska published a paper saying the building did not fall due to fires