Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: Today at 09:06:47 AM »
This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.

both apply to the e-m-s system.  the moon is ~1% the mass of the earth and has a circular orbit around the earth-moon barycenter.  the earth is like negative infinity times less massive than the sun and has a circular orbit around the earth-sun barycenter.  both conditions are fulfilled.

The paths of both massive objects do not make simple circular orbits. The earth  does not make a circular orbit around the sun, it makes an elliptical one.

And the mass of the moon is hardly negligable. The examples in the circular restricted problem pdf have the earth-moon system as the two large masses the spaceshop interacts with.

I will respond the the rest of it later. The things you mention are not applicable and not in line with the actual methods involved. You are so dishonest.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:08:49 PM »
this is wildly untrue.  the history of eclipse prediction is robust and dynamic.

the earth-moon-sun system is a special case of the 3-body problem called the circular restricted 3-body problem.  basically if m1 >> m2 >> m3, and if m2 and m3 have circular orbits, then the 3-body problem is tractable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf
Quote
Hill considered a special case of the CR3BP in which two masses were much smaller than the first one (the problem is now known as the Hill problem), and in this way he discovered a new class of periodic solutions. His main contribution was to present a new approach to solve the Sun-Earth-Moon three-body problem. After almost two hundred years since the original formulation of the problem by Newton [1687], Hill developed his lunar theory, which with some modifications made by Brown [1896], is still being used today in celestial mechanics [Gutzwiller, 1998].

the gutzwiller paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion for the cr3bp developed by hill, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589

This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.

http://ccar.colorado.edu/imd/2015/documents/CRTBP_Handout.pdf

Quote
The Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (CRTBP) has been examined for over 200 years. The formulation
of the equations of motion for the CRTBP presented here generally follows the work of Szebehely,1
although Szebehely provides far more detail. Figure 1 depicts the geometry of the three-body system. In the
CRTBP, the mass of the third body (i.e., the spacecraft) is assumed to be negligible in comparison to the two
massive bodies
, defined as the primary and the secondary (collectively termed the primaries). It can further
be assumed that the two primaries are subjected to the Keplerian laws that govern two-body motion. In
addition, it is assumed that the two primaries rotate in circular orbits about the center of mass of the system,
known as the barycenter.
It is then possible to model the motion of the spacecraft in a frame of reference
that rotates about the barycenter at the same rotation rate as the two primaries.

Quote from: garygreen
saros cycles only tell you when an eclipse you've already seen will recur.  they don't predict any other eclipses.  since the babylonians were never in north america, no babylonian saros cycle will tell you that a total solar eclipse is going to occur in salem, oregon, on august 21, 2017, at ~10:15am and be visible for ~90 seconds.  some nerds with computers figured that out on their own.

The Saros Cycle has been updates since the time of the Babylonians to include data from world wide observation of the eclipses. This is described on NASA's Eclipse Website. No solving of the three body problem was necessary, since the Saros Cycle is purely a pattern based method based on past observations.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:34:22 PM »
If even the slightest shred of what you are saying has any remote truth to it, why is it that we can predict where exactly planets and stars are going to be 100s of years from now?

How is it that we know the exact date and time of the upcoming solar eclipse?

Why are you fighting a battle you know has no cause and you have already lost?

Astronomers use a prediction method for celestial events based on pattern recognition of past occurrences in the sky to predict when the next occurrence will occur. This is the way events in astronomy have been predicted for thousands of years, and while different forms of math and different cycle periods have been used at times to make this pattern match prediction, the basic method remains unchanged.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:55:27 AM »
Ah, so even though the globe folded out with North at the center and South at the perimeter is often shown as the FE model, there is not 'official' map for the FE society. Am I right?

That is either most convenient, or most unfortunate.

They are just projections of the globe that someone found and presented as a possible Flat Earth map for further investigation. The distortion of the continents gives away that it's a projection of a globe.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:12:53 AM »
What is still being investigated?  There are plenty of flight records that show that you are completely 100% wrong.

What flight records? None have been posted. And how do they prove a map which does not exist wrong?

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:48:52 AM »
What am I supposed to explain? I was given a flight prediction for a flight time which might occur, not a flight record, and two proposed hypothetical map possibilities for a Flat Earth which are currently being investigated. The argument made seems a little weak,.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:21:52 AM »
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.

Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.

Quote
You mean here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?

That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.

However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia

Quote
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.

If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 18, 2017, 05:46:22 PM »
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.

After reading the chapter a question pops up on how the explanation would apply to Lake Michigan, as it is a lake and not a sea. My point was to clarify that Lake Michigan is actually an inland sea.

Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it.

The chapter explains how observations on a sea are different than observations on smaller standing bodies of water. Lake Michigan being a sea and not a lake is relevant to the chapter.

Quote
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.

The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.

Quote
But what I haven't seen is current day experiments that produce the same results as Robowtham linked here. We haven't seen current day proofs of the refutation of the sinking ship effect linked here.

Have you not seen the Flat Earth resurgence on youtube? People are making a ton of experiments. There are even laser experiments. Go to youtube and start searching.

Quote
We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here.

There is a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later renamed Earth), available in the libraries of this site and the .org site, which reviewed Rowbotham's original experiments.

Quote
You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote?

Is there something wrong with your computer? Recent Flat Earth experiments are available on youtube. Off you go!

9
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 18, 2017, 05:09:08 PM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake".  It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.

Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!

I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.

Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!

That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.

Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:48:28 PM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea:
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:46:31 AM »
That sounds like a good idea. Mission approved. Report back to us with your findings.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:42:20 AM »
Yes, thank you Tom, I actually do know how rockets and airplanes work.  What I'm saying is that on a flat earth where nothing goes to space, the US and Soviet ICBM's DID NOT GO TO SPACE either.  Therefore, it must be true (on a flat earth) that missiles get where they're going by flying high and fast in the thin upper atmosphere, and if you are China or India why not just say so instead of joining the US and USSR in their big space lie?  Most people have only a vague idea of how things work outside their own areas of expertise, and most FE think the average person is pretty easily fooled by the round earth you find so preposterous; why wouldn't those same sheeple easily accept yet another preposterous explanation, this time covering a false description of how ICBM's work?

Well, there was a World War, in which people believe that the only reason Hitler couldn't reach the United States with his rockets is that he couldn't get them into orbit. It's not some obscure topic.

Quote
Well, they could start with your proof that the earth isn't a globe.  "Have you ever seen these 'dragons' that Rounder claims to have?  No?  Okay then, have you ever seen ANY dragons, anywhere?  No?  Well, why do you believe Rounder then?"  Plus, if this is what it takes to calm their kids down, I bet my neighbors would be willing to fly a drone into my 'dragon barns' to show the kids that they're empty, no dragons at all.  Even if it meant losing their drone.

How would that prove that there are no such things as dragons? You see them all the time on TV and there are rumors around school that there is a dragon living in the forest.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:25:49 AM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

14
That has nothing to do with the definition or procedures for those methods. Please refrain from making things up.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 17, 2017, 09:33:48 PM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 09:27:26 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".

They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.

The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.

Quote
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 09:16:26 PM »
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.

Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.

If you seek clarification for why waves or seas or lakes matter, read the chapter you were directed to.

18
Please stay on topic.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 07:35:37 PM »
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.

Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 06:26:27 PM »
But Tom - why do you accept Rowbotham's result rather than Ulysses Grant Morrow's very similar experiment which "proved" that the Earth is concave and Henry Yule Oldham's result which "proved" that the Earth is convex?

There are NUMEROUS results from these kinds of test that show all three outcomes.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment - which describes the whole horrible fiasco.)

Why dismiss Morrow and Oldham out of hand and accept Rowbotham?

Oldham was his only witness as he took his pictures where Rowbotham and Blount had plenty.

Per Morrow, he speaks highly of Rowbotham in his book, supported the results of Rowbotham's experiments 100%, and conducts similar experiments of looking at things across long bodies of water, making the same conclusions that water is not convex. He does bring up some other points which might suggest that the earth is concave, but he had no problem with the results of the water convexity experiments Rowbotham describes. I encourage you to read Morrow's work.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110  Next >