As a constant or accepted mph? Both are false.

Are they?

Light isn't even real, so how can it have a speed?

If you say so.

How would an ASA method be performed? How would the angles be obtained?
The way it is calculated is by using the distance to the moon and shadows cast on the moon to give the angle, which requires questions to be begged of moon reflecting sunlight, apparent positions being real, distance to moon being assumed. Another method for lunar distance is to use a lunar eclipse which requires begging question of massive distant sun and close small moon to cause equal apparent sizes. The parallax method of lunar distance assumes stars as fixed ref point. Another problem is again assuming these are physical bodies in space that have defined coordinates.

I don't think there needs to be a physical location of the projection. Eg, when light is bent we do not see the physical location, we see the apparent location, as per claimed astronomical refraction for instance. I assume the origin of the light is physical and the light itself is physical but we don't know where or what this originated from. We would not know the nature of the projections. I do not assert projections btw, it is to illustrate the fallacy of assuming physical bodies in the locations we see them when we have no idea what this is.

Could it be tested, in theory I would say yes and I would assume that elites have researched this and know a great deal about it. While feeding the plebs guff about spheres in vacuums.

That's easy. It's a convention that kept changing over the years, now it cannot be changed because a metre is defined as the distance light travels in a particular fraction of 1 second. So you would have to change the length of 1 metre too. And we can't have that.

You're implying that there are people among us who study celestial bodies, probably using advanced scientific equipment? And they would know, like, basic facts about the sun and the moon, maybe more?

I'm sorry but that's just crazy talk. If such people existed they would have been noticed.

Are you saying that you don't understand basic geometry? Or do you reject geometry as well?

I'm not asking about that. I'm asking whether you can accept at a theoretical level the use of triangles to compute distances.

Then what do you mean by a "projection"? If a projection is not onto a surface of some type, then what is it?

I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about your theory of using triangles to measure distance.

The theories that they have constructed include a means to account for the deflection of light, if light even exists and can be deflected. So their theories are at least internally consistent. Now whether or not that's "true" is irrelevant. Because who knows what truth is.

I'm just seeing whether your theory even has a means to detect truth. Because if you're going to complain about how things aren't true, but you yourself have no ability to test truth, then why should anyone listen to you? You might as well be Trumpian lawyers trying to argue that massive voter fraud happened while not presenting evidence. There's just no reason to think you're saying things that correspond to reality.

Can one measure the distance to an object using ASA in reality? If not, what's the barrier between theory and practice?

The people you refer to, the people we have knowledge of ie astronomers, are limited to analysis from the ground using spectroscopy, which is flawed. The people I refer to I imagine would have more sophisticated technology at both ground level and high altitude.

No, I understand geometry and it can be applied in modelling real situations provided the assumptions are valid. My objection is to ask how the angles calculated and the presupposition of the apparent location being the same position as some real location.

Of course they can. The contention is whether celestial distances can be calculated.


You are familiar with an overhead projector and how the image seen originates from a different place? Same effect. I have no idea about the surface it may or may not be projected onto. The concept of astronomical refraction is in your ball maths, an example of viewing an image that is not really in the position it is. Or viewing a star "light years" away. The position is apparent, you are seeing it as it was, not how it really is. This is for illustrative purposes, I do not assert anything about light years and such stories.


I am ambivalent as to whether anybody listens to me.

Obvious voter fraud. More people voted for this senile pedophile than voted for Obama I think not.

You can, provided you can confidently obtain reasonable estimates for distance and angles. Knowing the place you are measuring to is real is also important.

Who says that these are celestial distances? Aren't you just presupposing something about the distance by asserting that?

Given any projection onto a surface, by observing it at enough angles, even at a distance, one can come up with a reasonable conjecture as to the shape of the surface.

The fact that you have no idea is irrelevant. I'm not asking you to tell me the shape. I'm asking you whether the underlying logic is valid. Do you accept or reject the statement above?

Ultimately, if you have no truth-detecting mechanisms, then there is no value to considering your conjectures and your beliefs as just as religious as those that you think you stand against.