*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2436
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Ask 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.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2015, 05:50:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2579
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2015, 03:03:55 PM »
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?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2015, 03:47:25 PM »
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 ?
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2436
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2015, 06:49:58 PM »
-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.

Quote
-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.

Quote
-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.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 04:54:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2015, 07:13:53 PM »
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?
shitposting leftists are never alone

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2015, 12:27:54 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 04:12:17 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2436
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2015, 04:45:45 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.
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.

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

    "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.

Flip to the second page of that link and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"

Quote
I also came across this bad boy right here. seems legit, but I am no expert.
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.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 04:59:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2579
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2015, 12:20:12 PM »
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?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5812
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2015, 01:26:52 PM »
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.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2579
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2015, 07:43:34 PM »
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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5812
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2015, 11:41:04 PM »
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.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2579
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2015, 02:14:20 AM »
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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2015, 04:55:57 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 04:52:17 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5812
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2015, 07:39:04 PM »
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), but you're close enough, so let's roll with it.

regardless of your frame of reference.
Again, kind of. 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. 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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 07:42:56 PM by SexWarrior »
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2579
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2015, 09:56:33 PM »
The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Actually, it kind of refers to both. 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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 09:58:36 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2436
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2015, 11:54:55 PM »
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

Quote
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:

Quote from: Wikipedia


Amateur Radio antenna array used for Earth–Moon–Earth communication on 144 MHz. Location Kilafors in Middle Sweden. Owner Sverker Hedberg, SM3PWM.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 11:59:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2579
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2015, 01:46:10 AM »
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:

Quote from: Wikipedia


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
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2015, 03:44:17 AM »
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."
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2436
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2015, 04:48:28 AM »
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:

Quote from: Wikipedia


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?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2436
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2015, 04:49:14 AM »
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?