I've been looking on the internet for how astronomers calculate distances and it seems like they all assume at least one thing and then take that assumption and apply it to the rest of the solar system and universe.
I don't really understand exactly how they go about it but somehow they figure when Venus is tangential to the Earth and the sun that gives them a proportion for how much farther away the sun is from the earth than from Venus. They state Venus is 70% as far from the sun as Earth. And apparently some guy named Arius or something did the same thing except with the moon.
In geometry you have to know a distance before you use a sin or tangent. So someone is guessing at something it seems to me. Unless you really did run out there with your tape measure...
I don't know. I still say they assume too much.
Hi Grandpa
I have done the same thing as you and come up with exactly the same conclusion as you. Different experiments always assume that the calculations of others were correct in arriving at their own conclusions. However, when you look at how each "expert" arose at their conclusion they do the same as everybody else, ie use assumptions about a specific value.
Here is a link which is an example:
Measuring the speed of light
They have calculated the speed of light on the assumption that they know the distance from Earth to Jupiter. I would agree that we could calculate the speed of light re their experiment IF we knew the distance to Jupiter. How can we know the distance or size of Jupiter or how can we know the speed of its moon's orbit if we do not have other criteria? Some would calculate the distance using the "apparent known" speed of light. It all seems like one massive conspiracy. I will use an example a+b=2. We cannot know the exact value of "b" IF we do not know the value of "a". We need at least 2 precise values before we can calculate the missing value. Even in simultaneous equations, we need at least one starting value eg 2a+3b =13, 5a-1b=7 , the 13 and 7 being the starting points.
I cannot see how they can calculate these things without using someone else's assumed value or starting point.
Musk, please let me know how that link above fits into the calculations you showed.
ie "Speed of light = 186,282 miles per second
Time a form of describing a distance between today and tomorrow or passage of time which is only relevant in this plane of etherial existence anyway I.E. 1 day = 1 revolution of the planet on its axis 1 year = how long it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun
The day is divided into 24 equal parts each = 1 hour and so on
Since we have calculated the speed of light and because we can observe Solar flares through telescopes etc. and can corroberate our observations with unmanned craft sent towards the sun in recent years we can ascertain an exact distance within 4 parts per billion of accuracy by calculating the moment of the flare and how long it takes for the disturbance of that flare to reach the earth from the sun
The mean distance of our planet from our sun if we use miles instead of kilometers is 92,955,807.3 miles
divide that sum by the time it takes for a beam of light to come from the sun to earth (Aprrox. 8 minutes) and you get the above stated figure of the speed of light.
Knowing this you can calculate the distance of any cellestial body with the very same formula"
The first calculation required a starting value of speed of light which is ASSUMED. The second calculation uses distance as the starting point which was formed by the first calculation. You cannot calculate one or the other without knowing one of its values. The link above shows that their starting point was also based on an assumption ie that we knew the size and orbit speed of Jupiter.
Doc, I am not changing my mind, but I am starting to see that their are far too many assumptions made by the so-called experts. Fact is, I am not sure that anyone can be certain regarding orbits etc. They also make massive assumptions that orbits are REGULAR, retain same speeds, always same direction etc etc. Science is starting to find inconsistencies proving their assumptions (in some cases) were faulty. For example there is now questions (the Collider experiment) that objects can go FASTER than the speed of light. They say, we will have to reconsider the whole idea about relativity. Hmmm
I do know that I CAN TOTALLY trust the scriptures. If God said it, IT IS how He said it. It is just a question of science catching up. But, I maintain that there are other examples, in scripture where poetic language is used in a way not to confuse the readers. My answer is "I don't know" but whether the Earth rotates or doesn't it doesn't contradict the Bible. I have shown why that is by using examples on that other thread.
Thanks
