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 ... 90  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 28, 2017, 04:35:57 PM »
Of course there aren't. The minute prediction of the coming solar eclipse and detailed information about where it can be observed is a proof of your [Citation needed] claim.

Just go to NASA's Eclipse Web Site  -> Resources -> Eclipses and the Soros where we read:

    "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

That is the only method given for finding the eclipse on that entire website. The modern astronomers at NASA are not using orbital models. They are using a method created thousands of years ago by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.

2
I doubt he cares what you and I think of him. But he'd probably get a good laugh if he read this thread.  ;D

You are not making very much sense. In some posts you seem to be saying that Shaq does not like to be called an idiot. Shaq seems to agree with that through what he said in his second statement.

In other posts you seem to be saying that Shaq wanted the world to thing that he was an idiot with his first statement. He gets off on that and doesn't care about public opinion.

You are being pretty contradictory. Please clarify.

I can't clarify it to you because you don't seem to know what a joke is.

One way people joke around is to say something that people will think is outrageous just to get a re-action(people wondering if they are crazy) . A short time later they laugh and say they were just joking. If they did it right, everybody laughs. Revealing that you were just joking is part of the joke. If you leave it hanging nobody laughs. This may sound silly, especially to someone as dry and humorless as yourself but it happens all the time.

What are you talking about? Does Shaq care about public opinion and everyone calling him an idiot or not?

If no, he doesn't care, then why does he communicate that he does care?

If yes, he does care, then why did he deliberately leave everyone to think that he was an idiot?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 28, 2017, 04:20:51 PM »
You might want to run that by with some of your developer friends, TextWarrior for instance.

You don't think it's possible to make a javascript that can repeat a pattern?

Quote
Other than that, please keep up the defense. This thread is becoming my favorite thread as well. You rarely get to see someone make such a fool of himself, repeatedly. :)

What defense? The RE side consists solely of claiming that there are accurate orbital models when there are not.

4
I doubt he cares what you and I think of him. But he'd probably get a good laugh if he read this thread.  ;D

You are not making very much sense. In some posts you seem to be saying that Shaq does not like to be called an idiot. Shaq seems to agree with that through what he said in his second statement.

In other posts you seem to be saying that Shaq wanted the world to thing that he was an idiot with his first statement. He gets off on that and doesn't care about public opinion.

You are being pretty contradictory. Please clarify.
Maybe Shaq wanted to see how many people are gullible enough to believe that he's dumb enough to think that the earth is flat.

Why are you avoiding the question? It's either Shaq doesn't care about public opinion and being called an idiot or he does care about public opinion and doesn't like being called an idiot.

In his second statement he is clearly saying that he didn't like what people were saying about him. So, an explanation please?

5
Quote
I sent another reply before seeing your invitation to discuss it here.

You say, "Mapping the world is a ridiculously simple task?"

Mapping a two dimensional object onto a two dimensional sheet of paper is ridiculously simple....in comparison to mapping a three dimensional object to a two dimensional piece of paper. The latter requires the use of perspective. The former does not. Again, a small enough area makes this obvious, so a blueprint or elevation drawing of a 20,000 square foot building is for all practical purposes completely accurate and does not require the use of perspective techniques. If I want to focus on one corner of the building/blueprint, I just move my eyes over that part of the blueprint to get an accurate sense of the proportions of the rooms in that corner. However an artist's rendering of that same building as it appears from a distance would need to use all of the tricks of perspective to make it look proportional due to the introduction of a third dimension to the drawing (the distance from the artist's eyes to the various parts of the building). So the artist would draw a distant part of the building with smaller dimensions and a nearer part of the building with larger dimensions. If a builder tried to build the building by using the dimensions of the artist's view, the building would be bizarrely proportioned.

Sorry, but I don't see how anything of you said really has mapping the world trivially easy.

Quote
All of the distances are known and have been measured on the surface of the earth or in the air in numerous surveys.

Please provide us the database of the measured distances between every point on earth if you think that all of this exists somewhere. This is the second time I have asked.

Quote
All the map maker would need to do if the earth was flat is enter all of those distances. Someone on youtube actually tried to do this with the flat earth map by adjusting it to show distances that correspond to actual flight times:   Unfortunately, he was unable to adjust his map to take into account all of the flight times and distances. To check this,you just need to look at some of the flights I have already mentioned, i.e. Sydney to Johannesburg versus Sydney to Santiago. Or you can just look at the flight from Sydney to Perth and realize his map is grossly inaccurate. On his map, the distance from Sydney to Perth is much greater than the distance from the Panama Canal to the north pole.

Did he use the bi-polar model of the earth? Were his numbers for flight times from a website that merely gave a predicted estimate?

Quote
And I notice you did not address the simple fact that all of the distances between any two points on earth correspond exactly and perfectly to scale when using a globe.  Why do you suppose that is the case?

I have yet to see evidence from you that this is the case.

Quote
Do you not find it intriguing at the very least that a ball shaped representation of the earth is completely accurate when any two-dimensional representation is invariably inaccurate? Why would any two dimensional representations of the earth have any distortion if the earth were truly flat (and therefore the earth was two-dimensional for the purposes of map making)? Even a flat representation of the United States incurs these distortions if you use a large enough scale and measure carefully enough.

Navigators sure seem to have been using these inaccurate maps to navigate the world for hundreds of years. What makes you think that they could not use an inaccurate globe?

Quote
Your response that maps are not accurate is a classic straw man argument. I did not say maps are accurate. I said the globe is accurate. How do you explain that fact?

Navigators are able to use those inaccurate maps to navigate, despite Greenland being the size of Africa. How do we know that the globe is accurate?

Quote
You also said, "Where is your evidence that the distance between every point on earth is completely accurate? You are just waving your hands around without any real large scale evidence to point to."

The evidence is all of the recorded info throughout history about the distances between two points when traveled by foot, car, ship or airplane.

Where are these records then? Come on.

Quote
All of the flight times and distances I have quoted in this thread and tens of thousands more are accurate when plotted on a globe.

It appears that you merely went to Kyak.com and got some flight estimates. How do we know that those estimates will meet reality? 1 out of 4 flights are delayed.

Quote
How much evidence do you need? It is easy to test for yourself. Pick any two cities, say Sydney and Perth. Measure them on a globe with a clearly marked scale and then compare that to a driving map showing distances or a flight path showing distances.

Any inaccuracies would be due to the shape of the roads on the ground, but in the air, they will compare to within a small degree. Remember that even airplanes must follow "highways" in the sky, so some inaccuracies would be introduced. But the results will be more accurate and consistent than any two dimensional map ever created. And in the case of the flat earth maps I have seen so far, the consistency and accuracy is many orders of magnitude greater on a globe.

Again, please show us where these accurate measurements have taken place.

6
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: March 28, 2017, 12:12:58 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

7
I doubt he cares what you and I think of him. But he'd probably get a good laugh if he read this thread.  ;D

You are not making very much sense. In some posts you seem to be saying that Shaq does not like to be called an idiot. Shaq seems to agree with that through what he said in his second statement.

In other posts you seem to be saying that Shaq wanted the world to think that he was an idiot with his first statement. He gets off on that and doesn't care about public opinion.

You are being pretty contradictory. Please clarify.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 28, 2017, 11:59:20 AM »
Tom, you seem to make these definitive claims about what astronomers do without knowing what astronomers do.  There are significant discussions across the Internet by amateur astronomers about the free ORSA software.  Amateurs are using it to accurately create back yard predictions of planets and newly found comets. It's not being done with historical period data. Rather, by creating orbital models. Look up ORSA for yourself.  It's free software.  Many are making incredibly accurate predictions with it that include comets, satellites, and planets.  Secondly, through observation and modeling astronomers have found new planets that were never acknowledge by those 1000s of years ago.   

Please show us where some of these predictions have met reality.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 28, 2017, 11:58:05 AM »
Tom,  making observations and predictions based on observational periods is not a model.  Tycho Brahe,  who was brilliant at observation,   never did generate a model that accurately fit with his own observations.  That didn't happen until Kepler who was Brahe's student.

No. There has never been an orbital model which could predict things with accuracy. 

Quote
Secondly, the naked eye is unable to resolve angular diameter smaller than one arc minute.  Galileo was first to notice the changing angular diameter of Mars via a telescope.  That didn't happen until  the early 1600s.  Your statement that we have been able to to predict the change in angular diameter of Mars for 1000's of years is absolutely false.

I didn't make the statement that we have been able to predict the change in angular diameter of mars for thousands of years. Please read more carefully next time.

Quote
You seem to be struggling with the concept of a model.  Observations are not models.  Periodic observations over hundreds of years are not models.  Models are explanations for the historical observations.  A model is tested for its accuracy by using it to make predictions.  If the predictions do not line up with the periodic observations then it needs to be adjusted.  The models of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe all had errors.  Some large and some small.  It wasn't until Kepler proposed elliptical orbits that the modeling began to accurately fit with the periodic observations.

Kepler never created an orbital model which could predict the location of things in the sky. I don't know what you are talking about, but it is nonsense. The only way astronomers predict occurrences in the sky is with the pattern finding method.

Quote
Lastly, are you able to look at the Java Script for the predictions for the upcoming eclipse?  If you are,  you will see that it's not pulling from a historical record.

It is possible to make a Javascript to predict the date of a next celestial event based on the pattern of occurrence. But this would be a pattern-based model, and not a geometric or orbital based model. Orbital based models would be more of a proof of mechanism for the matter of RET, but orbital models have never been accurate enough to match prediction to observation.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 28, 2017, 05:33:59 AM »
What predicts it?  Please use your model to tell us the future time in which Mars will be at max angular size?  Please explain your reasoning with your flat earth model.

To predict the future time when Mars would be at its max angular size one need only consult historical charts and table observations which have shown when it has been its max size in the past and then find the pattern to be able to predict when it will be its max size again. This is precisely how modern astronomers predict the occurrences of the sky, and how astronomers have been doing it for thousands of years.

Geometric models of the solar system have not been shown to predict anything with accuracy, which is blamed on "perturbations in gravity" and the like. In fact, if we go to NASA's website and see how they are predicting the lunar eclipse on their lunar eclipse predicting website we will find that they are using an ancient method of pattern finding to find when the next eclipse will occur. That is basically how things are predicted in astronomy.

11
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: March 28, 2017, 05:26:39 AM »
No modern astronomer uses the modeling of Aristotle.  Aristotle may have gotten the shape of the earth right but the predictive capability of his model was was not very accurate.

Modern astronomers do use the proofs of Aristotle to show that the earth is round. They go into the sinking ship effect, the lunar eclipse, and declining stars, most usually without reading any of the Flat Earth books or literature beforehand.

Nothing really original comes out of them. That is why we have to resort to looking at the work of ancient astronomers who conducted investigation without all of the dogma and authority appeals to burden them.

12
It is directly argued here that Shaq likes to make the entire world think that he is a dumb dumb for the lulz. It is argued that he doesn't care about being mocked and ridiculed.

But according to what he says in the second statement, he does care about public opinion. How can that be?

Arguing that Shaq did this for a joke is not the same thing as saying Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.

According to what he says in the second statement it was a joke.


Well, the RE position on this matter seems to be that this was all premeditated and designed by him, to trick the world into thinking that he was an idiot... which he apparently does not like.

It makes a lot more sense if his statements were off the cuff and honest, and this was the unintended result.

An educated celebrity of his superior qualifications should surely be aware of the likely results of making such a statement publicly, even when he's doing it "off the cuff."

So does Shaq like being called an idiot or not? If not, why would he deliberately try to leave people thinking that he was one?

13
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: March 27, 2017, 10:49:18 PM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it. Over ten years, between this site and the other one, no astronomer has ever done anything to prove his position other than link us to space pictures or quote ancient astronomers who believed that the earth was a globe.

14
Lets just talk here.

Quote
However, that would not happen when you represent a two dimensional object on a two dimensional map. There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot create a two-dimensional map of a flat surface that is completely accurate and to scale. That should be a strong point in favor of a flat earth....except that no one has ever been able to accomplish this ridiculously simple task, probably because the object being represented is not two-dimensional or flat.

Mapping the world is a ridiculously simple task?  ???

So for hundreds of years we have had a map that works perfectly to show the correct distances and now flight times between any two points. It seems fatuous to claim that maps aren't accurate when there is one map that is completely accurate. Unfortunately, it also can be used to prove that the earth is a round ball. Does that seem like a good reason to deny the accuracy of the perfect map? Airlines use this map. Ships use this map. And when I drive across the US, I am actually using the info from the globe to calculate my driving distances, or it would take me much longer than it does in the real world.

If the flat earth was real, there would be a corresponding accurate map. There just is not. Again it seems silly to blame the map makers, when it is the underlying model of reality that is incorrect.

Where is your evidence that the distance between every point on earth is completely accurate? You are just waving your hands around without any real large scale evidence to point to.

15
I'm not sure I understand your sentence correctly, but it seems like you're saying that according to what you're reading here, Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.

What has anyone written here that implies that Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb?

It is directly argued here that Shaq likes to make the entire world think that he is a dumb dumb for the lulz. It is argued that he doesn't care about being mocked and ridiculed.

But according to what he says in the second statement, he does care about public opinion. How can that be?

Quote
Another question, given Shaq's superior qualifications how is it that he did not foresee what the results of his statements would be?

Well, the RE position on this matter seems to be that this was all premeditated and designed by him, to trick the world into thinking that he was an idiot... which he apparently does not like.

It makes a lot more sense if his statements were off the cuff and honest, and this was the unintended result.

16
So a statement which was made under duress is more credible than one which was not?

I listened to Shaq's second statement again. He clearly communicates that he does not like the criticism and ridicule that is transpiring and that it is a point of contention for him. But according to what I'm reading here I thought he doesn't care about public opinion and loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.  ???

17
"One of them was made under duress. I have to believe that, otherwise it would appear we made a mistake" you mean.

I believe he gives less shits about public opinion on this matter than you obviously do.

Are you just making things up? In his second statement he clearly conveyed that he didn't like what people were saying about him.

18
To you perhaps, being biased. To me, the most simple explanation is the one coming from the source it self. That way, you don't have to hypothesize. If anything, it has strengthened his brand in my opinion. "Shaq picking on people with no sense on reality" - There's a fair amount of humor to that :)

What are you talking about? He claimed to believe in two different things at different times, not one. The source made two contradictory statements. One of those statements was under durress, and you are here telling us that a duressed statement is more credible over one which was not.

19
It's not really that complicated. Shaq made two statements. Only one of them was under duress.

Why should we think the statement made under duress is better than the one which was not?
You obviously wouldn't since the "statement" made under "duress" doesn't support your cause. That's basically why you're OK about making a fool of yourself trying to hypothesize about his "sudden change of heart" while the rest of us enjoy what he did for what it is. You know, the simple explanation, something you'd normally hold very dear.

The simplest explanation is that the statement which was not made under duress is the most credible.

20
It's not really that complicated. Shaq made two statements. Only one of them was under duress.

Why should we think the statement made under duress is better than the one which was not?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 90  Next >