Ok guys chill out, I am not asking you to get your old school ruler out, in a room with a bit of privacy, so don’t panic.

I’m actually going to cover 2 subjects together in the one article here, that both concern the size of things that we just, usually, well, take for granted. It was the recent partial eclipse that got me thinking, again, about the size of objects in relation to their distance apart from each other. We are told and as a general rule, accept what we are told, that the sun is approx. 400 times larger than the moon but it is also 400 times further away, meaning that they look identical in size in relation to one another from our perspective here on Earth. Well to me, it just never made sense, this fact of being 400 times further away = 400 times smaller. 

At Liverpool seafront, standing 50 yards from a huge docked cruise liner that was visiting the city for the day, I could look out to sea and I could see another similar sized vessel on the horizon and it obviously looked tiny from my point of view. Now 400 times further away than the 50 yards I was from the docked ship, would equate to a distance of some 11 miles and I can tell you now, that ship on the horizon was more than 400 times smaller than the ship that was 50 yards in front of me, by some margin. I know how far the wind farm is out to sea, (5 miles) and the ship was past the wind farm, and I timed the distant ships arrival at Liverpool at just under an hour, so a really good estimate of the distance for me was about 10 miles, (slightly closer than 400 times further away we are using as an example.) So there was approx. 400 times distance between the 2 ships as I said, but there was clearly more than 400 times difference in their relative sizes, I felt I could easily double the 400 times, it looked maybe even a thousand times smaller, or even more, such was the difference in size between the ships at around 400 times distance difference.

Another way of quite easily judging size difference between objects that are approx. 400 times further away in distance, is to look up at planes flying over head at their cruising altitude of 40,000 feet. Then just imagine having one of those jumbo jets just 100 feet in front of you. These behemoths of the sky at 40,000 feet, or less, are just tiny specks of white dust to our eyes and certainly appear more than 400 times smaller than a jet just 100 feet away from you, they appear far smaller than 400 times the size of a grounded plane.

So I decided to do some digging around to see if I could find a way of how I could work out or prove, that just because an object is 400 times further away, does not automatically make that object 400 times smaller than it really is, which is the claim of the sun and moon magic they indoctrinate us with. To my eyes and my reality of looking at the above objects, this claim did not appear to stand up to a simple visual test, but I needed something more concrete to prove to myself I was on to something.

In my search I came upon the Inverse Square Law which states;

I read the above and tried to understand it’s meaning. We know that as an object moves further away it obviously gets smaller, but why specifically 4x smaller each time you double the distance between the objects. The only thing I could think of is because the object will appear to get smaller from the top down, from the bottom up, from the left to the right and from the right to the left, it’s just perspective. I may be wrong but that was my interpretation of how the law could work.

So after reading the above, I decided to use the Inverse Square Law in reverse. We ‘know’ the sun is 93 million miles away from us, so if I divided 93,000,000 miles by 2, the sun would appear would appear to be 4 times as big as when it was in it’s original place. I then carried on dividing the distance to the sun in half and each time I halved the distance, I multiplied the size of the sun by 4 times from it’s previous increase, so it ended up looking like this;

93,000,000 divided by 2 = 46.5 mill miles / means the sun would appear 4x bigger to us.

46.500,000 div by 2 = 23.25 mill miles / means the sun would appear 16x bigger to us.

23.250,000 div by 2 = 11.62 mill miles / means the sun would appear 64x bigger to us

11.620,000 div by 2 = 5.81 mill miles / means the sun would appear 256x bigger to us

Can you see where this is going, we are starting to hit a snag in the scientific claim in relation to why we have an almost identical sized sun and moon in our sky, I will continue.

5.810,000 div by 2 = 2.90 mill miles / means the sun would appear 1024x bigger to us

2.905,000 div by 2 = 1.45 mill miles / means the sun would appear 4096x bigger to us …. and I will end the calculations there.

I’ve arrived at a calculation using Inverse Square Law, in reverse, that if the sun was 1.45 million miles from earth, it would appear in our sky as being over 4,000x  bigger than what the moon appears. I may have done something wrong, missed something out or mis understood an element of what I have just calculated. Please if you spot something, point it out because I am trying to imagine an object that is 4,000 times bigger in diameter than the moon, in our sky and I am finding it difficult to comprehend. But something 800,000 miles across at 1.45 mill miles away would look all encompassing, wouldn’t it.

The second part of the article on Does Size Really Matter? is related to coastal walks and me wondering how far one would have to go to complete a circuit of the UK coast. It then took me to other parts of the world and their coastal lengths and what appear to be some strange results.  

A quick search for the distance of the UK’s coast is 7,700 miles (12,051 including islands off the coast.) From there I looked for the same details regarding the coasts of Australia and Antarctica. The figure for Australia was 16,010 miles and Antarctica was 11,165 miles with these added details for the ice covered cap;

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

 

• Length:17,968 kilometers (11,165 miles)
• Coastal Types:
  • 44% is floating ice in the form of an ice shelf.
  • 38% consists of ice walls that rest on rock.
  • 13% is ice streams or the edge of glaciers.
  • The remaining 5% is exposed rock.

                                                                                                                                                            Knowing how much larger the land masses of Australia and Antarctica are compared to our little island the figures struck me as dubious at best. So I searched for images comparing the sizes of the land masses above, compared to one another and the results were as I expected, the UK totally dwarfed by the other two land masses. Now I know when we look at the Mercator projection map that the land masses are distorted. For instance in reality Greenland is really approx. 1/14 the size of Africa, while on the Mercator map it looks about 1/3 the size of Africa. Anyway I searched for images to compare how the 3 areas above look in size compared to each other, images are below;

 

Here we have the 7,700 mile coastline of the UK, including Ireland looking tiny in comparison with Australia (16,010 miles) with the rest of Western Europe thrown in with plenty of room to spare. These coastline measurements do not make any sense to me from looking at this picture.. 

 

 

Here is another image of Antarctica (11,165 mile coastline) making Australia (16,010) look small by comparison, how do those mileage figures make any sense whatsoever?

 

 

One last image showing all three areas superimposed on each other.

One final reminder;

UK coastline, 7,700 miles

Australian coastline 16,010 miles

Antarctica coastline 11,165 miles. Does size not matter anymore? I for one am confused.