False Science Exposed

Originally posted by lemon lime
Do you mean odd if they were the same diameter, or odd that from earth they appear to have the same diameter?

The latter.

If they didn't appear (from our vantage point here on earth) to have the same diameter, then how would nearly picture perfect eclipses of the sun be possible?
I notice you have changed from 'exactly the same' to 'nearly'.
In reality, the Moons orbit is not exactly circular, and the size of the moon relative to the sun as observed from the earth varies quite considerably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#mediaviewer/File:Lunar_perigee_apogee.png

Originally posted by twhitehead
The latter.

[b]If they didn't appear (from our vantage point here on earth) to have the same diameter, then how would nearly picture perfect eclipses of the sun be possible?
I notice you have changed from 'exactly the same' to 'nearly'.
In reality, the Moons orbit is not exactly circular, and the size of the moon relative to the sun as observed f ...[text shortened]... bly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#mediaviewer/File:Lunar_perigee_apogee.png[/b]

I notice you have changed from 'exactly the same' to 'nearly'.

I do edit a lot. I don't recall making that particular change, but I do remember thinking what might happen if I didn't say "nearly"... and it did happen. It's sad to have to always think like an attorney and constantly watch out for any possible counter argument, no matter how silly or petty I think that counter argument might be.

Edit: at first I thought you meant I changed what I said in the same post. I said it appears exactly the same, but then I realized what I was setting myself up for. I changed it to "nearly" because people often overlook the words appears or appears to when quoting me... "appears to be" [something] doesn't mean the same as "is" [something].

Originally posted by twhitehead
The latter.

[b]If they didn't appear (from our vantage point here on earth) to have the same diameter, then how would nearly picture perfect eclipses of the sun be possible?
I notice you have changed from 'exactly the same' to 'nearly'.
In reality, the Moons orbit is not exactly circular, and the size of the moon relative to the sun as observed f ...[text shortened]... bly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#mediaviewer/File:Lunar_perigee_apogee.png[/b]

...the size of the moon relative to the sun as observed from the earth varies quite considerably.

So how much is "quite considerably"? Instead of a total eclipse can I expect to maybe see the moon covering up only half of the sun? 3/4 of the sun? Can the earth completely blot out the glow of the corona? Anything that varies "quite considerably" must by definition point to a very significant difference in variation.

So I'm asking just how much of a considerable variation are we talking about here?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I do edit a lot. I don't recall making that particular change,

I am not saying you edited it, I am saying that in the post I challenged, you said 'exactly'.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So how much is "quite considerably"?

12% according to the link I gave.

As you can read on Wikipedia, many eclipses are 'annular' which means you can see a ring of sun around the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not saying you edited it, I am saying that in the post I challenged, you said 'exactly'.

Oh good grief, I just now finished editing my post to say basically the same thing. And I didn't exactly say "exactly", I exactly said "appears to be exactly". I'm sorry if my initial choice of words confused you... I changed it to "nearly" but not nearly in time to avoid your challenge.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The moon always facing the same side to earth is a bit of an oddity. What is even odder though is the moon also just happens to perfectly cover up the sun during an eclipse... from our perspective here on earth, the diameter of the sun appears to be exactly the same as the moons diameter.

The post twhitehead was responding to.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh good grief, I just now finished editing my post to say basically the same thing. And I didn't exactly say "exactly", I exactly said "[b]appears to be exactly". I'm sorry if my initial choice of words confused you... I changed it to "nearly" but not nearly in time to avoid your challenge.[/b]

Well I think I have demonstrated that it is far from exact.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I notice you have changed from 'exactly the same' to 'nearly'.

I do edit a lot. I don't recall making that particular change, but I do remember thinking what might happen if I didn't say "nearly"... and it did happen. It's sad to have to always think like an attorney and constantly watch out for any possible counter argument, no matter how silly ...[text shortened]... to[/i] when quoting me... "appears to be" [something] doesn't mean the same as "is" [something].[/b]

Welcome to the Spirituality forum. 😉

Originally posted by lemon lime
I used to feel the same as Suzianne, but it occurred to me if I'm more concerned with meaning than with what is being said, I could be setting myself up for not seeing the actual message in front of me. That's why I've switched over to using the English Standard Version, because it uses a direct word for word rather than thought to word method of t ...[text shortened]... it would still take a bit of tweaking to get it into a readable (English) form for publication.

You do have a valid point. Whatever gets the Word out to the most people who can understand it, I guess.

But let's not dumb down the message to incomprehensibility (edit: wow, 8 syllables! lol). That's when it goes too far. I've seen translations that do lose the point in some passages.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I thought someone might look at the shorter video. Very few people are willing to look at a video that is nearly 3 hours long. As I said before, I know very little about astronomy, but I thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss, since some say the Holy Bible declares that the earth does not move.

"some say"

That's the point, isn't it? The problem is usually one of interpretation.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh good grief, I just now finished editing my post to say basically the same thing. And I didn't exactly say "exactly", I exactly said "[b]appears to be exactly". I'm sorry if my initial choice of words confused you... I changed it to "nearly" but not nearly in time to avoid your challenge.[/b]

And if you take two random adult males from the human population, they are "almost exactly" equally tall. Amazing!

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have addressed this many times but this is one of the best answers I've seen on this so I am reposting it here.

[b]PatNovak http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=159473&page=8#post_3235991

[quote][i]I want to address the topic of what makes someone pro- or anti-science. Being pro-science does not mean that one agrees wit ...[text shortened]... andon science [logic, reason, rationality, ect] the moment your religion/faith comes a knocking.

No. I abandon the scientific method in cases where it just does not work. That's far different from abandoning the concept of the method, or science in general. You give me far less credit than I deserve.

I got A's in every science course I ever took. That could not happen, especially through many hours of lab classes, if I had abandoned the scientific method. Unlike you, though, I recognize those instances and subjects where science, and therefore the scientific method, does not apply or is far, far less effective.

And that's why both you and Pat Novak get it wrong. Neither of you entertains the possibility of there being a branch or branches of knowledge where science does not apply.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Unlike you, though, I recognize those instances and subjects where science, and therefore the scientific method, does not apply or is far, far less effective.

Can you give us some inkling as to how you recognize these instances? Or is it entirely intuitive?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. I abandon the scientific method in cases where it just does not work. That's far different from abandoning the concept of the method, or science in general. You give me far less credit than I deserve.

I got A's in every science course I ever took. That could not happen, especially through many hours of lab classes, if I had abandoned the s ...[text shortened]... s the possibility of there being a branch or branches of knowledge where science does not apply.

To get A's in every science course you took, you must have accepted the indoctrination hook, line, and sinker or else you were a teacher's pet. 😏

P.S. Just kidding sweety, in case you didn't know.