The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2015, 05:48:50 AM
-
I have been a Flat Earther for over 8 years. I have seen and debated it all. Ask me anything and I will provide an answer.
-
I have been a Flat Earther for over 8 years. I have seen and debated it all. Ask me anything and I will provide an answer.
How do you explain the Doppler Shifting of GPS and other satellite signals?
-
How do you explain the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by laser beam measurements by astronomical observatories and by the amateur radio operators in their "Moon Bounce" operations of "bouncing" radio signals off the Moon ?
-
-1- I did many observations with a telescope and a camera. Most often no curvature can be found (if you take the RE-formula seriously).
Once I only saw the top of windmills at sea, more or less the same as in this video:
Do you have an explanation for this?
On lakes and canals distant objects which should be below the horizon are seen, proving that the earth is not a globe. This is documented in Earth not a Globe and other Flat Earth literature and works. However, at sea distant bodies can be seen to sink into the surface. This is due to distant waves and swells of the sea intersecting with the vanishing point, as described in Earth Not a Globe in the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
-2- It seems that the sun is moving with the same speed on the tropics of cancer and capricorn. On the standard flat earth map they don't have the same length. Is there an explanation for this or is the standard flat earth map not correct?
That has not been demonstrated. But I am a proponent of the bi-polar map which has the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at about the same size, so that point would be moot with me.
-3- It seems that a person in Australia who is looking in the south direction and a person in Argentina who is looking in the south direction both see the same position of the stars in the sky.
On the standard flat earth map that seems not be possible. Do you have an explanation for this?
I am a proponent of the bi-polar model. They would both be looking at the same stars.
-
Suppose you could have a one-hour conversation with any human being, alive or dead; he or she will answer any question you have with complete honesty; the conversation is only with you, and you can't record any of it; whom would you choose and why?
-
Tom, do you have any answers to the questions about the measurements of the distance to the moon ? I haven't seen anyway. Maybe you just haven't gotten around to them.
My apologies if maybe I was a bit impatient to see them.
Also about the Doppler Effect including the Doppler effects of echos of radio signals sent to the moon and reflected back to earth.
-
I have been a Flat Earther for over 8 years. I have seen and debated it all. Ask me anything and I will provide an answer.
How do you explain the Doppler Shifting of GPS and other satellite signals?
What of it?
How do you explain the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by laser beam measurements by astronomical observatories and by the amateur radio operators in their "Moon Bounce" operations of "bouncing" radio signals off the Moon ?
We have documented that the laser beam experiments were connected to NASA as a funding source.
On NASA manipulation of Lunar Laser Ranging experiments:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52207.msg1280771#msg1280771
The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/
"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."
NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53387.msg1308582#msg1308582
The two Lunar Ranging observatories NASA often cites are the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), as discussed in my first link, and the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments.
The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments are also funded by NASA. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up
Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"
So you have innuendo about two observatories. Now try again with proof for all experiments using the all of the lunar retroreflectors (from Apollo 11, 14 or 15, and Lunokhod 1 and 2.)
Which other lunar ranging observatories are you referencing? Those are the main two that NASA cites when confronted with accusations of scam. The other one they cite is the Goddard Laser Ranging Facility, which is owned and operated by NASA themselves. (http://lrolr.gsfc.nasa.gov/)
How very convenient of NASA, when defending its scam with Lunar Ranging claims, to neglect to disclose they they themselves fund those experiments.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1380244;topic=55364.20;last_msg=1519545
Actually the soviets used the ruby laser. The laser used in america was not a ruby laser. I simply just googled the subject and found the information so it is not hard to do.
Your Googling skills are in need of better refinement.
http://spie.org/x38304.xml (http://spie.org/x38304.xml)
"McDonald Observatory was the premier LLR station during the 1970s and early 1980s. The 2.7-m system, using a Korad ruby laser, routinely produced normal point data with an accuracy of 10-15 cm. After 15 years of operation the 2.7-m system was replaced by a dedicated 0.76-m system, built around a frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser that produces LLR data approaching 1 cm normal point accuracy."
The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments were the star attraction through the 70's and 80's, often championed as proof that NASA went to the moon. However, what the news articles don't tell you is that the experiments were funded by NASA (http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up).
Flip to the second page of that link and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"
I also came across this bad boy right here. seems legit, but I am no expert.
http://www.w7ftt.net/laser1.html (http://www.w7ftt.net/laser1.html)
At the bottom of that article:
"Table Mountain Observatory, operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is located just west of the
town of Wrightwood, California at an elevation of 7500 feet."
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory happens to be a NASA facility.
-
I have been a Flat Earther for over 8 years. I have seen and debated it all. Ask me anything and I will provide an answer.
How do you explain the Doppler Shifting of GPS and other satellite signals?
What of it?
For starters, how about the fact that it exists and it shouldn't if GPS signals were ground based?
-
For starters, how about the fact that it exists and it shouldn't if GPS signals were ground based?
But it should. The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists.
-
For starters, how about the fact that it exists and it shouldn't if GPS signals were ground based?
But it should. The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists.
What does that have to do with Doppler shift? If the GPS transmitters are ground based, then there should be no relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, therefor no Doppler shift.
-
What does that have to do with Doppler shift? If the GPS transmitters are ground based, then there should be no relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, therefor no Doppler shift.
It would seem you don't understand how the Doppler effect works. How surprising.
Any electromagnetic waves are going to be emitted at a certain velocity, which will of course be affected by the current velocity of the Earth. However, the moment the waves leave the transmitter they are no longer affected by Universal Acceleration. As such, there will be relative motion between the transmitted waves and the receiver beyond the initial relative velocity, which will, of course, lead to the Doppler effect being observable.
Your failing lies in the misunderstanding of the cause of the Doppler effect. You seem to think that it's strictly linked to relative motion between the transmitter and the receiver. It's not.
-
What does that have to do with Doppler shift? If the GPS transmitters are ground based, then there should be no relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, therefor no Doppler shift.
It would seem you don't understand how the Doppler effect works. How surprising.
Oh? This should be interesting.
Any electromagnetic waves are going to be emitted at a certain velocity...
Yes, that velocity would be the speed of light (also known as c).
...which will of course be affected by the current velocity of the Earth.
Umm... No. The speed of light is a constant, regardless of your frame of reference.
However, the moment the waves leave the transmitter they are no longer affected by Universal Acceleration. As such, there will be relative motion between the transmitted waves and the receiver beyond the initial relative velocity, which will, of course, lead to the Doppler effect being observable.
Ummm... No, again. The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Your failing lies in the misunderstanding of the cause of the Doppler effect. You seem to think that it's strictly linked to relative motion between the transmitter and the receiver. It's not.
I think that you're the one who has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
-
What does that have to do with Doppler shift? If the GPS transmitters are ground based, then there should be no relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, therefor no Doppler shift.
It would seem you don't understand how the Doppler effect works. How surprising.
Oh? This should be interesting.
Any electromagnetic waves are going to be emitted at a certain velocity...
Yes, that velocity would be the speed of light (also known as c).
...which will of course be affected by the current velocity of the Earth.
Umm... No. The speed of light is a constant, regardless of your frame of reference.
However, the moment the waves leave the transmitter they are no longer affected by Universal Acceleration. As such, there will be relative motion between the transmitted waves and the receiver beyond the initial relative velocity, which will, of course, lead to the Doppler effect being observable.
Ummm... No, again. The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Your failing lies in the misunderstanding of the cause of the Doppler effect. You seem to think that it's strictly linked to relative motion between the transmitter and the receiver. It's not.
I think that you're the one who has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
In the case of the train whistle - The train whistle is the transmitter and the receiver is the listener at the crossing and the relative motion is the motion of the train. The change in frequency is the change in frequency heard by the listener at the crossing.
In the case of the Doppler Effect on the amateur radio "Moon Bounce" the transmitter is the transmission to the moon by the amateur radio operator and the receiver is the reception on the amateur radio operator's receiver on the earth and the relative motion is the movement of the moon. The change in frequency is heard on the receiver by the tone of the voice or the tone sent.This is particular noticeable on single side band transmission and reception.
Ask Tom Bishop:
The question (which has not been answered as yet) :
What is your answer to the question of how the amateur radio operators measured the distance from the earth to the moon by transmitting a signal to the moon, and noting the time required for it to return on their receiver and multiplying the "one way time" by the speed of radio waves to get the distance from the earth to the moon ?
What is your opinion of radar ?
This is basically the same as the amateur radio operations. The radar sends a pulse. Then the radar receives any echos from the target. The radar then converts the time for the target signal to return and also computes the distance by using the speed of radio waves.
-
Yes, that velocity would be the speed of light (also known as c).
There's a reason I was talking about velocity and not speed. Can you guess what it is?
The speed of light is a constant
Well, kind of. We both know why you're wrong (hint: if you were right, we'd both be dead right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth)), but you're close enough, so let's roll with it.
regardless of your frame of reference.
Again, kind of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation). Of course, this is all moot, because we're talking about velocity.
The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Actually, it kind of refers to both (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect). Specifically, a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here.
I think that you're the one who has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
I don't particularly care what you think. I provided you with enough information for you to fill in the gaps in your high school knowledge. Whether or not you will do so is entirely your prerogative.
-
The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Actually, it kind of refers to both (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect). Specifically, a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here.
Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away? Also keep in mind that there are several of these GPS "satellites" in view at all times and their signals will all have different degrees of red or blue shift at any given time.
-
Ask Tom Bishop:
The question (which has not been answered as yet) :
What is your answer to the question of how the amateur radio operators measured the distance from the earth to the moon by transmitting a signal to the moon, and noting the time required for it to return on their receiver and multiplying the "one way time" by the speed of radio waves to get the distance from the earth to the moon ?
What is your opinion of radar ?
This is basically the same as the amateur radio operations. The radar sends a pulse. Then the radar receives any echos from the target. The radar then converts the time for the target signal to return and also computes the distance by using the speed of radio waves.
The government was also heavily involved with radar moon bounce experiments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication
The "moon bounce" technique was developed by the United States Military in the years after World War II, with the first successful reception of echoes off the Moon being carried out at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on January 10, 1946 by John H. DeWitt as part of Project Diana.
Per amateurs who claim to bounce signals off of the moon, we've questioned how non-directional HAM antennas can focus on a point in the sky. How does a non-directional antenna know what it's looking at? A non-directional antenna sends receives signals from all points around it. The experiment of listening to scattered undirected echoes is not controlled or scientific at all. For all it knows, the antenna is listening to echos of something else in the firmament.
Here is an example of the types of antennas used from Wikipedia:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg/800px-SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg)
Amateur Radio antenna array used for Earth–Moon–Earth communication on 144 MHz. Location Kilafors in Middle Sweden. Owner Sverker Hedberg, SM3PWM.
-
Per amateurs who claim to bounce signals off of the moon, we've questioned how non-directional HAM antennas can focus on a point in the sky. How does a non-directional antenna know what it's looking at? A non-directional antenna sends receives signals from all points around it. The experiment of listening to scattered undirected echoes is not controlled or scientific at all. For all it knows, the antenna is listening to echos of something else in the firmament.
Here is an example of the types of antennas used from Wikipedia:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg/800px-SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg)
Amateur Radio antenna array used for Earth–Moon–Earth communication on 144 MHz. Location Kilafors in Middle Sweden. Owner Sverker Hedberg, SM3PWM.
Tom, you do understand that Yagi antennas (like the one that you provided) are directional antennas, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda_antenna
-
The problem with flat earthers is they either don't know how things work or they pretend that they don't know how things work and just call them "fakes" for no good reason.
I am a licensed amateur radio operator. In order to be licensed, you have take and pass an examination which covers radio theory and radio regulations. There are some questions on antenna theory. They are fairly elementary questions but antenna theory can get highly complex.
In short those antennas used in "Moon Bounce" are highly directional. All of those "elements" or the aluminum rods you see in those photographs act as "directors" or "reflectors" which act as sort of the way the mirrors do in flashlights to focus the radio beam into a narrow directional beam.
Some of the terms used are "front to back ratio" which means that most of the radio beam is transmitted or received from the front of the antenna and less to the rear of the antenna.
By focusing the beam in a narrow beam you also increase the "gain" of the antenna and the "effective radio power" so that it is sort of like multiplying the power of your transmitter. These antennas are aimed at the moon.
In short, amateur radio operators use these complicated antennas to enable them to send more powerful signals from their transmitters and they also amplify the signals coming into their receivers.
There is a lot more to it. If you really want to dig into the subject of "Moon Bounce" I would suggest you talk to the people at The American Radio League in Newington , Connecticut. But I think that is something no flat earther would ever do.
It seems rather foolish to say something doesn't work simply because you don't know how things work. I know all of this probably sounds like a lot of double talk and gobbledegook to some dedicated flat earthers. But the truth is you have to know a lot of theory to make a lot of things work. And that goes back to science, which the flat earthers reject.
There are a lot of things of which I don't know how they work but just because I don't know how they work I'm not going to say they are fakes.
Tom Bishop is really making himself look very foolish just by posting stuff that is showing that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is doing a discredit to The Flat Earth Society IMHO. At least on the subject of antennas and "Moon Bounce."
-
Per amateurs who claim to bounce signals off of the moon, we've questioned how non-directional HAM antennas can focus on a point in the sky. How does a non-directional antenna know what it's looking at? A non-directional antenna sends receives signals from all points around it. The experiment of listening to scattered undirected echoes is not controlled or scientific at all. For all it knows, the antenna is listening to echos of something else in the firmament.
Here is an example of the types of antennas used from Wikipedia:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg/800px-SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg)
Amateur Radio antenna array used for Earth–Moon–Earth communication on 144 MHz. Location Kilafors in Middle Sweden. Owner Sverker Hedberg, SM3PWM.
Tom, you do understand that Yagi antennas (like the one that you provided) are directional antennas, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda_antenna
So which direction is the antenna in the picture pointing?
-
The problem with flat earthers is they either don't know how things work or they pretend that they don't know how things work and just call them "fakes" for no good reason.
I am a licensed amateur radio operator. In order to be licensed, you have take and pass an examination which covers radio theory and radio regulations. There are some questions on antenna theory. They are fairly elementary questions but antenna theory can get highly complex.
In short those antennas used in "Moon Bounce" are highly directional. All of those "elements" or the aluminum rods you see in those photographs act as "directors" or "reflectors" which act as sort of the way the mirrors do in flashlights to focus the radio beam into a narrow directional beam.
Some of the terms used are "front to back ratio" which means that most of the radio beam is transmitted or received from the front of the antenna and less to the rear of the antenna.
By focusing the beam in a narrow beam you also increase the "gain" of the antenna and the "effective radio power" so that it is sort of like multiplying the power of your transmitter. These antennas are aimed at the moon.
In short, amateur radio operators use these complicated antennas to enable them to send more powerful signals from their transmitters and they also amplify the signals coming into their receivers.
There is a lot more to it. If you really want to dig into the subject of "Moon Bounce" I would suggest you talk to the people at The American Radio League in Newington , Connecticut. But I think that is something no flat earther would ever do.
It seems rather foolish to say something doesn't work simply because you don't know how things work. I know all of this probably sounds like a lot of double talk and gobbledegook to some dedicated flat earthers. But the truth is you have to know a lot of theory to make a lot of things work. And that goes back to science, which the flat earthers reject.
There are a lot of things of which I don't know how they work but just because I don't know how they work I'm not going to say they are fakes.
Tom Bishop is really making himself look very foolish just by posting stuff that is showing that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is doing a discredit to The Flat Earth Society IMHO. At least on the subject of antennas and "Moon Bounce."
The antenna in the picture above doesn't even have a motor or servos for positioning. How did he "point" it at the moon?
-
The problem with flat earthers is they either don't know how things work or they pretend that they don't know how things work and just call them "fakes" for no good reason.
I am a licensed amateur radio operator. In order to be licensed, you have take and pass an examination which covers radio theory and radio regulations. There are some questions on antenna theory. They are fairly elementary questions but antenna theory can get highly complex.
In short those antennas used in "Moon Bounce" are highly directional. All of those "elements" or the aluminum rods you see in those photographs act as "directors" or "reflectors" which act as sort of the way the mirrors do in flashlights to focus the radio beam into a narrow directional beam.
Some of the terms used are "front to back ratio" which means that most of the radio beam is transmitted or received from the front of the antenna and less to the rear of the antenna.
By focusing the beam in a narrow beam you also increase the "gain" of the antenna and the "effective radio power" so that it is sort of like multiplying the power of your transmitter. These antennas are aimed at the moon.
In short, amateur radio operators use these complicated antennas to enable them to send more powerful signals from their transmitters and they also amplify the signals coming into their receivers.
There is a lot more to it. If you really want to dig into the subject of "Moon Bounce" I would suggest you talk to the people at The American Radio League in Newington , Connecticut. But I think that is something no flat earther would ever do.
It seems rather foolish to say something doesn't work simply because you don't know how things work. I know all of this probably sounds like a lot of double talk and gobbledegook to some dedicated flat earthers. But the truth is you have to know a lot of theory to make a lot of things work. And that goes back to science, which the flat earthers reject.
There are a lot of things of which I don't know how they work but just because I don't know how they work I'm not going to say they are fakes.
Tom Bishop is really making himself look very foolish just by posting stuff that is showing that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is doing a discredit to The Flat Earth Society IMHO. At least on the subject of antennas and "Moon Bounce."
The antenna in the picture above doesn't even have a motor or servos for positioning. How did he "point" it at the moon?
If you are such an expert how can you tell that just by looking at that photo ?
Of course there are some rotators some where in that array. Antennas of this type usually have rotators to adjust the tilt (up and down movements) and bearing (side movements) to aim them at their "target". Just like the guns and fire control radars on warships. Of course the antennas could be aimed manually but it is more likely they are controlled by the rotators. (Hams usually use the term rotators instead of motors or servos.) Why not ask Mr. Hedberg to explain the details of his antenna array ? Is it obvious that this antenna array works anyway.
I'm just guessing that the rotator for the bearing is in the base of the mast and rotates the whole array. There looks like there is something at the top of the mast
which adjusts the tilt or elevation of the antenna itself. Obviously some kind of mechanism. However , I am sure Mr. Hedweg has logs to verify his operation so we know it works even if we don't know all the mechanical details.
I have written to the Swedish Amateur Radio Society to see if I can contact Mr.Hedberg , SM3PWN, for details on his antenna array and comments on his operations on "Moon Bounce."
And amateur radio operators are required to identify themselves by their call letters . It is obvious that they know it is their signal that they are receiving on "Moon Bounce" and they are not "listening to echos of something else in the firmament." Chart, schedules and software are available to give detailed information on setting the azimuth and bearing for aiming the antenna precisely at the moon so there is no question that there will be no question that what is received is not "listening to echos of something else in the firmament."
Any other questions ?
-
Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?
I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.
-
Per amateurs who claim to bounce signals off of the moon, we've questioned how non-directional HAM antennas can focus on a point in the sky. How does a non-directional antenna know what it's looking at? A non-directional antenna sends receives signals from all points around it. The experiment of listening to scattered undirected echoes is not controlled or scientific at all. For all it knows, the antenna is listening to echos of something else in the firmament.
Here is an example of the types of antennas used from Wikipedia:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg/800px-SM3PWM_EME_Antenna.jpg)
Amateur Radio antenna array used for Earth–Moon–Earth communication on 144 MHz. Location Kilafors in Middle Sweden. Owner Sverker Hedberg, SM3PWM.
Tom, you do understand that Yagi antennas (like the one that you provided) are directional antennas, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda_antenna
So which direction is the antenna in the picture pointing?
There is really no way to tell which way the antenna in the picture is pointing. But it is really immaterial. The antenna is "parked" in a neutral position when not in use.
Most likely the antenna is level and aimed north. But it is anybody's guess.
-
Tom, in your opinion what would sustain an object in orbit? I have known for some time that the theory of gravity was incorrect and have been working on an alternative. This question seems to be the only thing I have yet to work out. Thanks!
-
There is no doubt that directional antennas exist regardless of whether or not it is easy to tell where they are pointing.
(http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/24dash-media/image/2013/02/07/48701/580_Image_Satellite_dish.jpg)
Triangulation has been around since transmitters where invented.
-
There is no doubt that directional antennas exist regardless of whether or not it is easy to tell where they are pointing.
(http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/24dash-media/image/2013/02/07/48701/580_Image_Satellite_dish.jpg)
Triangulation has been around since transmitters where invented.
"Hams" have been using "beams" (Directional Antennas) with "rotators" for a long time. They just aim their antennas in the direction of the station that they want to contact. Many hams perform "DX" (Long Distance) contacts daily. The ARRL has a special award certificate for "WAC" (Worked All Countries) if you have contacted at least one ham in each country on the earth. "DX" is just one more of the intriguing things in "ham radio."
Likewise there are also "rotators" to "rotate" the tilt of the antenna for the correct azimuth or elevation in the case of "Moon Bounce" operations. It is just a matter of obtaining the information for setting the bearing and azimuth of the antenna from charts and tables giving the times and settings. It's not an inexpensive hobby . It is estimated that all the equipment for an elementary list of transmitter, receiver and associated parts to conduct "Moon Bounce" would be $1300. But many hams perform "EME" (Earth-Moon-Earth) operations every day.
I suppose "DX" and "EME" are two more items that the flat earthers can add to their "fakes" list. LOL.
If flat earthers don't understand how things like "beams" operate and are built, why don't they just ask questions instead of making remarks such as those of Mr. Tom Bishop which often sound a bit stupid ?
-
Back to "Ask Tom Bishop"
How about the distance from the earth to the moon ?
(Ham radio measurements -vs.- Flat Earth Measurements)
-
Hey Tom. I just need someone to point me to where in one of the old books it says that people can see polaris in the south.
I've collected photos of star trails in the far north, and in star tail photography in California Polaris is off-center, whereas in Alaska it's nearly dead-center.
-
The questions posed here are extremely relevant, but they cannot be answered in the context of the official, faulty, UA acceleration.
Here is the only thread which DOES answer the ham radio/radar/GPS signal questions:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (+ 18 more pages of debate)
By the way, if any of the RE here want to totally destroy the UA acceleration hypothesis all they have to do is read the Beam Neutrino thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0#.Vf0UDNKqqko
I was the first to put forward/propose the correct FE map: the global, bi-polar, Piri Reis map, see:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961267#msg961267
-
Did you check the 18 page discussion on the sun's path/movement, taking into consideration exactly your concerns, in the above mentioned thread?
When it comes to the Sun, the best place to start, of course, is the Faint Young Sun Paradox:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
To actually date the age of the Sun, we have understand the true age of the comets:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735
And do check the path of the Sun as it relates to the Tunguska explosion:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676400#msg1676400
As to whether there were people who believed that the earth was flat prior to Rowbotham, yes, early Greece philosophers debated such things. The Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers as a society. It is worth noting that the Ancient Babylonians were expert astronomers and mathematicians, and could predict the Lunar Eclipse and other phenomenona with accuracy.
Sorry, one cannot have it both ways.
It is either/or.
Either the Earth is flat and the entire astronomical data as it pertains to the axial precession has been faked/forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler), or the Earth does orbit the Sun and does undergo a precessional axial movement (that is, the data is true).
This is all the RE have to do to claim victory (of course, if I was not around...): use the fact that absolutely no other FE/UAFE believes in the new radical chronology of history and have them admit that they accept wholeheartedly the official point of view (i.e., the existence of the words/works attributed to Hipparchus, Ptolemy and Kepler). Then it is all over, since such an acceptance means that the AXIAL PRECESSION OF THE EARTH, as it orbits the Sun (heliocentrical theory) is actually TRUE, as it had been recorded (official historical/astronomical data) in the past.
-
"Either the Earth is flat and the entire astronomical data as it pertains to the axial precession has been faked/forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler), or the Earth does orbit the Sun and does undergo a precessional axial movement (that is, the data is true)."
No, this is not actually correct.
There can be more than one model that accurately predicts some subset of observed phenomena.
And so sure as long as you ignore most observational evidence you can make a flat earth model work.
And while I do not know that the current scientific model is perfect it does reflect observation very well.
It is relatively easy to predict a time when you will see celestial events because the solar system is cyclical.
So understanding when something will occur is not that difficult understanding why it occurs is more difficult.
For example you can observe the strange path that the planets make and predict where they will be at any time of year pretty well. But answering why they make that path was more difficult. And that answer lead to the current model of the solar system which lead to space probes visiting other planets.
-
The questions posed here are extremely relevant, but they cannot be answered in the context of the official, faulty, UA acceleration.
Here is the only thread which DOES answer the ham radio/radar/GPS signal questions:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (+ 18 more pages of debate)
By the way, if any of the RE here want to totally destroy the UA acceleration hypothesis all they have to do is read the Beam Neutrino thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0#.Vf0UDNKqqko
I was the first to put forward/propose the correct FE map: the global, bi-polar, Piri Reis map, see:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961267#msg961267
I think the thread on the ham radio measurements should have settled the question of the distance and the method for measurements of the earth to the moon measurements. And unfortunately demonstrated quite of bit of ignorance on the subject on the part of flat earthers.
Also I should think the unipolar and bipolar projections of the globe should have settled the question of how they were made and from what source they were made.
-
My brief intervention here will come to a close with this remarkable article by Dr. Nikola Tesla:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm
Tesla describes the difference between sending signals which initiate ripples through the sea of ether (subquark strings) - modern day electromagnetic/wireless theory - and the true wireless: sending longitudinal waves through these transversal radio waves, without creating ripples.
-
My brief intervention here will come to a close with this remarkable article by Dr. Nikola Tesla:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm
Tesla describes the difference between sending signals which initiate ripples through the sea of ether (subquark strings) - modern day electromagnetic/wireless theory - and the true wireless: sending longitudinal waves through these transversal radio waves, without creating ripples.
This has nothing the do with the Doppler effect, I do not understand the purpose of this link is here.
At the time there was a question as to whether it would be practical to distribute electricity without wires and that is what Tesla was working on.
I do however think that particle wave theory is an interesting topic unto its self.
-
My brief intervention here will come to a close with this remarkable article by Dr. Nikola Tesla:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm
Tesla describes the difference between sending signals which initiate ripples through the sea of ether (subquark strings) - modern day electromagnetic/wireless theory - and the true wireless: sending longitudinal waves through these transversal radio waves, without creating ripples.
This has nothing the do with the Doppler effect, I do not understand the purpose of this link is here.
At the time there was a question as to whether it would be practical to distribute electricity without wires and that is what Tesla was working on.
I do however think that particle wave theory is an interesting topic unto its self.
Aren't you familiar with sandokhan's tactics ?
-
My tactic has always been to present the best possible information, the most remarkable insights, to the reader.
This has nothing the do with the Doppler effect, I do not understand the purpose of this link is here.
But it does.
The article by Dr. Tesla describes the difference between Hertzian waves (modern theory of e/m) and non-Hertzian waves (scalar waves).
Can you understand the difference?
Then everybody here will understand that the speed of light cannot a constant, but a variable, according to the density of the aether (medium through which ether travels/propagates).
Here are the original J.C. Maxwell equations and a clear description on how and why these equations were modified in order to conceal the existence of ether:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521
Dr. Nikola Tesla:
Ever since the announcement of Maxwell's electro-magnetic theory scientific investigators all the world over had been bent on its experimental verification. They were convinced that it would be done and lived in an atmosphere of eager expectancy, unusually favorable to the reception of any evidence to this end. No wonder then that the publication of Dr. Heinrich Hertz's results caused a thrill as had scarcely ever been experienced before. At that time I was in the midst of pressing work in connection with the commercial introduction of my system of power transmission, but, nevertheless, caught the fire of enthusiasm and fairly burned with desire to behold the miracle with my own eyes. Accordingly, as soon as I had freed myself of these imperative duties and resumed research work in my laboratory on Grand Street, New York, I began, parallel with high frequency alternators, the construction of several forms of apparatus with the object of exploring the field opened up by Dr. Hertz. Recognizing the limitations of the devices he had employed, I concentrated my attention on the production of a powerful induction coil but made no notable progress until a happy inspiration led me to the invention of the oscillation transformer. In the latter part of 1891 I was already so far advanced in the development of this new principle that I had at my disposal means vastly superior to those of the German physicist. All my previous efforts with Rhumkorf coils had left me unconvinced, and in order to settle my doubts I went over the whole ground once more, very carefully, with these improved appliances. Similar phenomena were noted, greatly magnified in intensity, but they were susceptible of a different and more plausible explanation. I considered this so important that in 1892 I went to Bonn, Germany, to confer with Dr. Hertz in regard to my observations. He seemed disappointed to such a degree that I regretted my trip and parted from him sorrowfully. During the succeeding years I made numerous experiments with the same object, but the results were uniformly negative.
In 1900, however, after I had evolved a wireless transmitter which enabled me to obtain electro-magnetic activities of many millions of horse-power, I made a last desperate attempt to prove that the disturbances emanating from the oscillator were ether vibrations akin to those of light, but met again with utter failure. For more than eighteen years I have been reading treatises, reports of scientific transactions, and articles on Hertz-wave telegraphy, to keep myself informed, but they have always imprest me like works of fiction.
Hertz made a collosal mistake: he created shock waves in air, not true electromagnetic waves, that is, just ripples in the sea of ether.
In 1887, Heinrich Hertz announced that he had discovered electromagnetic
waves, an achievement at that time of no small imporl. In 1889, Nikola Tesla
attempted the reproduction of these Hertzian experiments. Conducted with
absolute exactness in his elegant South Fifth Avenue Laboratory, Tesla found
himself incapable of producing the reported effects. No means however applied
would produce the effects which Hertz claimed. Tesla began experimenting
with abrupt and powerful electric discharges, using oil filled mica
capacitors charged to very high potentials. He found it possible to explode thin
wires with these abrupt discharges. Dimly perceiving something of importance
in this experimental series, Tesla abandoned this experimental series, all the
while pondering the mystery and suspecting that Hertz had somehow mistakenly
associated electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves in air for true
electromagnetic waves.
In fact, Tesla visited Hertz and personally proved these
refined observations to Hertz who, being convinced that Tesla was correct,
was about to withdraw his thesis. Hertz was truly disappointed, and Tesla
greatly regretted having to go to such lengths with an esteemed academician in
order to prove a point.
-
Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?
I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.
No, that's not how you do. If you interpret scientific fact, and your understanding of it is questioned, you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself", simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.
This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for. Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.
Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.
With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.
-
No, that's not how you do.
I'll do as I please, thanks.
If you interpret scientific fact
I did no such thing.
you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself"
Damn, it's a good thing I never did that. That would be terrible!
simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.
I didn't know that the mechanics behind the Doppler Effect are far-fetched or frowned upon. Clearly, we've met very different scientists.
No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium. Since no credible opposition exists (other than markjo's "nuh-uh that ain't so!" and your "you said things and I don't like it!", of course), there is no opposition for me to address. If you'd like to question the scientific consensus on the Doppler Effect, I welcome you to present your arguments, and I'll happily address them. However, I do not feel in any way obliged to respond to people who just keep saying "no" without any substantiation.
This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for.
I've done both of these things.
Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.
Yes. It's a good thing I linked to a bunch of Wikipedia articles with a plethora of supporting citations. Otherwise, you almost might have a point!
Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.
I have to explain the Doppler Effect to markjo because you think I'm a Flat Earther?
What an utterly warped view of science you have. You seem to think that what I am is more important than what I say.
If I, as someone you consider to be a Flat Earther, claim that humans need to breathe in order to survive and provide no evidence to the fact, will you also dismiss that as false because it was said by an FE'er?
With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.
Yes, I'm sure telling markjo to brush up on his high school physics and providing good sources to facilitate it was somehow significant. Keep living your dream.
-
No, that's not how you do.
I'll do as I please, thanks.
If you interpret scientific fact
I did no such thing.
you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself"
Damn, it's a good thing I never did that. That would be terrible!
simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.
I didn't know that the mechanics behind the Doppler Effect are far-fetched or frowned upon. Clearly, we've met very different scientists.
No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium. Since no credible opposition exists (other than markjo's "nuh-uh that ain't so!" and your "you said things and I don't like it!", of course), there is no opposition for me to address. If you'd like to question the scientific consensus on the Doppler Effect, I welcome you to present your arguments, and I'll happily address them. However, I do not feel in any way obliged to respond to people who just keep saying "no" without any substantiation.
This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for.
I've done both of these things.
Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.
Yes. It's a good thing I linked to a bunch of Wikipedia articles with a plethora of supporting citations. Otherwise, you almost might have a point!
Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.
I have to explain the Doppler Effect to markjo because you think I'm a Flat Earther?
What an utterly warped view of science you have. You seem to think that what I am is more important than what I say.
If I, as someone you consider to be a Flat Earther, claim that humans need to breathe in order to survive and provide no evidence to the fact, will you also dismiss that as false because it was said by an FE'er?
With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.
Yes, I'm sure telling markjo to brush up on his high school physics and providing good sources to facilitate it was somehow significant. Keep living your dream.
Yes! That's the spirit! A 1½ page of teflon, as per usual with you people. :)
What a nice day it turned out to be after all.
-
Ah, no actual response, as per usual with you people.
Confronting you is such great fun. You don't think ahead far enough to realise that people might question you.
-
No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium.
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite? Please use small words if you can. You know how slow I can be sometimes.
-
You don't think ahead far enough to realise that people might question you.
You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium? How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift? Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.
By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length. They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B. If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium. Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
-
No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium.
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite? Please use small words if you can. You know how slow I can be sometimes.
Radio signals transmitted from stationary towers also have Doppler shift caused by the ionosphere. It's easy to find...look it up.
-
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite? Please use small words if you can. You know how slow I can be sometimes.
Sure: If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable. That is, of course, providing you with the generous assumption that it even is consistent, but we might as well give you that for now to make it easier for you.
See, little Timmy? That wasn't too hard.
You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium? How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift? Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.
I agree. That's why I posted a Wikipedia link and pointed out what exactly markjo was missing. Judging from his answer above, he understood me, so I'm not sure why you think you lying about the conversation to date will help anyone.
By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length. They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B. If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium. Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. Conveniently, that's exactly where your analogy breaks down.
Something something intellectual dishonesty.
-
I'm not sure why you think you lying about the conversation to date will help anyone.
You're beautiful.
Here is how this conversation got started:
For starters, how about the fact that [Doppler Shifting of GPS and other satellite signals] exists and it shouldn't if GPS signals were ground based?
But it should. The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists.
What does that have to do with Doppler shift? If the GPS transmitters are ground based, then there should be no relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, therefor no Doppler shift.
Any electromagnetic waves are going to be emitted at a certain velocity, which will of course be affected by the current velocity of the Earth. However, the moment the waves leave the transmitter they are no longer affected by Universal Acceleration. As such, there will be relative motion between the transmitted waves and the receiver beyond the initial relative velocity, which will, of course, lead to the Doppler effect being observable.
Next:
Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?
I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.
After a little more back and forth, Markjo asked: "Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?"
And finally my question: "if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium? How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift?"
I was trying to be as specific as possible with my question in order to avoid the part where you find some weird reason to obfuscate the actual discussion, but that obviously backfired. You still haven't answered the question; you're just doing the usual song and dance of being crazy smug about not explaining yourself. I don't understand how, in an accelerating medium, a stationary observer can receive signals from a stationary transmitter and get both a redshift and a blueshift at different times.
I'm also a bit confused. Your original argument was that the Doppler shifting should exist because "The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists." Your new argument to Markjo is, "If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable." Which is it? Is it that the ground transmitters are rigged to give false signals, or do you prefer your original argument that they're a consequence of motion through an accelerating medium?
By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length. They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B. If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium. Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. Conveniently, that's exactly where your analogy breaks down.
Something something intellectual dishonesty.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter if we consider the trains to be accelerating through a stationary medium, or stationary in an accelerating medium. The effect is the same so long as the trains are stationary with respect to one another.
-
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite? Please use small words if you can. You know how slow I can be sometimes.
Sure: If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable. That is, of course, providing you with the generous assumption that it even is consistent, but we might as well give you that for now to make it easier for you.
See, little Timmy? That wasn't too hard.
To which swirling medium are you referring? Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?
-
Here is how this conversation got started:
[snip]
Yes, thank you. I will generously assume that your omission of a significant chunk of the conversation is purely for the sake of brevity, and take this as a retraction on your part. Shame that you couldn't have just been honest to begin with.
I was trying to be as specific as possible with my question in order to avoid the part where you find some weird reason to obfuscate the actual discussion, but that obviously backfired.
Yes, trying to launch a strawman attack and lying about your opponent's position does tend to backfire. You'd think you'd learn that by now.
You still haven't answered the question; you're just doing the usual song and dance of being crazy smug about not explaining yourself. I don't understand how, in an accelerating medium, a stationary observer can receive signals from a stationary transmitter and get both a redshift and a blueshift at different times.
I can think of two scenarios: Either the acceleration of the medium changes, or we're not considering the same transmitter-observer combinations. The former is a fundamental concept in FET. The latter is just me rubbing your lack of imagination in your face.
I'm also a bit confused. Your original argument was that the Doppler shifting should exist because "The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists." Your new argument to Markjo is, "If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable."
Yes, your "confusion" stems from the fact that you really want to think that I made a new argument. I didn't. If you stopped trying so hard on trying to imagine what it might be that I'm thinking and just focused on reading what I'm saying, that would be pretty clear.
Then again, that would require you to approach the subject with a little bit of honesty.
Which is it? Is it that the ground transmitters are rigged to give false signals, or do you prefer your original argument that they're a consequence of motion through an accelerating medium?
It's neither, of course. The ground transmitters are not "rigged" in any way. The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter if we consider the trains to be accelerating through a stationary medium, or stationary in an accelerating medium. The effect is the same so long as the trains are stationary with respect to one another.
You're not misunderstanding me, you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation. You're correct, it doesn't matter if the trains are accelerating in a stationary medium or if they're stationary in an accelerating medium. The reason it doesn't matter is that both these scenarios are fundamentally inaccurate. We're looking at accelerating trains in an accelerating medium.
To which swirling medium are you referring?
Air and aether.
Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?
I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support that claim. That said, I would expect no two transmitter-receiver pairs to exhibit the same Doppler shift. Therefore, your question can be answered with "because FM radio and cell phone transmitters are not GPS transmitters"
-
Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?
I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support that claim. That said, I would expect no two transmitter-receiver pairs to exhibit the same Doppler shift. Therefore, your question can be answered with "because FM radio and cell phone transmitters are not GPS transmitters"
Interesting. I was under the impression that the general consensus among FE'ers is that cell phone transmitters are GPS transmitters.
-
Interesting. I was under the impression that the general consensus among FE'ers is that cell phone transmitters are GPS transmitters.
Where did you get that idea from?
-
I'm no longer going to entertain the absurd, and absurdly vague, attack that I'm lying to you about anything. If you believe that my verbatim quotes of you in this thread are inaccurate, then point it out specifically. If you think I've omitted an important quote from you that is apropos of my question, then point it out specifically.
The verbosity of my question had two functions: 1) to be as transparent and specific as possible about what I believe your argument to be, precisely to avoid your common misconception that I'm intentionally misrepresenting you; and, 2) to make it easier for you to identify what those discrepancies are if they exist. That way you can say things like, "That isn't accurate. I reject one of your premises, specifically that 'their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction[...]and[...]remains constant.'" Then I could have said something like, "Ah, I see, that does change things. It wasn't obvious to me that you think the aether is in motion. I was under the impression that the aether was believed to be stationary while the flat earth accelerated through it. My mistake. Now here are arguments..."
Each time I start a discussion with you I try to find a new way to bend over backwards to be as fair to your arguments as possible and as transparent as I can be about both my own arguments, and my characterizations of yours. And each time you somehow find a way not only to ignore that good faith, but also to use that transparency to call me a liar. It happens the same way every time. I try to correctly summarize your position openly, and then when I get something wrong or misunderstand you, you have the audacity to claim that it's evidence of of dishonesty rather than seeing it for what it is: a genuine effort to be as accurate and fair to your argument as possible.
You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium? How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift? Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.
By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length. They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B. If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium. Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. We're looking at accelerating trains in an accelerating medium.
This would have been the most direct way to state why you think your argument and my understanding of your argument diverge. And I did it all without a string of obfuscating, petty personal attacks! Amazing. Would the train analogy be satisfactory to you if we included high speed winds of varying directions?
I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support the claim that the aether is also accelerating. I thought that the aether was supposed to be stationary while the Earth accelerated through it.
Also, I think that your explanation causes more questions than it answers. Sure, if the aether was accelerating in just the right ways to cause the same patterns and timing of redshifts and blueshifts to an observer, then it would look like a satellite. But 1) it still begs the question of what causes the aether behaves in such a manner, and 2) it's just a truism: if a thing that isn't a satellite mimics all of the observable phenomenon associated with satellites, then it will appear to be a satellite. That's not really an explanation; it just avoids the question. The question is how.
-
I'm no longer going to entertain the absurd, and absurdly vague, attack that I'm lying to you about anything.
Of course you won't. That won't stop me from pointing out the fact of the matter. You're incapable of upholding an honest discussion, and so you don't deserve much consideration.
If you believe that my verbatim quotes of you in this thread are inaccurate, then point it out specifically. If you think I've omitted an important quote from you that is apropos of my question, then point it out specifically.
ok:
Yes, that velocity would be the speed of light (also known as c).
There's a reason I was talking about velocity and not speed. Can you guess what it is?
The speed of light is a constant
Well, kind of. We both know why you're wrong (hint: if you were right, we'd both be dead right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth)), but you're close enough, so let's roll with it.
regardless of your frame of reference.
Again, kind of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation). Of course, this is all moot, because we're talking about velocity.
The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Actually, it kind of refers to both (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect). Specifically, a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here.
I think that you're the one who has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
I don't particularly care what you think. I provided you with enough information for you to fill in the gaps in your high school knowledge. Whether or not you will do so is entirely your prerogative.
Specifically, you decided to omit the entire section of the discussion where I substantiate my position, present supporting articles, and explain why the articles support my case. You then claimed that no substantiation was presented [verbatim: "Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation."]. That's not just inaccurate. You're either genuinely incapable of keeping track of what you're reading (which I do not believe to be the case), or you're lying, as you're well known to do.
I'm not going to waste my time on your pathetic pity rant about how sad you feel because, despite trying oh-so-hard, you still fail to avoid mounting ridiculous strawman attacks. If it's really such a burden to respond to my posts and not your misrepresentations thereof, then perhaps you should consider talking to someone else.
2) it's just a truism: if a thing that isn't a satellite mimics all of the observable phenomenon associated with satellites, then it will appear to be a satellite. That's not really an explanation; it just avoids the question. The question is how.
Again, you're being dishonest. You're taking what I said ("the concept of satellites mimics reality") and turning it on its head ("something mimics satellites"). It's the satellite lie that has been specifically constructed to match observable phenomena. Yes, it is a truism. It's a truism that your side of the argument constructed.
I do not accept for a second that you're stupid enough to take what I said and, in good faith, assume that it means the opposite of what I said. You're a smart guy. You just really enjoy strawmen, especially those of the CEDA "debate" variety.
-
You're incapable of upholding an honest discussion, and so you don't deserve much consideration.
You're either genuinely incapable of keeping track of what you're reading (which I do not believe to be the case), or you're lying, as you're well known to do.
you still fail to avoid mounting ridiculous strawman attacks. If it's really such a burden to respond to my posts and not your misrepresentations thereof, then perhaps you should consider talking to someone else.
you're being dishonest.
I do not accept for a second that you're stupid enough to take what I said and, in good faith, assume that it means the opposite of what I said. You just really enjoy strawmen
There is a third possibility that you have failed to consider: maybe you don't "substantiate my position, present supporting articles, and explain why the articles support my case" to the degree that you think you do. Maybe you just aren't super clear about what you're tying to say all the time, and, perhaps without realizing it, you kind of hide your own point under a pile of snide remarks. I know for a fact that I'm not the first person on this forum to tell you that.
Yes, that velocity would be the speed of light (also known as c).
There's a reason I was talking about velocity and not speed. Can you guess what it is?
The speed of light is a constant
Well, kind of. We both know why you're wrong (hint: if you were right, we'd both be dead right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth)), but you're close enough, so let's roll with it.
regardless of your frame of reference.
Again, kind of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation). Of course, this is all moot, because we're talking about velocity.
The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Actually, it kind of refers to both (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect). Specifically, a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here.
I think that you're the one who has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
I don't particularly care what you think. I provided you with enough information for you to fill in the gaps in your high school knowledge. Whether or not you will do so is entirely your prerogative.
I omitted this section because you don't really say much. We'll have to agree to disagree I'm sure, but I think it's kind of laughable to suggest that this smattering of sentences represents "substantiat[ing] my position, present[ing] supporting articles, and explain[ing] why the articles support my case." Your answers are, in order: 1) can you guess what I mean? 2) Kind of. 3) Kind of. 4) "a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here." 5) I posted some Wikipedia links, so figure it out yourself.
These answers aren't exactly direct. Pretty much none of them are apropos of my question, except for number 4, from which I guess I'm supposed to infer that you believe that the earth is accelerating through the aether and also the aether is accelerating on its own at varying magnitudes and directions. I dunno how I could infer that from your remark, but ok.
Frankly, I read this sentence as, "if the velocity of the medium changes (ie, if the earth accelerates through the stationary medium), then there will be a Doppler effect, and that's what's happening." And, again, you could have clarified this misunderstanding for me in a single post of about two sentences without the complete derailment of the discussion to make everyone read about how much you dislike me.
If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable.
[...]
The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data.
[...]
You're taking what I said ("the concept of satellites mimics reality") and turning it on its head ("something mimics satellites"). It's the satellite lie that has been specifically constructed to match observable phenomena.
I do see where I lost you now. I took you to be talking about the towers you believe fake the satellite signals. As in, "if you make up a fake satellite and design it to match expected observable data, then it will appear to be a satellite."
Your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
If it makes the difference, this question was totally sincere:
Suppose you could have a one-hour conversation with any human being, alive or dead; he or she will answer any question you have with complete honesty; the conversation is only with you, and you can't record any of it; whom would you choose and why?
-
Gary, I hope you won't be any more outraged that you already are if I tell you that your pathetic attempts at making yourself look sincere aren't achieving their purpose. If you come back with an honest argument, I'll take you up on that, but until then you'll have to satisfy yourself with my advice of "talk to somebody else".
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Yes. What are your thoughts on Doppler shift in GPS signals?
-
Gary, I hope you won't be any more outraged that you already are if I tell you that your pathetic attempts at making yourself look sincere aren't achieving their purpose. If you come back with an honest argument, I'll take you up on that, but until then you'll have to satisfy yourself with my advice of "talk to somebody else".
Who said anything about outrage? I've been polite and reasonable throughout this whole conversation. As I've mentioned every other time you do this: all you have to do, at any time, in any conversation with me, is say, "Hey, that's not my position. My position is this and this and this." Without fail, my reaction will be something like, "My mistake; with this corrected understanding, here's what I now think."
As I often do, I've tried multiple times in this thread to concede outright that you are correct that I have misstated your position and move forward from there; you are only incorrect about the cause of the misstatement. Nevertheless, you continue to fixate counterproductively on the latter over the former.
So, your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
-
I don't think you understood my most recent message. Or, well, I doubt you sincerely didn't understand it, but you sure are acting like it.
-
I don't think you understood my most recent message. Or, well, I doubt you sincerely didn't understand it, but you sure are acting like it.
For like the quattuordecillionth time (thanks, Wikipedia), I concede I misstated your position originally and am trying to move forward based on my corrected understanding. Your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
-
No. I phrased it in a couple of distinct ways already, and it's a mundane enough statement that it shouldn't even require that. You're not confused at all, you're just hoping to get me to misspeak so you can jump on that, and then get offended when I call you out.
This vicious circle isn't worth our time, Gary.
-
Here's another question for Tom. Rowbotham and others claim that Polaris can be seen as far south of the equator as the tropic of Capricorn. Other than FE specific literature, do you know of any documented sighting of Polaris more than a degree or two south of the equator and if so, would you please provide the appropriate documentation?
-
I have been a Flat Earther for over 8 years. I have seen and debated it all. Ask me anything and I will provide an answer.
8 years... that is a long time. Longer than most kids live with the notion of a flat Earth. How exactly does one become a flat-earther? By that, what evidence actually convinced you that the earth was flat?
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
If it makes the difference, this question was totally sincere:
Suppose you could have a one-hour conversation with any human being, alive or dead; he or she will answer any question you have with complete honesty; the conversation is only with you, and you can't record any of it; whom would you choose and why?
That would be Diogenes of Sinope.
http://classicalwisdom.com/diogenes-of-sinope/
Diogenes was constantly dirty, disheveled, and often smelled of filth. He urinated and defecated in public, and it was not uncommon for him to literally spit in the faces of those who disagreed with him. For this reason, Diogenes was sometimes referred to as “Diogenes the dog”.
Rather than being offended, Diogenes reveled in the idea of being more like a dog. A dog, he believed, was more in touch with nature and therefore more closely in tune with true happiness. The dog does not care for social status or material possessions; the dog does not make himself a slave to the superficial desires that so plague the hearts of men. The dog lives life in the present and does not concern itself with abstract notions that might damage the soul.
The philosopher believed very firmly that man is not above nature. We are inescapably a part of it, and the further we retreat from this truth, hiding behind our lavish houses and material treasures, the further we withdraw from true virtue.
A few antecdotes from theunboundspirit.com (http://theunboundedspirit.com/the-philosophy-of-diogenes/):
When Alexander the Great addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, Diogenes replied "Yes, stand a little out of my sunshine"
Diogenes was washing his clothes and dishes on a river, then Plato approached and said 'Diogenes, if you worked for the king, you wouldn't be washing your clothes and dishes' then Diogenes replied 'Plato, if you washed your clothes and dishes, you wouldn't have to work for the king'
Diogenes stood outside a brothel, shouting, “A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore . . . ” Men entering the house threw him a coin or two to shut him up. Eventually Diogenes had collected enough money and he too went into the brothel.
He is also purported to have said "Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves?"
A heckler in the crowd shouted out, “My mind is not made like that, I can’t be bothered with philosophy.” “Why do you bother to live,” Diogenes retorted, “if you can’t be bothered to live properly?”
“It’s my fate to steal,” pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes. “Then it is also your fate to be beaten,” said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.
Often when he was begging, Diogenes would be spat on by the people who passed him. Diogenes would ignore this and simply wipe his face with his sleeve. When ridiculed for his passive behavior, Diogenes said, “Since men endure being wetted by the sea in order to net a mere herring, should I not endure being sprinkled to net my dinner?”
A famous athlete was making his triumphal entry into the city after another successful games. As he was carried along, he was unable to tear his eyes away from the many beautiful women among the onlookers.
“Look at our bave victor,” remarked Diogenes, “taken captive by every girl he sees.”
“Why is it, Diogenes, that pupils leave you to go to other teachers, but rarely do they leave them to come to you?”
“Because,” replied Diogenes, “one can make eunuchs out of men, but no one can make a man out of eunuchs.”
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Yes. What are your thoughts on Doppler shift in GPS signals?
Who measured this?
Three 'new' questions for Tom Bishop.
-1- How is it possible that some people are 100% sure that the earth is a sphere and
that some people are 100% certain that the earth is flat?
-2- Is there except for long distance observations another solid evidence that the earth is flat?
-3- Some say that as the dark side of the earth (night time) is facing a different part of the universe during December-January and June-July (in the heliocentric model) you can figure out what the shape is of the earth. Is this possible and did you check this?
1.The only people claiming 100% certainty are Round Earthers. The Zetetic philosophy back to Rowbotham holds the concept of truth as being subject to change, based on the best available evidence.
2. Our everyday experience suggests that the earth is flat, and this is not an unreasonable starting point. The Flat Earth Society has shown the holes in Aristotile's "3 Proofs" and has shown NASA's media to be questionable. Once a piece of evidence is shown to be credible and difficult to dispute, the Flat Earth Society will cease to exist.
If NASA were a honest and transparent organization they would open their research to third party peer review. For example, many question whether the Lunar Lander is actually a poorly crafted prop. (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) NASA could alleviate such concerns by allowing a third party to inspect one of the allegedly real Lunar Landers sitting in a museum and authenticate that it is actually a 6 billion dollar space-worthy piece of engineering.
3. The stars passing by overhead from east to west only suggests that they are passing by from east to west. The stars moving northward or southward in the sky over the course of the year only suggests that they are moving that direction in the sky over the course of the year.
The interplay of the movement of the stars have not "proven the earth to be round". It must first be proven that the earth is actually rotating, otherwise the path of the stars can be attributed to other causes. The works of astronomers Tycho Brache and Giovanni Riccioli show many tests which suggests the earth does not rotate.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
See the bolded above.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Yes. What are your thoughts on Doppler shift in GPS signals?
Who measured this?
First of all, are you suggesting that Doppler shift should not be present in any satellite originating signals including, but not limited to GPS signals? If so, then you might be interested to know that such Doppler shift from a satellite was used to help determine the approximate flight path of flight MH370 before it completely disappeared.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/inmarsat-helps-finding-route/
Secondly, as for who measured this shift... Well, it seems like pretty much anyone who works on designing the nuts and bolts of GPS navigation.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.518.619&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www-research.cege.ucl.ac.uk/GNSSsig/pdf/Doppler_Draft_V1_MBahrami.pdf
http://math.tut.fi/posgroup/DopplerPositioningwithGPS.pdf
-
If NASA were a honest and transparent organization they would open their research to third party peer review.
Tom, did you know that NASA does open their research to third party peer review?
https://informal.jpl.nasa.gov/reviewer/Process
https://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/qs/peer_review.html
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2014/12/05/NASA_Plan_for_increasing_access_to_results_of_federally_funded_research.pdf
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Here is one question that I think has not been brought up.:
What is your opinion of the horizon ?
I believe the flat earth version says that the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in an infinite distance.
The round earth version says that the horizon is a distinct line where earth and sky meet on the land (or sea and sky meet on the ocean.) And that the distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer and can be determined by a simple formula.The higher the observer is, the farther he can see to the horizon.
-
Gary, I hope you won't be any more outraged that you already are if I tell you that your pathetic attempts at making yourself look sincere aren't achieving their purpose. If you come back with an honest argument, I'll take you up on that, but until then you'll have to satisfy yourself with my advice of "talk to somebody else".
Who said anything about outrage? I've been polite and reasonable throughout this whole conversation. As I've mentioned every other time you do this: all you have to do, at any time, in any conversation with me, is say, "Hey, that's not my position. My position is this and this and this." Without fail, my reaction will be something like, "My mistake; with this corrected understanding, here's what I now think."
As I often do, I've tried multiple times in this thread to concede outright that you are correct that I have misstated your position and move forward from there; you are only incorrect about the cause of the misstatement. Nevertheless, you continue to fixate counterproductively on the latter over the former.
So, your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
Would you also say that "The amateur radio "Moon Bounce" fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data." ?
Or would you also say that "The fantasy of astronauts having placed laser reflectors on the moon and the astronomical observatories fantasy of reflecting laser beams off these reflectors to measure the distance from the earth to the moon was designed in such a way that it fits observable data." ?
-
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Yes. What are your thoughts on Doppler shift in GPS signals?
Who measured this?
Three 'new' questions for Tom Bishop.
-1- How is it possible that some people are 100% sure that the earth is a sphere and
that some people are 100% certain that the earth is flat?
-2- Is there except for long distance observations another solid evidence that the earth is flat?
-3- Some say that as the dark side of the earth (night time) is facing a different part of the universe during December-January and June-July (in the heliocentric model) you can figure out what the shape is of the earth. Is this possible and did you check this?
1.The only people claiming 100% certainty are Round Earthers. The Zetetic philosophy back to Rowbotham holds the concept of truth as being subject to change, based on the best available evidence.
2. Our everyday experience suggests that the earth is flat, and this is not an unreasonable starting point. The Flat Earth Society has shown the holes in Aristotile's "3 Proofs" and has shown NASA's media to be questionable. Once a piece of evidence is shown to be credible and difficult to dispute, the Flat Earth Society will cease to exist.
If NASA were a honest and transparent organization they would open their research to third party peer review. For example, many question whether the Lunar Lander is actually a poorly crafted prop. (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) NASA could alleviate such concerns by allowing a third party to inspect one of the allegedly real Lunar Landers sitting in a museum and authenticate that it is actually a 6 billion dollar space-worthy piece of engineering.
3. The stars passing by overhead from east to west only suggests that they are passing by from east to west. The stars moving northward or southward in the sky over the course of the year only suggests that they are moving that direction in the sky over the course of the year.
The interplay of the movement of the stars have not "proven the earth to be round". It must first be proven that the earth is actually rotating, otherwise the path of the stars can be attributed to other causes. The works of astronomers Tycho Brache and Giovanni Riccioli show many tests which suggests the earth does not rotate.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
See the bolded above.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
1. Only about 99.9999% of the earth's population know that the earth is a globe. This has been known for centuries. Geodetic surveys alone are enough evidence of a globe.
2.Why anyone would believe that the earth is flat is a mystery to 99.99999% of the earth's population. Geodetic surveys have been made of the entire earth. If the earth was flat the so-called "ice ring" would have been discovered. Anyone believing in a flat earth would have to deny all reality .
-
1. Only about 99.9999% of the earth's population know that the earth is a globe. This has been known for centuries. Geodetic surveys alone are enough evidence of a globe.
2.Why anyone would believe that the earth is flat is a mystery to 99.99999% of the earth's population. Geodetic surveys have been made of the entire earth. If the earth was flat the so-called "ice ring" would have been discovered. Anyone believing in a flat earth would have to deny all reality .
This is a thread Tom Bishop started for people who have questions about the Flat Earth.
It is very rude of you to try to (mis)use this thread for your propaganda.
I will re-phrase my questions for Tom Bishop:
1.What is your opinion of the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon ?
2.What is your opinion of the description of the horizon and the distance to the horizon from the observer ?
-
1. If this is trolling, more than one can play the game.
2.Of course I know the answers. I would just like to see what Tom Bishop's answers would be. The questions were just "Ask Tom Bishop" to see what his answers would be.
The thought in asking these questions was that maybe some persons - maybe new visitors to this website - haven't seen those questions before and would be interested in seeing Tom Bishop's answers.